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 38-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 5, 2025, at 10:02 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 5, 2025, at about 5:00 a.m., the OPP received a 911 call from a relative of the Complainant for a family disturbance at a residence in New Tecumseth. She wanted the Complainant, on a release recognizance and intoxicated on cocaine, removed from the home because of his erratic behaviour. A short time later, OPP police officers arrived and attempted to remove the Complainant; however, he actively refused and fought with officers. Witness Official (WO) #4 discharged his conducted energy weapon (CEW) in drive-stun mode[2] to facilitate the arrest. The Complainant was eventually taken to the floor, where he continued to resist. Eventually, the Complainant was placed in handcuffs with his hands behind the back, taken to a cruiser, and transported to the Nottawasaga Detachment. The Complainant was lodged in a cell and, a short time later, complained of chest pain. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called, and he was transported to Stevenson Memorial Hospital (SMH) in Alliston. After examination and X-rays, the Complainant was diagnosed with fractures to his fifth and sixth left ribs.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/05/05 at 11:19 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/05/05 at 2:55 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on May 5, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on May 5, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO 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

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between June 17 and 26, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the main floor living room of a house in Alliston.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – WO #4

On May 5, 2025, at 5:28:04 a.m.,[3] the CEW was discharged for 3 seconds. At 5:28:22 a.m., a second discharge occurred for 1.5 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[4]

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

On May 5, 2025, starting at about 5:24 a.m., police officers arrived at the Complainant’s residence.

Starting at about 5:34 a.m., the Complainant requested an ambulance for medical attention. An officer stated he was conscious and breathing, and would receive medical attention at the detachment.

Starting at about 5:36 a.m., an officer reported the Complainant was in custody and possibly injured, but was conscious, breathing and speaking with police. An officer asked about the nature of the injury. The Complainant complained officers, “Were beating the shit out of him,” for no apparent reason.

Starting at about 5:43 a.m., WO #1 communicated on the radio the Complainant might have a little blood in his nose and mouth.

Starting at about 5:58 a.m., the Complainant arrived at the sally port.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On May 5, 2025, starting at about 5:26 a.m., WO #1 opened the front door of a residence. The Complainant stood close to the door and asked why he was being arrested. An officer indicated there was a warrant in effect for his arrest. The Complainant objected, saying there was no warrant, and resisted the officers as they attempted to handcuff him behind the back. WO #1 and WO #3 grounded the Complainant to the floor. He lay on his stomach with his hands beneath him. WO #3 knelt on the Complainant’s back and pressed him to the ground as other officers struggled to control his hands. WO #4 repeatedly asked if the Complainant wanted to be “tazed”. The Complainant struggled against the officers’ efforts to maneuver his arms behind the back.

Starting at about 5:28 a.m., WO #4 deployed his CEW in drive-stun mode into the left side of the Complainant. The Complainant screamed to stop, and other officers repeatedly ordered the Complainant to put his hands behind his back. WO #4 deployed his CEW in drive-stun mode again to the left back area of the Complainant. An officer handcuffed the Complainant behind the back.

Starting at about 5:29 a.m., officers struggled to secure the Complainant in the back seat of a police vehicle. The SO asked if the Complainant had any injuries, and he replied he had a head injury.

Starting at about 6:00 a.m., the Complainant was searched in the booking room. The Complainant had blood on his forehead and nose, and bruises around his left eye. He accused the SO of having bias against him. The Complainant was led away from the booking area by WO #3.

Starting at about 6:27 a.m., EMS arrived and assessed the Complainant in the cell.

Starting at about 6:31 a.m., the Complainant was placed on a stretcher and escorted to an ambulance.

OPP Communications Recordings

Starting at about 5:03 a.m., May 5, 2025, the Complainant contacted the OPP and the line was disconnected.

Starting at about 5:06 a.m., CW #1 requested that police attend a residence in Alliston. His family member was high on cocaine and police assistance was required to remove him from the home. The Complainant had no firearms in the house and was aware police were on their way to the residence.

Starting at about 5:07 a.m., an officer announced the Complainant had assaulted a police officer in a previous incident.

Starting at about 5:38 a.m., police requested that an ambulance attend to the Complainant at the OPP detachment.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between May 12, 2025, and July 31, 2025:

• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Notes of witness officials
• ICC footage
• BWC footage
• Occurrence, Supplementary and Arrest Reports
• Involved Officers List
• CEW deployment data
• Warrant for Arrest

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

On May 7, 2025, the SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from SMH.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the morning of May 5, 2025, OPP officers were dispatched to a house in Alliston. CW #1 had called police to report that a family member – the Complainant - was causing a disturbance and needed to be removed from the home.

Five officers – including the SO – arrived at the address at about 5:30 a.m. They came in numbers given the Complainant’s record for violence in previous dealings with the police. Led by WO #1, the officers encountered the Complainant in the living room on the main floor and asked him to position himself against a wall. The Complainant did so and asked why he was being arrested. An officer responded that there was a warrant in effect for his arrest. The Complainant denied that was accurate and began to resist by refusing to put his arms behind the back. Officers forced him to the floor, the Complainant landing on his front. He continued to struggle against the officers’ efforts to maneuver his arms behind the back and was repeatedly directed to cooperate or he would be subjected to a CEW discharge. WO #4 drive-stunned the Complainant in the back, and the SO kneed him several times in the left side, after which the Complainant’s arms were controlled and handcuffed.

The Complainant was seen at hospital following his arrest that morning and diagnosed with two left-sided fractured ribs.

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.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by OPP officers on May 5, 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.

The SO and his colleagues were within their rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody. There was a bench warrant in effect authorizing the Complainant’s arrest for failing to attend at a court appearance and violation of a probation order.

With respect to the force used by the officers during the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence does not reasonably establish it was unwarranted. When the Complainant refused to release his arms to be handcuffed, the officers were entitled to resort to a measure of force to meet their objective. A takedown made sense as it would better position the officers to more effectively deal with the Complainant’s resistance. The Complainant continued to fight the officers on the floor, refusing to give up his arms, even after he was warned that he would be “tasered” if he did not relent. After a few seconds of struggle, during which the Complainant was able to prevent his arms being wrestled behind the back, the officers had cause to escalate their force. Two CEW discharges and knee strikes, which proved successful in overcoming the Complainant’s resistance, would not appear a disproportionate escalation in the circumstances.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s fractured ribs were incurred in the struggle that marked his arrest, and likely the result of the SO’s knee strikes, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: September 2, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit