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 17-year-old male (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 21, 2025, at 11:05 a.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 21, 2025, at 3:45 a.m., Witness Official (WO) #1, while operating a marked LPS cruiser around Clarke Road and Trafalgar Street, observed a suspicious vehicle and attempted to stop it. The vehicle travelled into a residential area and stopped, with the driver [now known to be the Complainant] fleeing on foot in the area of Marconi Boulevard and Noel Avenue. Police Dog Services were requested, and a track initiated. The Complainant, subsequently located in shrubbery at an address on Tynemouth Drive, had his right leg bitten by a police service dog (PSD). The Complainant was transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to the London Health Sciences Centre Victoria Hospital (LHSCVH) and admitted for a bite wound to the back of his right knee.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/04/22 at 8:05 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/04/22 at 3:40 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

17-year-old male; interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on April 22, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Not interviewed

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between April 28, 2025, and May 2, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the rear yard of a residence on Tynemouth Drive, London. The property was a single-family dwelling in a residential subdivision.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

LPS Communication Recordings & CAD Report

On April 21, 2025, at 2:59 a.m.,[3] WO #1 initiated a traffic stop near Marconi Boulevard and Noel Avenue. The male driver [the Complainant] stopped and fled on foot behind an address on Noel Avenue. A description of the Complainant was broadcast.

At 3:00 a.m., WO #1 advised over the radio that [name of an individual][4] was a suspect and arrestable for “breach”. Additional officers were requested, including the SO and a PSD.

At 3:07 a.m., WO #1 advised that the driver [the Complainant] might have the key fob.

At 3:15 a.m., the SO and his PSD began tracking with the assistance of WO #2, starting at an address on Noel Avenue.

At 3:21 a.m., the CW called to advise that a male [the Complainant] was in her backyard, located at an address on Talltree Crescent.

At 3:45:38 a.m., the SO advised that contact was made with the driver [the Complainant] at an address on Tynemouth Drive, and he was in custody. The SO advised there was a bite to the right calf, and EMS were requested.

At 3:48:08 a.m., WO #2 advised that a key fob had been located in the driver’s [the Complainant] left front pocket.

At 3:51 a.m., WO #3 completed computer checks, and the Complainant was properly identified.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the LPS between April 23, 2025, and May 8, 2025.

• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communication recordings
• General Report
• Supplementary Report
• Arrest Reports
• Canine Training Records for the SO and PSD “H”
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3
• Notes and written statement - the SO

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from LHSCVH on May 2, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and a police eyewitness, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the early morning of April 21, 2025, the Complainant, while operating a Nissan vehicle, became aware of a marked police cruiser behind him. He continued to drive and proceeded southbound on Marconi Boulevard from Trafalgar Street, east of Clarke Road. At Noel Avenue, the Complainant stopped the Nissan, exited, and fled into the backyard of a residence.

WO #1 had spotted the Nissan and was attempting to pull it over for a speeding infraction on Clarke Road. On seeing the Complainant flee on foot, the officer broadcast what had occurred and waited for assistance.

The SO heard the radio call and travelled to Marconi Boulevard and Noel Avenue with his police service dog to assist in a track of the Complainant. The officer was briefed by WO #1 and, accompanied by another officer, WO #2, commenced the track at about 3:15 a.m. The police service dog picked up the scent and tracked southwards across residential properties. At about 3:45 a.m., having been lifted by the SO over a fence into the rear yard of a residence on Tynemouth Drive, the dog located the Complainant hiding behind a bush by the fence line.

The Complainant had attempted to secrete himself on the property. He screamed out in pain as the dog bit behind his right knee. He was confronted by the SO, who struck him once in the face before he was handcuffed and the dog released.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and surgically treated for a serious dog bite.

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.

Section 129, Criminal Code - Offences relating to public or peace officer

129 Every one who

(a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer,

(b) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or

(c) resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure,

is guilty of

(d) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(e) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by LPS officers on April 21, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming the SO the subject official. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO 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.

WO #1 was engaged in the discharge of his duties when he attempted to stop the Complainant for a traffic infraction. Thereafter, when the Complainant fled from the officer, he was arguably subject to arrest for obstructing police contrary to section 129 of the Criminal Code.

With respect to the force used by the SO, namely, the dog bite and a punch to the face, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was excessive. The use of the police dog seems a reasonable tactic. The Complainant had fled from police and hid himself in the rear yard of a private premise while trespassing at night. The dog was able to find the Complainant in fairly short order and prevent any further attempt at escape by biting and holding his right leg. With respect to the punch, the SO says he delivered it when the Complainant refused to release his hands from the dog’s face. That would not appear a disproportionate use of force given the need to quickly take a fleeing suspect hiding in bushes into custody. There is an opposing rendition of events indicating the Complainant cried in pain when bitten by the dog but did not wrestle with the animal. However, 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 the SO used unlawful force.

For the foregoing reasons, 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