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 31-year-old male (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 22, 2025, at 6:51 a.m., the Windsor Police Service (WPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 21, 2025, at 11:58 p.m., Subject Officer (SO) #1 and SO #2 responded to the DoubleTree Hotel, 333 Riverside Drive West, for a disturbance. Hotel security was having an issue with an intoxicated guest – the Complainant. The Complainant resisted when the officers attempted to arrest him, and was forced up against a taxi in front of the hotel, striking his face off the vehicle. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) arrived and transported the Complainant to the Windsor Regional Hospital (WRH) – Ouellette Campus where he was diagnosed with a non-displaced nasal fracture.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/05/22 at 8:22 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/05/22 at 12:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on May 22, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW Interviewed

CW Interviewed

CW Interviewed

CW Declined an interview

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on May 28, 2025.

Subject Officials

SO #1 Declined interview and release of notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 Declined interview and release of notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The Scene

The events in question transpired outside the front entrance of the DoubleTree Hotel, 333 Riverside Drive, Windsor.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage 1 - DoubleTree Hotel – 333 Riverside Drive

A male – CW #4 – was captured walking past an unattended front desk towards the front door area while looking at his cell phone. Another male, the Complainant, wearing only black boxer shorts, followed behind, staggering badly. Both men approached the front entry door.

The Complainant subsequently returned into view from the foyer doors and continued to stagger badly. He appeared confused. The Complainant staggered back to the front desk area and talked to the clerk at the desk – CW #1.

Night security guard – CW #3 - attended the front desk area and stood by while the Complainant and CW #1 continued to talk.

CW #4 returned to the front desk and put his hand on the back of the Complainant. The Complainant required the front desk to help with his balance. CW #4 attempted to pull the Complainant away from the front desk but he held onto the desk refusing to leave. The Complainant was knocking items off the front desk counter by accident. The Complainant continued to talk with CW #1 and appeared agitated, slapping the counter. CW #3 used the phone at the front desk.

Vets Cab was observed in front of the hotel at the main entrance doors. CW #4 got into the rear passenger seat of the taxi. The Complainant was captured beside the rear passenger door of the taxi, leaning in and talking to CW #4. SO #2 and SO #1 arrived at the front of the hotel.

The incident location was obstructed by pillars in the hotel lobby area, resulting in no clear view of the interaction between the Complainant and the police officers.

Video Footage 2 - DoubleTree Hotel – 333 Riverside Drive

The Complainant was captured talking to SO #2 and SO #1. The Complainant appeared highly intoxicated; he stumbled and had trouble with his balance.

Both police officers took control of the Complainant, turning him and bringing his left hand behind the back. The Complainant struggled with police and appeared to not surrender his right arm behind the back, instead, seemingly stepping forward and away from the police officers. A police officer grabbed the Complainant’s left upper arm and both officers moved forward quickly towards the trunk area of a cab. The Complainant was pushed up against the right rear of the cab, which visibly shook upon impact. The Complainant appeared to struggle with both police officers.

Video Footage - Vets Cab

On May 21, 2025, starting at about 11:58 p.m., the taxi driver, CW #2, sat in the driver seat of his taxi and waited for his fare to arrive. The vehicle was stopped in the valet parking area in front of the main entry doors of the DoubleTree Hotel. The Complainant was seen in the front vestibule area of the main entry doors of the hotel dressed only in boxer shorts. He was banging his hands on the glass door.

The Complainant exited the hotel, came to the taxi and held the rear passenger door open.

CW #4 was seated in the taxi. The Complainant appeared intoxicated, and his speech was slurred. CW #2 repeatedly told the Complainant to go back to his room and relax.

A WPS cruiser parked behind the taxi. SO #2 and SO #1 approached and began to speak to the Complainant. CW #3 was present and observed the interaction. CW #2 told CW #4 to get out of the taxicab and that he wanted to leave.

The Complainant’s voice got louder as he was heard to say “no” repeatedly. The police officers made numerous attempts to find a place for the Complainant to go for the evening. A police officer grabbed the Complainant’s right arm and directed him to move away from the taxi. The Complainant was argumentative, slurred his speech and did not comply with the direction of the police officer to back away.

Starting at about 12:05 a.m., a police officer advised CW #4 that the Complainant was going to be arrested for public intoxication. The Complainant was observed refusing to get away from the rear passenger door of the taxi and pushed against it, causing the vehicle to shake. The Complainant continued to stagger, push against the cab, slur his speech, and refuse to comply with the police officers’ directions.

A police officer told the Complainant to put his hands behind his back and began to take physical control of him. Both officers tried to control the Complainant, who was moving around and resisting. The Complainant was at the passenger rear trunk area of the taxi. Police officers attempted to control the Complainant’s arms to get them behind his back. He was non-compliant and resisted their efforts. After a short struggle, the police officers pulled the Complainant away from the cab.

WPS Communications Recordings

On May 21, 2025, at 11:54 p.m., CW #3 called 911 and reported that the Complainant, a guest of the hotel, was intoxicated in the lobby of the DoubleTree Hotel. The Complainant was dressed in his underwear, aggressive and disruptive. Police were asked to attend.

At 11:58 p.m., SO #2 and SO #1 were dispatched to the DoubleTree Hotel.

On May 22, 2025, at 12:02 a.m., both officers were with the Complainant in front of the hotel.

At 12:08 a.m., the Complainant was custody.

At 12:09 a.m., EMS were requested.

At 12:26 a.m., the Complainant was transported to the hospital.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the WPS between May 27, 2025, and May 28, 2025.

• Names, contact information, and statements of all civilian witnesses
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• General, Supplementary and Arrest Reports
• Provincial Offence Notice served on the Complainant

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from WRH on May 30, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and civilian witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, 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.

Police were called to the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel, 333 Riverside Drive, late in the evening of May 21, 2025. Hotel staff reported the presence of an intoxicated male – the Complainant – causing a disturbance.

An inebriated Complainant, who was staying at the hotel, had appeared in the lobby wearing only boxer shorts. He had refused to return to his room despite the urging of staff.

Shortly after midnight of May 22, 2025, SO #1 and SO #2 arrived at the hotel. The Complainant was by this time outside the hotel. A friend of his had arranged for a cab to take him away from the hotel, but the Complainant was refusing to enter the vehicle. The officers spoke to hotel staff and confirmed that they wanted the Complainant removed from the property because of his behaviour. They spoke to the cab driver, who told them he was not inclined to transport the Complainant because of his conduct.

SO #1 and SO #2 decided to arrest the Complainant for public intoxication. The Complainant resisted arrest and was forced onto the trunk of the cab, suffering a broken nose in the process. He was eventually handcuffed behind the back and taken into custody.

The Complainant was transported to hospital from the scene by EMS and diagnosed with a 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 31, Liquor Licence and Control Act - Intoxication

31 (1) No person shall be in an intoxicated condition in,

(a) a place to which the general public is invited or permitted access; or

(b) any part of a residence that is used in common by persons occupying

more than one dwelling in the residence.

(2) A police officer or conservation officer may arrest without warrant any person who is contravening subsection (1) if, in the opinion of the officer, it is necessary to do so for the safety of any person.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by WPS officers on May 22, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming the two arresting officers – SO # 1and SO #2 – the 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 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 gave clear indication that he was intoxicated by alcohol – he smelled of alcohol, slurred his speech and had trouble retaining his balance. At the same time, he had exhausted his options for a safe place to stay. On this record, I am satisfied the officers were within their rights in arresting the Complainant under section 31(2) of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019.

I am also satisfied that there is insufficient evidence to reasonably establish any unlawful force on the part of the subject officials. When the Complainant made his arrest difficult by not cooperating with the officers, SO #1 and SO #2 were entitled to resort to a measure of force to take him into custody. This consisted in the officers forcing the Complainant against the cab, a not unreasonable tactic as it would better position them to deal with his recalcitrance. There is no indication in the evidence of any strikes by the officers. In the circumstances, while it is unfortunate that the Complainant’s nose was broken when he was forced onto the trunk of the cab, I am unable to reasonably conclude that his injury was the result of excessive force on the part of either subject official.

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

Date: September 16, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit