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 51-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 2, 2025, at 9:56 a.m., Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 11:23 p.m., May 1, 2025, PRP received a call about a disturbance at an apartment complex in the area of Clarke Boulevard and Torbram Road, Brampton. A male was in the building throwing a rock at an apartment door. Officers responded and found the male, the Complainant, at the entrance to the parking garage of the complex. Officers attempted to arrest him, and he resisted. He was grounded and arrested at 12:33 a.m., May 2, 2025. The Complainant sustained injury to his face and was taken to Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH). He was examined by a doctor, and requested the doctor not disclose anything of his assessment to the police. He was discharged and brought to PRP 21 Division. When he was being released on an undertaking for the offence of ‘mischief causing disturbance’, the Complainant asked why the SIU was not involved. He was told it was because he did not disclose his injury. At that time, he reported he had a broken nose and three broken ribs. Officers returned to BCH and spoke to the doctor, who confirmed the injury.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/05/02 at 10:27 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/05/02 at 11:45 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

51-year-old male; declined interview; medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between May 7, 2025, and May 8, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview and 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

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on May 16, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the driveway to the underground carpark of an apartment complex in the area of Clarke Boulevard and Torbram Road, Brampton.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn camera (BWC) Footage – SO #1, WO #1, SO #2 and WO #2

On May 1, 2025, WO #1 was captured talking with CW #1. She asked for advice on how to remove the Complainant from the property and said he was usually only loud and not violent, but other residents were yelling at him, and that set him off.

Starting at about 12:28 a.m., May 2, 2025, WO #1 located the Complainant in the underground carpark. WO #1 ran towards his location and called out on the radio that the Complainant had exited the carpark. WO #1 and SO #2 searched the area outside and, at 12:32 a.m., SO #2 located the Complainant heading back to the carpark and called out to him to stop. The Complainant ran in the direction of WO #1, who was on the carpark driveway, and tried to run past him. The officer grabbed the Complainant’s left arm and told him he was under arrest. WO #1 struggled with the Complainant as SO #1 ran down the driveway and tackled the Complainant to the ground. The Complainant landed on his backside. SO #1 and WO #1 rolled him onto his stomach, and SO #1 pushed his head down as SO #2 arrived. The Complainant tucked his arms under his chest. SO #2’s right boot made contact with the Complainant’s face, and he yelled, “Ow, my nose!” SO #1 and SO #2 directed the Complainant to put his hands behind his back; he kept them tucked by his chest. SO #1 delivered three knee strikes to the Complainant’s right side rib area.

Starting at about 12:33 a.m., WO #2 arrived and told the Complainant to put his hands behind his back or he would be subjected to a conducted energy weapon. SO #1 pulled the Complainant’s right arm from under him and moved it around to his back.

Starting at about 12:34 a.m., WO #1 gained control of his left arm, and SO #2 placed a handcuff on his right wrist. The Complainant gripped his right hand to his left arm, making it difficult to place the handcuff on the left wrist. SO #2 knelt on his shoulders and continued to try and place the handcuff on the Complainant’s left wrist. She told him to lift his arm and dropped her right knee onto the Complainant’s head before SO #1 delivered fist strikes to the back. The Complainant released his arm, and the second handcuff was applied. There were no further strikes after the handcuffs were applied. The Complainant yelled at the officers that they had broken his nose, and he requested an ambulance.

Starting at about 12:47 a.m., an ambulance arrived, and the Complainant was transferred to the rear of the ambulance where he continued to yell at the paramedics.

Video Footage – Apartment Complex

The camera captured the area of interaction from a distance. The recordings were time-stamped; however, the time was behind by 33 minutes.

Starting at about 12:00:36 a.m., the Complainant entered the frame from the left and ran down a driveway, headed towards a carpark. WO #1 was on the driveway, and he wrestled with the Complainant.

Starting at about 12:00:41 a.m., SO #1 ran down the driveway and tackled the Complainant to the ground. SO #2 arrived two seconds later and joined WO #1 and SO #1 on the ground. Three civilian witnesses approached and stood on a grassed area above where the struggle occurred. Seven seconds later, WO #2 arrived and held the Complainant’s ankles.

Cellphone Footage - CW #2

CW #2 provided the SIU three cellular phone video recordings. The recordings were not time or date-stamped. The first two recordings were taken outside CW #2’s unit. Shouting was heard in the distance, believed to be the Complainant yelling at other residents of the complex.

The third recording was 17 minutes, 14 seconds in length and taken from the grassed area above a driveway. The Complainant was face down on the ground, and three officers stood next to him. The Complainant yelled out, “I wasn’t resisting!” The Complainant yelled at officers, “You kicked me in the face. You’re lying!” CW #3 yelled at the officers from the grassed area.

At 4 minutes, 32 seconds [elapsed time], the Complainant refused to stand and walk with the officers.

At 6 minutes, 11 seconds, four male officers carried the Complainant up the driveway to a cruiser. He kicked out as they tried to put him in the rear seat while CW #3 continued to yell at officers.

At 11 minutes, 54 seconds, Emergency Medical Services arrived.

Photographs - CW #1

CW #1 provided the SIU copies of six photographs she took of the Complainant, one after his arrest while at the scene, which showed blood from his nose, and five photographs at the hospital of his face and right-side rib area. There appeared to be a laceration on his right-side cheekbone and a small laceration on the ribs. His nose did not have any obvious injury

PRP Telephone and Radio Communications

At 11:20 p.m., May 1, 2025, three 911 calls were received by police from residents of an apartment complex, all reporting the Complainant was screaming and banging a rock on doors, yelling at two females, and saying, “Show me your knife.”

SO #1, SO #2, WO #1 and WO #2 responded. At 11:39 p.m., SO #1 reported the Complainant was arrestable for mischief.

At 12:33 a.m., May 2, 2025, SO #2 advised the Complainant was heading towards the underground carpark.

At 12:34 a.m., WO #2 advised the Complainant was in custody and all was okay. He requested an ambulance for a bloody nose.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Between May 6, 2025, and May 8, 2025, the SIU obtained the following records from the PRP:

• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Occurrence Reports
• BWC footage – SO #1, WO #1, SO #2 and WO #2
• Notes - WO #1 and WO #2
• PRP polices - Person in Crisis and Use of Force
• PRP training records - SO #1 and SO #2

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

Between May 2, 2025, and May 30, 2025, the SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources:

• Video footage – apartment complex
• Photographs and video footage – CW #1
• Cellular phone video – CW #2
• Door security camera recording – CW #5
• The Complainant’s medical records - BCH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the late evening of May 1, 2025, PRP officers were called to an apartment complex in the area of Clarke Boulevard and Torbram Road, Brampton. Several residents had called police to report a male – the Complainant – causing a disturbance. He had been screaming and banging a rock on the doors of residents.

SO #1 and SO #2 attended at the address, joined by WO #1 and WO #2, and began to look for the Complainant. A resident’s door had been damaged by the Complainant and it was decided he would be arrested for mischief. At about 12:30 a.m., May 2, 2025, WO #1 located the Complainant in an underground carpark of the complex. The officer attempted to arrest him, but the Complainant got away.

A few minutes later, WO #1 was on the driveway leading to the carpark when he again encountered the Complainant. The Complainant attempted to escape but was grabbed by the officer. The two wrestled for a period on their feet, during which the Complainant dispossessed WO #1 of his flashlight. SO #1 arrived and tackled the Complainant to the ground. The Complainant struggled as the officers attempted to secure his arms behind the back. SO #2 joined in the struggle and might have contacted the Complainant’s head with her right foot as SO #1 kneed the Complainant in the right ribs three times. The officers affixed a handcuff to the right wrist but were still having difficulty securing the left wrist because of the Complainant’s resistance. SO #2 dropped her right knee on the Complainant’s head and SO #1 punched him twice in the back, after which the Complainant’s left wrist was handcuffed.

The Complainant was seen at hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with three fractured right-sided ribs and a possibly broken nose.

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 430, Criminal Code - Mischief

430(1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully

(a) destroys or damages property;

(b) renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective;

(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or

(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.

Mischief in relation to computer data

(1.1) Everyone commits mischief who wilfully

(a) destroys or alters computer data;

(b) renders computer data meaningless, useless or ineffective;

(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use of computer data; or

(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with a person in the lawful use of computer data or denies access to computer data to a person who is entitled to access to it.

Punishment

(2) Every one who commits mischief that causes actual danger to life is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

Punishment

(3) Every one who commits mischief in relation to property that is a testamentary instrument or the value of which exceeds five thousand dollars

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Idem

(4) Every one who commits mischief in relation to property, other than property described in subsection (3),

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by PRP officers on May 2, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1 and SO #2 subject officials. 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 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.

With information at their disposal that the Complainant had caused damage to the door of a resident at an apartment complex, the officers were within their rights in seeking to arrest him for mischief contrary to section 430 of the Criminal Code.

Regarding the force used by the subject officials in the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence does not reasonably establish that it was unjustified. The Complainant physically resisted arrest from start to finish – attempting to flee from the officers, grabbing hold of an officer’s flashlight, and struggling on the ground to prevent his arms from being placed behind the back and handcuffed. The officers were entitled to respond with a measure of force to subdue the Complainant and take him into custody. Delivered as it was while the Complainant was resisting, that force – a takedown followed by strikes to the head, ribs and back – did not exceed what was reasonable in the circumstances. It should be noted that SO #2’s strikes to the head, one of which might have been inadvertent, were not delivered with much force.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injuries were incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, 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