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 May 13, 2025, at 3:25 p.m., the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 13, 2025, at 12:55 a.m., a female resident of a home in the area of North Service Road East and Trafalgar Road, Oakville, requested police attendance after her boyfriend was reportedly stabbed by a male visiting the residence - the Complainant. Police responded to the address and made commands for the Complainant to surrender. The Complainant exited the upper level of the unit. As he approached officers, he lowered his hands towards his waistband and asked officers to shoot him. An officer deployed a conducted energy weapon (CEW), and the Complainant fell to the ground. The Complainant was subsequently pinned by police with a shield while an officer struck him twice in the face during the arrest process. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were summoned to the scene and transported the Complainant to the Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital where he was diagnosed at 1:50 p.m. with fractured orbital bones.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/05/14 at 7:15 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/05/14 at 3:39 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on May 14, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Not interviewed; statement to HRPS reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The civilian witness was interviewed on May 16, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

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

The subject official was interviewed on June 9, 2025.

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 May 22, 2025, and June 4, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the entrance area, and interior staircase, of a residence in the area of North Service Road East and Trafalgar Road, Oakville.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – WO #3

On May 13, 2025, at 1:04:56 a.m.,[2] Bay 1 was deployed, and electricity was discharged for about 5 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

HRPS Communications Recordings

A HRPS dispatcher requested that officers attend a residence in the area of North Service Road East and Trafalgar Road, Oakville, for a stabbing. CW #1 had called 911 and reported that her boyfriend, CW #2, had been stabbed in the chest by the Complainant. CW #1 and CW #2 had locked themselves in a room, and the Complainant was in possession of a knife.

The Complainant also called police and reported having been assaulted.

The Complainant was flagged suicidal.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the HRPS between May 16, 2025, and June 20, 2025:

• Communications recordings
• In-car camera footage
• General Occurrence Report
• Supplementary Report
• CEW deployment data
• HRPS Directive - Use of Force
• Statements of civilian witnesses
• The SO’s Use of Force Recertification
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2, WO #4 and WO #3
• Scene sketch – WO #4, WO #3 and WO #1

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained records from the following other sources between May 27, 2025, and May 30, 2025:

• Halton EMS Release letter
• Ambulance Call Report from the Halton Regional Paramedic Service
• The Complainant’s medical records from Halton Healthcare

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, the SO and additional police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the early morning of May 13, 2025, HRPS officers were called to a residence in the area of North Service Road East and Trafalgar Road, Oakville. A resident – CW #1 – had contacted police to report that her boyfriend – CW #2 – had just been stabbed by the Complainant. The Complainant had also called police to report that he was the victim of an assault at the address.

Several officers, including the SO, arrived on scene and convened by the locked door that opened to an entrance area and interior staircase to the second floor. CW #1 descended the stairs and opened the door for the officers, after which she left the scene. From the door’s threshold and the first few steps of the staircase, the officers called-out to the Complainant and directed him to surrender.

The Complainant approached the top of the staircase. He raised his hands and started to walk down the stairs. He talked about wanting the officers to shoot him and, midway down the stairs, stalled his progress. Shortly after, he resumed his downward movement and was tasered by WO #3. The Complainant stumbled and was pinned around the first step or two by WO #3 with the use of his shield.

The SO engaged the Complainant physically and punched him twice in the head. The officer then pulled the Complainant out the door onto the concrete sidewalk where, assisted by another officer, he handcuffed him behind the back.

The Complainant was taken to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with left-sided facial fractures.

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 diagnosed with facial fractures following his arrest by HRPS 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 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 stabbed CW #2, the officers were within their rights in moving to take him into custody.

Regarding the force used by the officers during the arrest, namely, a CEW discharge and two punches to the face by WO #3 and the SO, respectively, there is insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude it was unwarranted. An account in the evidence suggesting the Complainant was cooperative and the force used by the officers was unnecessary must be approached with caution as its source was intoxicated by drugs and alcohol at the time. The account is also contested by the evidence of the officers, who say that the Complainant had lowered his hands by his waistband when WO #3 fired his CEW. That conduct would have rightly led the officers to fear the Complainant was about to access a knife considering the stabbing call that had prompted their attendance. The use of the CEW made sense in these circumstances as it stood to prevent the Complainant accessing a weapon by way of his temporary immobilization. For the same reasons, the punches struck by the SO would also appear a reasonable tactic if, as the officer describes, the Complainant reached towards his waistband with his left hand while on the ground. On this record, there being nothing to suggest that the account of unnecessary force used against the Complainant is any closer to the truth than that proffered by the officers, and some reason to doubt it, I am not satisfied there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that either officer committed a criminal offence.

It remains unclear whether the Complainant’s injuries were inflicted in the altercation that marked his arrest. In fact, there is evidence that his facial fractures were incurred just prior to the officers’ arrival in a fight with a third-party. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the force used by the officers was unlawful, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: September 10, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit