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 injuries of a 26-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 30, at 6:35 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

Earlier that day, a male [now known to be the Complainant] was arrested in Brampton on a Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) warrant. The Complainant sustained injuries following a conducted energy weapon (CEW) deployment. He had fallen and broken his nose.

The PRP subsequently provided additional information about the incident. Reportedly, PRP Tactical Response Team (TRT) officers participated in the takedown of a grey 2004 Honda CRV while assisting DRPS police officers with a robbery investigation. The vehicle had been located on Highway 407 and followed to the area of Mountainash Road in Peel Region. The Complainant had fled from the vehicle after the stop. He was chased by a PRP TRT member [now known to be the Subject Official (SO)] and tasered, resulting in the Complainant falling to the ground and injuring his face. Emergency Medical Services attended, and the Complainant was taken to William Osler Health System - Brampton Civic Hospital (WOHS) where he was diagnosed with a fractured nose, two missing teeth and a laceration to his forehead. The Complainant was later discharged and transferred to the custody of DRPS.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/04/30 at 6:37 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/04/30 at 8:04 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

26-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on April 30, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on May 1, 2025.

Subject Official

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

The subject official was interviewed on May 15, 2025.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on May 9, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in a parking lot of a retail commercial plaza on the north side of Bovaird Drive East, east of Mountainash Road, Brampton.

On April 30, 2025, at 7:46 p.m., SIU forensic services attended the scene.

Scene Diagram

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

In the early afternoon of April 30, 2025, the PRP TRT was called on by the service’s robbery unit to take four males into custody, including the Complainant. The males, in a Honda CRV, were believed to have committed a recent robbery in Oshawa in which a firearm had been used or mentioned. They were presently in Brampton reportedly about to commit another robbery at a telecommunications retailer. TRT officers, including the SO, made their way to the commercial plaza at the northeast corner of Bovaird Drive East and Mountainash Road where the Honda had been observed parked outside a Telus store.

The Complainant and three other males were in the Honda when unmarked police vehicles approached, creating a blockade in front of the vehicle. All of them exited the Honda and took flight. The Complainant ran north and then west along a sidewalk outside a line of retail shops. He had not made it very far when his body locked-up and he fell off the sidewalk onto the parking lot pavement. His face struck the ground, fracturing his nose and dislodging two teeth.

The SO was the front passenger in the lead police vehicle operated by WO #1. He had deployed a distraction device at the Honda from his seat and then chased after the Complainant as he ran away. The officer screamed at the Complainant that he was the police and warned him that he would deploy his CEW. The Complainant continued to run and was struck by the probes of a CEW fired by the SO.

The SO, WO #1 and WO #2 neared the Complainant on the ground and, following a further CEW discharge by WO #2, handcuffed him to the back.

The Complainant was seen at hospital after his arrest and treated for his injuries.

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 344(1), Criminal Code – Robbery

344(1) Every person who commits robbery is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of

(i) in the case of a first offence, five years, and

(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by PRP officers on April 30, 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 injuries.

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.

Given the information at their disposal regarding the Complainant’s reported participation in a recent robbery, I am satisfied the officers were within their rights in moving to arrest him for robbery contrary to section 344(1) of the Criminal Code.

I am also satisfied that the SO used no more force than was reasonably necessary to take the Complainant into custody. At the time he fired his weapon, the Complainant was running away. At the same time, the officer had reason to believe that the Complainant was armed with a firearm. On this record, it made sense to seek to stop the Complainant’s flight from a distance. If the CEW worked as designed, it would result in the temporary incapacitation of the Complainant, bringing his flight to an end without the necessary infliction of serious injury and providing the officers a window in which they could move in to safely effect his arrest. While it is regrettable that the weapon resulted in the Complainant’s fall and facial injuries, there is always a risk of injury associated with the use of a CEW. In the instant case, that risk did not outweigh the need to apprehend a suspect believed to have recently committed a violent crime.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.[4] The file is closed.

Date: August 22, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit