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 40-year-old female (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 13, 2025, at 6:48 p.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 13, 2025, at 5:40 p.m., the Complainant contacted the LPS, spoke with a member of the Crisis Call Diversion Program (CCD), and reported being recently released from a rehabilitation program. She was in a plaza parking lot and planned to walk to Wharncliffe Road South and Baseline Road East, and jump into traffic. LPS officers were dispatched to check on the Complainant’s welfare. When they located her, she walked away and was non-compliant. She was apprehended under the Mental Health Act (MHA) and suffered an injury when officers placed her arm behind the back. She was transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to London Health Sciences Centre-Victoria Hospital (LHSC-VH) and diagnosed with a fractured distal left humerus.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/05/14 at 7:07 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/05/14 at 8:52 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

40-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on May 16, 2025.

Subject Official

SO Declined interviewed and release of 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 22, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the parking lot south of the No Frills located at 7 Base Line Road East, London.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

LPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The SO

On May 13, 2025, starting at about 5:43 p.m., the SO and WO #2 approached the Complainant. She was kneeling on the ground and WO #1 was standing beside her. The Complainant stood and walked away. WO #1 and the SO stepped into her path and blocked her. The Complainant spoke of wanting to leave while the police officers told her they wanted to help. The SO suggested they talk about a safety plan, while the Complainant indicated there was no safety plan. The SO grasped the pet carrier held by the Complainant and took hold of her left arm. The SO told the Complainant they just wanted to talk to her. She requested that WO #1 leave before she would talk.

Starting at about 5:44 p.m., WO #1 walked away. The Complainant turned and tried to walk away as the SO held her left arm with one hand, and her left wrist with the other. WO #2 was on the Complainant’s right and held her arm. The Complainant was agitated and indicated she did not want to discuss a safety plan. The SO advised she would have to go to the hospital.

Starting at about 5:45 p.m., the SO removed the Complainant’s hand from the pet carrier and removed the backpack she was wearing. He told her she was being apprehended under the Mental Health Act and placed her left arm behind her back. The Complainant resisted and opposed the SO’s efforts.

At 5:45:18 p.m., the Complainant appeared to sustain a serious injury. The SO returned her arm to the side and assisted her to a seated position.

Video Footage – No Frills

On May 13, 2025, starting at about 4:22 p.m., the Complainant got out of a vehicle in the No Frills parking lot. She removed multiple bags before the vehicle left and she disappeared from camera view.

From 4:28 to 5:34 p.m., there was nothing captured of evidentiary significance.

Starting at about 5:35 p.m., the Complainant walked through the parking lot and up a grass hill towards Commissioners Road East. WO #1 arrived and approached the Complainant. They walked down the hill together to the parking lot where her bags were located.

From 5:38 to 5:48 p.m., there was nothing captured of evidentiary significance.

Starting at about 5:49 p.m., the Complainant and WO #1 walked through the parking lot. The Complainant had a dog on a leash and was carrying a cat in a pet carrier. They stopped in front of a parked vehicle where WO #1 stood in her path and took hold of her left arm. The Complainant resisted, and used her body weight and arm movement to break free.

Starting at about 5:51 p.m., the Complainant lost her balance. WO #1 had hold of her and assisted her to a seated position on the pavement. The SO and WO #2 approached. The Complainant returned to a standing position and tried to walk past the police officers. WO #1 and the SO blocked her path. She stopped and then, using her body weight, attempted to push past the police officers.

Starting at about 5:52 p.m., the SO took hold of the pet carrier the Complainant had in her left hand while WO #1 took hold of her right arm. They remained stationary briefly before WO #1 walked away to a parked police vehicle. WO #2 stood by the Complainant’s right side. The SO removed the pet carrier from the Complainant’s left hand and took hold of her left arm. The Complainant used her body weight and leaned backwards while the SO and WO #2 retained hold of each arm.

Starting at about 5:53:28 p.m., the SO placed the Complainant’s left arm behind her back, before guiding it back to her side. The Complainant was assisted to a seated position on the pavement.

LPS Communication Recordings – Telephone

On May 13, 2025, at 4:49 p.m., the Complainant called the LPS and said she was at No Frills. She had arrived by taxi and wanted police assistance to get out of there.

At 4:54 p.m., the call-taker called the Complainant and asked if she had thoughts of self-harm. The Complainant indicated she did not. When it was clarified the Complainant only required a ride, she was told her call was being transferred to EMS. The Complainant indicated she would jump into traffic and disconnected.

At 5:07 p.m., the Complainant called back and told the call-taker she blacked-out, had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and wanted to talk to a mental health worker. A mental health employee spoke with the Complainant and indicated someone was coming to see her. The Complainant suggested she was going to go into traffic and became argumentative before the call was disconnected.

At 5:17 p.m., the Complainant called back and told the call-taker she was having mental fog, did not want to talk to the mental health employee, and was going to walk into traffic. She had guns and a lot of belongings, and would not be able to go by ambulance.

LPS Communication Recordings – Radio

At 5:25 p.m., May 13, 2025, the LPS communications centre dispatch asked if any police officers were available to check on the wellbeing of the Complainant at Baseline Road East and Wharncliffe Road South. The Complainant was threatening to leave her animals there and go for a walk. The SO and WO #2 acknowledged and indicated they would respond. Further information provided was that the Complainant had threatened to jump into traffic. She had declined to speak with dispatch, reportedly had guns, refused EMS, and was at No Frills.

At 5:27 p.m., WO #1 arrived and located the Complainant. She was walking away and not really talking.

At 5:46 p.m., EMS were requested for the Complainant’s injured arm.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the LPS between May 13, 2025, and May 20, 2025.

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Civilian Witness List
• General Occurrence Report
• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• BWC footage
• Notes - WO #1 and WO #2
• LPS Policies - Mental Health Crisis Response and Use of Force

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following other records between May 16, 2025, and May 30, 2025:

• The Complainant’s medical records from LHSC-VH
• Video footage from No Frills at 7 Base Line Road East

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

In the afternoon of May 13, 2025, LPS officers arrived at the parking lot south of the No Frills store located at 7 Base Line Road East, London. A woman – the Complainant – had contacted police requesting a ride from the area. Told that EMS would respond instead, the Complainant threatened to jump into traffic.

WO #1 was on scene at about 5:30 p.m. He spoke to the Complainant attempting to understand what was troubling her but received little feedback. The Complainant asked him to leave. The officer explained he was there to assist and stood in her way when she tried to walk away.

The SO arrived at about 5:43 p.m. with WO #2. The SO encouraged the Complainant to speak with them about a possible safety plan. When the Complainant continued to refuse and tried to walk away, the officer told her she would be taken to the hospital. The SO took hold of the Complainant’s left arm as WO #2 grabbed her right arm. The Complainant resisted the officers’ efforts to maneuver her arms behind the back. A popping sound was heard, and the SO immediately released her left arm. She had sustained a fracture of the distal humerus.

The Complainant was transported to hospital via ambulance and treated for her 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 17, Mental Health Act - Action by Police Officer

17 Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of her arrest by LPS officers on May 13, 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.

The Complainant was behaving oddly and had threatened to harm herself by moving into traffic. She had also told the police call-taker that she suffered from PTSD. On this record, I am satisfied she was subject to arrest under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO during the Complainant’s arrest was lawful. The officer was within his rights in moving to handcuff the Complainant behind the back. When the Complainant resisted that effort, the SO was entitled to resort to a measure of force to accomplish his objective. He did so by attempting to wrestle the Complainant’s left arm into position. The video footage does not depict the officer using heavy-handed or clearly excessive force; rather, the fracture appears the unfortunate result of opposing forces coming together in a dynamic situation.

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

Date: September 8, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit