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 27-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 17, 2025, at 4:48 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 2:18 a.m., that day, 21 Division Criminal Investigation Branch (CIB) officers were conducting surveillance around Courtneypark Drive, Mississauga. Their investigation led them stopping a stolen tractor-trailer, occupied by two men, at the Ultramar Gas Station at 1520 Courtneypark Drive East. Officers attempted to arrest one of the occupants, the Complainant, and he resisted, resulting in the deployment of a conducted energy weapon (CEW). One probe struck the other occupant, the Civilian Witness (CW), in the head. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were requested and transported the Complainant to Brampton Civic Hospital for removal of the CEW probe. The Complainant began vomiting. A computed tomography scan was ordered, and the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured skull.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/05/17 at 5:14 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/05/17 at 6:08 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

27-year-old male; not interviewed (declined)

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Not interviewed (declined)

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on June 17, 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 21, 2025, and May 23, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the exterior grounds of the Ultramar Gas Station, 1520 Courtneypark Drive East, Mississauga.

The gas station ground was made of asphalt.

Forensic Evidence

PRP CEW Deployment Data - The SO

PRP provided the CEW download report for the CEW issued to the SO, which was a Taser 10 model. This model discharges up to ten individually targeted probes from ten bays, each trigger pull resulting in the discharge of one probe, which reportedly allows for more accuracy and avoids the need to reload.[2]

On May 17, 2025, at 2:14:18 a.m., the SO’s CEW was armed, the trigger was pulled and cartridge one was deployed.

At 2:14:19 a.m., cartridge two was deployed.

At 2:14:20 a.m., the trigger was pulled and cartridge three was deployed.

At 2:14:20 a.m., the trigger was pulled and cartridge four was deployed.

At 2:14:21 a.m., cartridge five was deployed.

At 2:14:22 a.m., cartridge six was deployed, and electricity was discharged for 8.075 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

PRP Communications Recordings

At 1:04 a.m., May 17, 2025, CIB officers responded to a stolen trailer, reported by the owner.

EMS were requested at 2:27 a.m., for CEW prong removal.

At 3:01 a.m., a rush on EMS was requested for the Complainant, who was vomiting.

EMS arrived on scene at 3:12 a.m.

Video Footage – Ultramar Gas Station – 1520 Courtneypark Drive East

At 2:13 a.m., May 17, 2025, the Complainant and the CW pulled their vehicle into the gas station and stopped at pump 5/6. The SO stopped his unmarked police van next to pump 10. The Complainant exited his vehicle, walked to the SO’s vehicle and stopped near the front driver’s side, behind a pillar and out of camera view. The CW exited the vehicle from the driver’s seat and walked towards the SO’s vehicle, holding an object in his left hand with his right hand behind his back. The SO and WO #4 exited the police vehicle simultaneously. The SO was armed with a CEW and WO #4 was armed with a firearm.

At 2:14:22 a.m., the Complainant moved into camera view and appeared to buckle. He fell backwards and struck his head on the asphalt ground. The SO then pointed the CEW towards the CW, who fell to the ground. WO #4 handcuffed the CW. WO #3 arrived and assisted the SO with the Complainant, who was prone on the ground. His hands were tucked under his body, and the SO and WO #3 appeared to have difficulty removing his hands from under him. The SO delivered one knee strike to the Complainant’s right side, mid-torso area, after which the officers placed the Complainant’s hands behind his back and handcuffed him. The SO and WO #4 remained with the Complainant until EMS arrived.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the PRP between May 17, 2025, and May 22, 2025:

• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Occurrence Report
• CEW deployment data - the SO
• Notes – WO #1, the SO, WO #4, WO #3 and WO #2.
• Training records – the SO
• Policies – Arrest and Use of Force

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

On May 26, 2025, the SIU obtained video footage from Ultramar Gas Station, 1520 Courtneypark Drive East.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the SO and other police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the early morning of May 17, 2025, acting on information from the owner of a stolen tractor-trailer, who had used a GPS tracking device to locate his vehicle, a team of PRP officers were dispatched to investigate. WO #2 located the tractor-trailer in a parking lot of an industrial area off Tomken Road, north of Courtneypark Drive East. He observed a male arrive in a Honda and knock on the driver’s door of the tractor-trailer, and another male exit the tractor-trailer, the two of them then driving off in the Honda. The officer informed the team of his observations and the team leader, WO #1, advised that the males were subject to arrest for possession of property obtained by crime.

The males were the Complainant (the passenger) and the CW (the driver). They became aware that they were being followed and tried to shake their pursuers via a series of driving maneuvers, such as U-turns. They ultimately ended up at a pump at the Ultramar Gas Station at the southeast corner of the Dixie Road and Courtneypark Drive East intersection. It was at that location that they decided to approach the occupants of one of the unmarked police vehicles that had followed them there.

The SO was the driver of the unmarked police vehicle. WO #4 was in the passenger seat. The officers observed the Complainant and the CW approaching their vehicle, and exited to confront them. The SO yelled at them to show their hands and then fired his CEW, first at the Complainant and then at the CW. The Complainant fell, striking his head on the pavement and suffering a fractured skull. The SO and another officer arriving on scene, WO #3, struck the Complainant in the torso on several occasions when he did not release his arms to be handcuffed, after which they maneuvered his arms behind the back and handcuffed him. The CW was arrested without serious injury.

The Complainant’s condition deteriorated soon after his arrest. He was transported to hospital from the scene and treated for his 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 354(1), Criminal Code - Possession of Property Obtained by Crime

354 (1) Every one commits an offence who has in his possession any property or thing or any proceeds of any property or thing knowing that all or part of the property or thing or of the proceeds was obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from

(a) the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment; or

(b) an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence punishable by indictment.

The Complainant was seriously injured on May 17, 2025, while being arrested by PRP officers. 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.

With information at their disposal that the Complainant and the CW had been linked to a stolen tractor-trailer, I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights in moving to arrest them for the offence of possession of property obtained by crime contrary to section 354(1) of the Criminal Code.

I am also satisfied that the evidence does not reasonably establish the use of unlawful force on the part of the SO. The Complainant and the CW were each approaching the officer’s vehicle with purpose, while making aggressive gestures that suggested a potential for hostility. That is the uncontested evidence of the SO and WO #4, which evidence is not inconsistent with the video footage that exists of the event. Most worrisome was the behaviour of the CW, who appeared to be holding something in his hands. The officer would rightly have been concerned that he was in possession of some type of weapon. On this record, it made sense that the SO would want to avoid a physical engagement with the males in favour of their temporary incapacitation at a distance. If the CEW worked as anticipated, it would provide the officer a window within which they could safely approach the CW and the Complainant and take them into custody.

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

Date: September 12, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit