Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.

Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019

Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person.
• Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault.
• Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person.
• Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.
• Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.
• Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act

Pursuant to section 14 (i.e., law enforcement), certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• Confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by law enforcement agencies; and
• Information that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.

Pursuant to section 21 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials;
• Location information;
• Witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence; and
• Other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation.

Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004

Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may also have been excluded from this report because its release could undermine the integrity of other proceedings involving the same incident, such as criminal proceedings, coroner’s inquests, other public proceedings and/or other law enforcement investigations.

Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.

A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.

In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injury of a 34-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 15, 2025, at 11:59 p.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

Earlier that day, the YRP Auto Cargo Theft Unit (ACTU) were at a vacant lot in the City of King. The lot had been rented and there were several shipping containers on the property. A stolen GMC Yukon Denali was present. The officers obtained a search warrant for the shipping containers and executed it at 5:25 p.m., revealing two other stolen vehicles - a Toyota Tundra and a Jeep Wrangler. While there, police observed two un-plated stolen vehicles arrive - a BMW and another Jeep Wrangler. The BMW fled. The officers blocked the Jeep Wrangler, but the driver tried to break the containment. Two occupants then fled the vehicle. One of the men [now known to be the Complainant] wrestled with Subject Official (SO) #2, pinning the officer. SO #1 tackled the Complainant to the ground. At 6:08 p.m., the Complainant was arrested. Moments later, a second man [now known to be Civilian Witness (CW) #1] was arrested by two other officers. Both men were transported to Southlake Regional Health Centre (SRHC) by paramedics. The Complainant was diagnosed with a fracture to the left inferior orbital bone by a medical doctor.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/04/16 at 8:31 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/04/16 at 10:15 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

34-year-old male; interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on April 16, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between April 23, 2025, and May 1, 2025.

Subject Officials

SO #1 Interviewed, but declined to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject official was interviewed on May 20, 2025.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between April 30, 2025, and May 1, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the dirt driveway of a rural address in Schomberg.

Physical Evidence

The incident occurred at a farm in Schomberg. The property had a long driveway to an area where shipping containers had been rented out by the owner of the property.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

YRP Communications Recordings - 911 Call

On April 15, 2025, a male called 911 to report suspicious activity at a farm in Schomberg. A tenant living on the farm [CW #2] told him several cars had attended the storage area, where overseas shipping containers were kept, but only one vehicle left. The male reported the renter of the storage area had told him he stored furniture in the shipping containers. The male attended the farm and found a GMC Yukon Denali with no licence plate parked beside a shipping container. He took a photo of the VIN on the Denali and provided it to the dispatcher. The male informed the dispatcher a trailer to transport shipping containers had been dropped off on the property but none of the renters claimed responsibility for it. At the end of the call, the male informed the dispatcher that CW #2 believed individuals were stealing cars and using the farm to store the vehicles.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the YRP between April 22 and April 23, 2025.

• General Occurrence report
• Supplemental Reports
• Initial Officer Report
• Call History Report
• Communications recordings
• Booking Report
• Photographs
• Notes – WO #3, WO #4, WO #2 and WO #1

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between April 25 and April 29, 2025.

• The Complainant’s medical records from SRHC
• CW #1’s medical records from SRHC

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, SO #1 and other police and non-police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, SO #2 did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

The Complainant was operating a stolen Jeep SUV in the evening of April 15, 2025, when he was confronted by unmarked police vehicles in the driveway of a rural property in Schomberg. With him in the front passenger seat was CW #1. Stopped with police vehicles in front of and behind the Jeep, the Complainant and CW #1 exited and began to flee westward.

The unmarked police vehicles were occupied by members of the YRP ACTU, including SO #1 and SO #2. The team had earlier that day executed a search warrant on cargo containers located on the property, revealing the presence of stolen vehicles. The officers had remained at the address waiting for persons potentially implicated in the vehicle thefts to arrive. At the sight of the Jeep SUV, and upon confirmation that it was stolen, they decided to surround it and arrest its occupants.

The Complainant ran a distance chased by SO #2. The officer caught up to the Complainant and tackled him to the ground. The officer was soon joined by SO #1, who immediately delivered a knee strike to the Complainant. There followed a physical engagement on the ground in which the officers repeatedly struck the Complainant with their hands and legs.

The Complainant was handcuffed behind the back by the officers and searched. A knife was located in his waistband.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left orbital bone.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code - Protection of Persons Acting Under Authority

25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by YRP officers on April 15, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming two subject officials – SO #1 and SO #2. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s arrest and injury.

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.

The Complainant was driving a stolen Jeep SUV when the officers first approached to take him into custody. He was clearly subject to arrest for being in possession of a stolen automobile.

With respect to the force used by SO #1 and SO #2 during the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was excessive. There is a version of events in the evidence in which the Complainant was repeatedly struck about the body by SO # 1 and SO #2 despite not resisting the officer. I accept that the Complainant was struck multiple times by each officer, but the notion that he offered no resistance must be approached with great caution. SO #1 says that the Complainant struggled strenuously to free himself, and even managed to get to his knees, despite the combined efforts of both officers, before he was eventually handcuffed. SO #1 also says that much of the force against the Complainant occurred as he was reaching for what the officers were concerned was a weapon in his waistband. In fact, a knife was subsequently retrieved from the waistband area of the Complainant’s pants. On the officer’s version of events, it would appear the force directed at the Complainant was not disproportionate to the exigencies of the situation, namely, the need to promptly subdue a potentially armed individual attempting to evade arrest. The remainder of the civilian and police eyewitness evidence is split fairly evenly between the two opposing scenarios. On this record, there being nothing in the evidence to prefer one account over the other, I am unable to conclude that reasonable and probable grounds exist to believe either subject official used unlawful force.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was incurred in the physical engagement that marked his arrest, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: August 12, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit