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 death of a 65-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 1, 2025, at 8:13 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 1, 2025, at about 5:00 p.m., OPP street crime unit officers asked uniformed officers to conduct a traffic stop of a suspect in a drug investigation. The vehicle was stopped, and the Complainant was arrested for drug offences and breach of a conditional sentence order (CSO). The Subject Official (SO) transported the Complainant to the Collingwood Detachment. The Complainant, a known drug user, was booked and processed with the assistance of Witness Official (WO) #2 at 5:10 p.m., without issue, and lodged in a cell. At 6:25 p.m., a civilian guard [Service Employee Witness (SEW)] called the SO and reported the Complainant was face down and unresponsive on the cell bed. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was performed, and paramedics were called. The Complainant was taken to Collingwood General and Marine Hospital (CGMH).

Subsequent information indicated that the Complainant had been pronounced deceased at 10:40 p.m., by the coroner.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/05/01 at 8:22 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/05/01 at 8:37 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

65-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on May 2, 2025.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on June 6, 2025.

Witness Official / Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on May 7, 2025.

Service Employee Witness

SEW Interviewed

The service employee witness was interviewed on May 7, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the booking and cells area of the Collingwood OPP Detachment, 201 Ontario Street, Collingwood.

Physical Evidence

On May 1, 2025, at 10:31 p.m., SIU forensic services arrived at the OPP detachment, 201 Ontario Street, Collingwood. There was a small cell block, a bullpen, and a telephone room. The Complainant’s cell was examined and photographed.

The cell was 1.8 m x 2.4 m. It was equipped with a toilet and a 0.8 m x 2 m concrete block for a bed. The cell was cinder block walls with vertical bars on the front side. The door was a sliding door. The top portion of the cell bars consisted of Plexiglas panels. The cell was equipped with a camera located in the back corner over the bed. The floor of the cell block was strewn with remnants of medical intervention and the Complainant’s cut clothing. The Complainant’s clothing and personal property remained with the OPP.

At 11:43 p.m., SIU forensic services attended CGMH and photographed the Complainant.

Forensic Evidence

The Toxicology Report from the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) indicated a positive result for cocaine, showing 1.3 mg/L. No ethanol was detected in the Complainant’s blood.

Expert Evidence

The postmortem of the Complainant was performed on May 3, 2025, at the Provincial Forensic Pathology Unit, Toronto. At the time, the cause of death was pending toxicology. The CFS Toxicology Report was received August 5, 2025. The cause of death was ultimately determined to be the toxic effects of cocaine in a person with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - SO

On May 1, 2025, starting at about 4:46 p.m., the SO walked to a dark-coloured Mercedes SUV, which had been stopped. WO #1 walked to the passenger side of the Mercedes SUV. As the driver door opened, the SO said, “Hi [name], how is it going?” The Complainant sat in the driver’s seat; a second man (Mr. A.), sat in the front passenger seat. The SO questioned whether the Complainant was under a court order. The Complainant confirmed he was but went on to say he was a bit late because he went to Hanover and was not feeling well. He did not want to drive until he felt better. The Complainant wanted to show his CSO, which he stated allowed him to be out until 4:00 p.m. The SO asked the Complainant to step out. He was arrested, handcuffed with his hands behind his back, and taken to the SO’s police vehicle and searched.

Starting at about 4:48 p.m., the Complainant was placed in the right rear seat of the SO’s cruiser and formally arrested for breach of a conditional sentence order. WO #1 began to search the Mercedes SUV. Shortly after, WO #1 announced the two men could be arrested for possession of illicit substances.

Starting at about 4:52 p.m., the Complainant was re-arrested for possession of a controlled substance, which had been found. The Complainant replied, “Really, I did not know that.” The Complainant was read his rights. A further search of the Mercedes SUV was done.

Starting at about 5:00 p.m., the SO began the trip to the OPP Collingwood Detachment.

Starting at about 5:02 p.m., the SO’s BWC recording ended before their arrival at the detachment.

BWC Footage - WO #1

On May 1, 2025, starting at about 6:29 p.m., WO #1 followed a uniformed officer [Officer #1] into the cell block area. The SEW opened the cell door. The Complainant lay face down on the floor to the right of the toilet. Officer #1 grabbed a hold of the Complainant and yelled out his name, but there was no response. Officer #1 then pulled the Complainant out of the cell by his feet. WO #1 requested Emergency Medical Services (EMS) because the Complainant was vital signs absent (VSA). Officer #1 administered Narcan and began CPR.

Starting at about 6:30 p.m., two plainclothes officers arrived, and WO #1 advised them the Complainant was VSA.

Starting at about 6:31 p.m., a second dose of Narcan was administered. A check of the Complainant’s mouth could not be done because it would not open; it appeared his jaw was locked. Officers continued lifesaving measures. There appeared to be blood in and around the Complainant’s nose. An automated external defibrillator (AED) was brought to the cell and used on the Complainant.

Starting at about 6:34 p.m., WO #1 searched the cell and did not find anything.

Starting at about 6:36 p.m., EMS arrived and took over lifesaving measures.

Starting at about 6:45 p.m., paramedics asked about any medical information, and WO #1 replied the Complainant might have a heart condition.

OPP Custody Footage – Collingwood Detachment

The cell video had no audio track.

Starting at about 5:08 p.m., May 1, 2025, the Complainant walked into the booking area, in handcuffs with his hands behind the back, in the company of the SO and WO #2. The Complainant sat on a bench as the SO filled out a form [Detainee Custody Report]. The Complainant’s handcuffs were removed, and he was searched by the SO and his property placed in a bin. The Complainant was cooperative during the process.

Starting at about 5:15 p.m., the Complainant was taken to his cell by WO #2. A second man [Mr. A.] was subsequently brought into the booking area by WO #1 and WO #2, and processed by the SO and taken to his cell.[3]

OPP Video Footage – Complainant’s Cell

The cell video recording was not time-stamped and had no audio.

The Complainant was in his cell for 66 minutes from entry to the time he was found on the floor by the SEW.

The video captured the SEW leaving a blanket for the Complainant. He sat on his bunk in various positions and then laid on his bunk for about 49 minutes, with no apparent issues. At that point in the video, the Complainant began to show signs of discomfort and his body began to twitch or spasm.

About 58 minutes into the cell video, the Complainant rolled onto his side, then rolled off the bench onto the cell floor on his back. About 30 seconds later, he rolled onto his stomach. The spasms began to decrease until about 66 minutes into the video, when the SEW appeared at the cell door. The SEW reached through the cell doors and grabbed the Complainant’s right foot, but there was no response. WO #1 and Officer #1 subsequently arrived and entered the cell. Officer #1 pulled the Complainant out of the cell. The remainder of the footage captured personnel performing lifesaving measures.

Communications Recordings / Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

At 6:30 p.m., May 1, 2025, WO #1 made a radio transmission requesting EMS attend the detachment for a prisoner who was VSA. The dispatcher requested a telephone call to get more information so EMS could be made a higher priority.

At 6:35 p.m., WO #1 advised the AED had been administered.

At 6:37 p.m., a request was made for the EMS arrival time. Before that could be answered, it was announced they had arrived. Information was supplied to paramedics that Narcan was administered.

At 6:54 p.m., WO #1 broadcast EMS was still working on the Complainant in the back of the ambulance, and, at 6:56 p.m., he broadcast the ambulance had departed.

OPP Telephone Calls

An OPP dispatcher called EMS for a man who was VSA while in custody at the Collingwood Detachment.

At 6:32 p.m., Officer #2 called dispatch reporting he believed the Complainant might have injected fentanyl and was VSA. The information was passed on to EMS by OPP dispatch.

At 6:37 p.m., a call was made to get the arrival time of EMS. The OPP were told the ambulance was pulling up right then.

At 7:01 p.m., Officer #3 called the communications centre. He was told notifications would be made once the Complainant was confirmed deceased and the SIU would be notified.

At 7:23 p.m., Officer #4 advised the Complainant was still VSA at hospital. He requested the SIU be contacted.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between May 2, 2025, and June 6, 2025.

• BWC recordings - SO and WO #1
• In-car camera recordings - SO’s cruiser
• Notes of the designated officials
• OPP Order - Detainee Care Manual
• Detainee Custody Report
• Detainee Security Check
• Arrest Report
• Occurrence Report
• CAD Report
• Communications recordings

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following other records from the following other sources between May 3, 2025, and August 5, 2025.

• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service
• Report of Postmortem Examination (including CFS Toxicology Report) from the Coroner’s Office

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the SO, additional police officers and the Complainant’s daughter, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the afternoon of May 1, 2025, the Complainant was out of his home in violation of a condition of a sentencing order. The SO was alerted to the matter and conducted a stop of the Complainant’s vehicle on Simcoe County Road 124 at about 4:45 p.m. The Complainant was arrested without incident and handcuffed behind the back. A front seat passenger was also arrested – Mr. A.

The SO transported the Complainant to the Collingwood Detachment and booked him into custody. The Complainant was entirely cooperative and gave no indication of being in any distress. He indicated he had a heart condition but said he was not taking any medication. He denied recent drug or alcohol consumption.

The Complainant was lodged in a cell at about 5:15 p.m. A civilian guard – the SEW – was responsible for monitoring him. The Complainant sat and laid on his bunk without any apparent difficulties for the first 50 minutes or so. At that point, his body appeared to twitch and spasm. He rolled off the cell bench and lay on the floor.

The SEW checked on the Complainant at about 6:15 p.m. and found him on the floor. Unable to rouse him from outside the cell, and not allowed to enter the cell without a police officer, the SEW called for help, contacting Officer #1 at about 6:30 p.m.

Officer #1 and WO #1 made their way quickly to the Complainant’s cell and began to render assistance. CPR was performed, doses of Narcan were administered, and an AED was used.

Paramedics arrived on scene at about 6:36 p.m. and took charge of the Complainant’s care. The Complainant was taken to hospital and declared deceased at 10:40 p.m.

The pathologist at autopsy was of the view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to the toxic effects of cocaine in a person with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy.

Section 215, Criminal Code - Failure to Provide Necessaries

215 (1) Every one is under a legal duty

(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person

(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and

(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.

(2) Every person commits an offence who, being under a legal duty within the meaning of subsection (1), fails without lawful excuse to perform that duty, if

(b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

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

The Complainant passed away on May 1, 2025, after lapsing into medical crisis while in the custody of the OPP. 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 death.

The offences that arise for consideration are failure to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing death contrary to sections 215 and 220 of the Criminal Code, respectively. Both require something more than a simple want of care to give rise to liability. The former is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. The latter is premised on even more egregious conduct that demonstrates a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is not made out unless the neglect constitutes a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable standard of care. In the instant case, the question is whether there was any want of care on the part of the Complainant’s custodians, including the SO, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that endangered the Complainant’s life or caused his death. In my view, there was not.

With information in his possession that the Complainant was out of his residence in violation of a term of house arrest set out in a conditional sentencing order, I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights in arresting the Complainant.

I am also satisfied that the SO and the other police personnel who dealt with the Complainant following his arrest comported themselves with due care and regard for his health. The Complainant cooperated fully with his arrest and gave no indication of feeling unwell. He mentioned that he suffered from a heart condition but did not take medication for it. Asked if he had consumed any drugs or alcohol, the Complainant answered in the negative. On this record, there was no reason to expect his custodians to be on heightened alert with respect to the Complainant’s wellbeing. The Complainant was monitored in the ordinary course without any cause for concern. When, on the last such check, the Complainant was found unresponsive, the guard alerted the officers in the detachment. They responded with dispatch to the cell and did what they could to revive the Complainant pending the paramedics’ arrival.

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

Date: August 25, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit