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 64-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 29, at 9:28 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At around 12:50 p.m., the OPP Provincial Communications Centre received multiple reports of a man walking in traffic on a roadway. The OPP Upper Ottawa Valley Detachment responded and located the man - the Complainant - on Mary Street in Pembroke. The Complainant refused to leave the roadway and would not identify himself. After a short foot pursuit, police apprehended the Complainant, and his face struck the ground during arrest. He was transported to the Pembroke Regional Hospital (PRH) and was treated for a bloody nose. Later in the day, after the physician reviewed the X-ray, hospital staff called the police and advised the Complainant had sustained a broken nose.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/04/30 at 7:03 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/04/30 at 12:52 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

64-year-old male; interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on April 30, 2025.

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on April 30, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on May 21, 2025.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on May 7, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the Mary Street bridge that traversed a body of water between Church Street (to the west) and MacKay Street (to the east), Pembroke

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPP Communications Recordings

On April 29, 2025, at 12:49:39 p.m., the WO asked the dispatcher to note him on a call involving a suspicious person [now known to be the Complainant] on Mary Street. The SO asked the dispatcher to place him on the call and informed the WO he would attend.

At 1:09:06 p.m., the WO informed the dispatcher that the Complainant was under a Mental Health Act (MHA) apprehension and would be transported to the hospital.

Video Footage from Civilian

On April 29, 2025, at 12:47:27 p.m., the Complainant stood on the south sidewalk of Mary Street. He walked north to the edge of the sidewalk with his right arm extended and a thumb pointed to the sky (hitchhiker style) as two eastbound vehicles slowed and passed him. He continued to walk eastbound on Mary Street on the road close to the curb.

Body-worn camera (BWC) Footage and In-car camera (ICC) Footage - SO and WO

On April 29, 2025, starting at about 12:49:26 p.m., the WO exited his police vehicle and spoke with the Complainant, as he stood on a road at the south curb. The Complainant shouted, “I don’t have a licence because the government took it.” The WO said, “Yeah, but you can’t hitchhike.” The Complainant said, “What do you mean?” The WO said, “You can’t walk on the roadway,” and the Complainant said, “I can too!”

Starting at about 12:49:40 p.m., the Complainant cursed and walked eastbound on Mary Street on the road next to the sidewalk. The WO asked the dispatcher to log a suspicious person call. The Complainant spun around to face the WO and shouted, “I hitchhike like I need a ride, not like I just want one.” The WO said, “You cannot hitchhike,” and the Complainant shouted, “I can too!”

Starting at about 12:49:49 p.m., the Complainant started a laboured run from the WO. The WO asked the Complainant’s name, and he said, “Don’t worry about it.” The WO said, “You cannot outrun me,” as he followed the Complainant. The Complainant stopped, turned to the WO, and pulled his shirt down in the front as he said, “Because I had a heart surgery three years ago.” He turned and continued to walk eastbound.

Starting at about 12:50:06 p.m., the WO used his right hand to push the Complainant by the left shoulder onto the sidewalk. The Complainant shouted about an appointment he had and responded with curses as the WO repeatedly asked him to identify himself. The WO stood east of the Complainant on the sidewalk blocking his path. The WO used an open left hand on the Complainant’s chest to stop his forward movement and said, “Okay, okay, stop right here.” The Complainant pulled away from the WO and walked eastbound. The SO walked westbound from the driver’s side of a police vehicle and joined the WO.

Starting at about 12:50:32 p.m., the WO said, “You cannot hitchhike in the city,” and reached out to grab the Complainant’s right elbow, the Complainant pulled away sharply and turned to face the WO and the SO. The Complainant said, “You are assaulting me!” The WO pointed his left index finger at the Complainant and said, “What is your name?” The Complainant said, “Nobody,” and turned to continue to walk eastbound across the Mary Street bridge.

Starting at about 12:50:42 p.m., the WO said, “Okay, right now you’ve committed a criminal offence trying to hitchhike and now you’re failing to identify.” The Complainant refused to identify himself and said he did not have to.

Starting at about 12:50:56 p.m., the SO turned to look at the Complainant, waved his right hand, and shrugged. The WO said, “Yeah, let’s do it.” He used both hands to grab the Complainant’s left arm and said, “Okay, you’re under arrest.” The Complainant tried to pull away from the WO as the SO took hold of the Complainant’s right arm. The Complainant placed his back against the bridge railing. The SO held the Complainant’s right wrist, and the WO held the Complainant’s left wrist. The Complainant tried to pull away.

Starting at about 12:51:07 p.m., the WO said, “Get on the ground now,” and the Complainant growled, “Never!” The SO said, “Hey, listen,” and the Complainant said, “The day I die!” The WO said, “Get on the ground, we don’t want to ground you, we don’t want to tase you either,” as the Complainant continued to struggle and shouted, “Go ahead!” The Complainant leaned back against the WO’s and the SO’s efforts to move him forward.

Starting at about 12:51:23 p.m., the Complainant fell from the elevated sidewalk face first onto the eastbound lane pavement with his arms extended to each side and held by the WO (left) and the SO (right). The Complainant’s head faced westbound, and his feet pointed eastbound, parallel to the south sidewalk. The Complainant shouted he could not breathe as the WO handcuffed the Complainant’s hands behind the back. The Complainant continued to refuse to identify himself.

Starting at about 12:52:13 p.m., the WO and the SO assisted the Complainant to his feet and escorted him to the SO’s police vehicle.

Starting at about 12:54:06 p.m., the Complainant was placed into the rear passenger seat of the SO’s police vehicle. The SO informed the WO he saw the Complainant earlier and thought he was waving at a civilian vehicle. The WO identified the Complainant by the documents in his pocketbook and reported he had spoken to him before on the phone.

Starting at about 12:57:39 p.m., the Complainant sat in the rear passenger seat. He said to the SO, “You like to take on old men, don’t you? Yes, you do, I know you do. You like to pick on old men eh, an old fucking guy, I’m 64.” The SO said, “Absolutely not.” The Complainant said, “Yes, you do. You love it, I can tell. I wish I’d just died there, had a massive heart attack in front of you. That would have been perfect.” The SO said, “I do not wish that at all.” The Complainant said, “I do!”

Starting at about 12:58:59 p.m., the Complainant said, “I don’t deserve to live, so kill me. Take me somewhere out and fucking put a bullet in my head. I will not object.” The SO said, “I’m not doing that.” The Complainant said, “You should do it cuz I’m an ass.” The WO stood at the open rear passenger window and informed the Complainant he was under arrest for hitchhiking, obstructing traffic, and failure to identify.

Starting at about 12:59:46 p.m., the Complainant said, “You like picking on old men, don’t you?” The WO said, “No, not at all actually, we’re getting complaints from the public that you’re obstructing traffic and reaching out.” The Complainant said, “I’m hitchhiking, I’m hitchhiking, I need a ride, because I can’t drive, because your government took my licence away because of my diabetes. And there’s nothing wrong with my diabetes!”

Starting at about 1:05:57 p.m., the Complainant said, “I wish I’d died right there on the sidewalk. Why didn’t you guys kill me? It would’ve been a lot easier; my wife could have been happier.” The SO said, “We’re not doing that.”

Starting at about 1:07:36 p.m., the WO stood at the open rear passenger seat window of the SO’s police vehicle and informed the Complainant in the rear passenger seat he was being apprehended under the MHA for being in traffic grabbing cars. The WO informed the Complainant there were calls made to report him grabbed at passing vehicles and, with his history of mental health calls, it was decided to apprehend him. The Complainant denied a mental health condition and the SO informed the WO that the Complainant also reported suicidal ideation by means of the police shooting him.

Starting at about 1:08:14 p.m., the WO informed the Complainant he would be transported to the hospital and the Complainant said, “Whatever.”

Starting at about 1:13:41 p.m., the WO exited his OPP police vehicle to attend the passenger side of another OPP police vehicle where the Complainant sat in the rear passenger seat.

Starting at about 1:14:27 p.m., the WO attended the passenger side of the police vehicle where the SO stood with the door opened, and the Complainant shouted, “No!” The Complainant refused the SO’s assistance to remove him from the rear passenger seat. The Complainant’s hands were handcuffed behind his back and his nose was bloodied.

Starting at about 1:14:42 p.m., the Complainant emerged from the police vehicle, and stood to face the police officers. The WO took the Complainant by the left bicep to escort him into the hospital.

Starting at about 1:14:57 p.m., the WO asked the Complainant if he remembered him, and the Complainant said he did not. The WO informed the Complainant of a time when they spoke a few weeks ago after the Complainant made calls to a political party.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between May 2, 2025, and May 21, 2025:

• Incident Reports
• BWC footage
• ICC footage
• Annual Use of Force Recertification - WO and SO
• Notes - WO and SO
• Communications recordings
• The Complainant’s history of suicide and mental health-issue calls

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between May 1, 2025, and May 9, 2025:

• Video footage from civilian witness
• The Complainant’s medical records from PRH

The events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized.

In the early afternoon of April 29, 2025, the Complainant was on foot travelling east on Mary Street to make his way to a medical appointment. He behaved erratically, entering onto the roadway in traffic to hitchhike a ride and harassing residents who lived on Mary Street.

The Complainant’s conduct came to the attention of the WO, in the area on patrol. He followed the Complainant eastbound, first in his cruiser and then on foot, directing him onto the sideway. The officer told the Complainant that hitchhiking was prohibited. The Complainant was not receptive. He continued to walk on the roadway and insisted he could hitchhike.

The WO and the Complainant made their way onto the Mary Street bridge, where they were soon joined by the SO. The Complainant repeatedly refused to identify himself. Told he was under arrest, the Complainant struggled against the officers’ efforts to secure him in handcuffs. The officers forced the Complainant to the ground, the latter suffering a broken nose in the process, after which he was handcuffed.

The Complainant was taken to hospital and treated for his injury.

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 31(1), Criminal Code - Arrest for Breach of Peace

31 (1) Every peace officer who witnesses a breach of the peace and every one who lawfully assists the peace officer is justified in arresting any person whom he finds committing the breach of the peace or who, on reasonable grounds, he believes is about to join in or renew the breach of the peace.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by OPP officers in Pembroke on April 29, 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.

I am satisfied that the officers were within their rights in moving to arrest the Complainant for breach of the peace under section 31(1) of the Criminal Code. His antics on Mary Street were not only a nuisance but were endangering his safety and the safety of motorists.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the officers – a takedown possibly assisted by a trip executed by the SO – was legally justified. The Complainant made it clear he would not submit peacefully to arrest, tensing his arms and attempting to break free of the officers’ hold. At the same time, the officers were concerned to bring the Complainant under control quickly given their placement on a bridge and the Complainant’s state of mind. A takedown made sense in the circumstances as it would deter further aggression by the Complainant while mitigating the risks associated with their elevated position. The maneuver itself, the footage establishes, was not executed with undue force.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: August 22, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit