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 28-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 3, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On January 3, 2025, at 7:48 a.m., a man called 911 to report his daughter, the Complainant, was experiencing a mental health crisis at a residence in the area of Wharncliffe Road South and Emery Street West (Residence #1).[2] The Complainant was heard yelling in the background of the telephone call. The caller indicated the Complainant had been diagnosed with dissociation disorder and epilepsy, and had a pacemaker to assist with her heart functioning. Once the Complainant learned the LPS were being contacted, she fled her residence on foot, while improperly attired for the outside environment and carrying scissors. At 7:51 a.m., the Subject Official (SO), Witness Official (WO) #2 and WO #1 arrived and located the Complainant in front of a nearby residence (Residence #2), where she attempted to enter the home. Officers attempted to speak with her, but she refused to speak to them. WO #1 took hold of the Complainant’s left arm and the SO simultaneously discharged a conducted energy weapon (CEW), with the probes striking the Complainant in the shoulder and arm. The Complainant fell onto a hedge but did not strike the ground. She was a large woman, necessitating the use of two sets of handcuffs to secure her hands. The Complainant was apprehended under the Mental Health Act (MHA) and emergency medical services were called to the scene. At 8:23 a.m., paramedics departed for London Health Sciences Centre - Victoria Hospital. At the time the Complainant had calmed and was conscious. Upon arrival at the hospital, the Complainant lost consciousness. She was intubated and admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), and remained unconscious at the time of the notification.[3]

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/01/03 at 1:47 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/01/03 at 5:35 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on January 7, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between January 3, 2025, and January 9, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between April 8, 2025, and April 16, 2025.

Investigative Delay

The issuance of police official designations was deferred pending an understanding of the medical issues involved in this incident. Officer designations were issued on April 2 and 9, 2025.

There was a delay while the SIU waited for information from the forensic pathologist. On May 9, 2025, the forensic pathologist advised he was having difficulty providing an opinion, and suggested the SIU contact the manufacturer of the vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) device, if further information was needed.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around a roadway in the area of Wharncliffe Road South and Emery Street West.

The scene of the incident was not preserved and therefore the SIU did not attend the scene.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – the SO

The CEW was discharged at 8:00:07 a.m.,[4] January 3, 2025, for 1.473 seconds. The CEW was discharged again at 8:00:08 a.m., for 4.938 seconds.

Expert Evidence

The forensic pathologist was unable to provide a medical opinion regarding the likelihood of the CEW causing the Complainant’s seizure or interfering with her VNS device.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[5]

Police Communications Recordings

Starting at about 7:47 a.m., January 3, 2025, CW #1 called 911 and requested an ambulance. She was transferred to the Middlesex-London Paramedic Service (MLPS) call-taker. CW #1 reported she was at Residence #1. CW #1 indicated her daughter was having a dissociative event.

In the background of the telephone call, the Complainant could be heard talking about a kidnapping. She could also be heard saying, "I’m fine. I don’t know this lady." CW #1 told the MLPS call-taker her daughter did not recognize her. She explained she had not previously observed this type of behaviour from her daughter. She also reported her daughter was taking new medication and was being treated for epilepsy.

CW #1 reported the Complainant failed to recognize her aunt, whom she had telephoned when she did not recognize her mother. In the background of the call, the Complainant called out, “It’s a bunch of lies. I need the cops.”

The MLPS call-taker asked about weapons and CW #1 responded that her daughter had a pair of scissors that CW #1 was trying to take from her. CW #1 reported her daughter was walking around not recognizing things in her own home, and her daughter’s father was on the way over.

CW #1 stated her daughter’s new medication had hallucinatory and mood swing effects. The call-taker asked if the Complainant was diabetic, and her mother said no, but she had epilepsy. The call-taker asked if the Complainant was going to be cooperative, and her mother responded she did not know, given that she had not seen this behaviour before. CW #1 stated her daughter needed help, had epilepsy, and was wandering down the street.

The LPS 911 call-taker then came on the line and asked for the Complainant’s description. CW #1 provided a description and reported her daughter’s direction of travel.

CW #1 reported her daughter was not psychologically well and had walked out of her sight. The LPS call-taker asked if the Complainant still had the scissors, and her mother said yes. CW #1 reported her daughter was then entering a residence she thought was her house, at Residence #2. The LPS call-taker asked if this had happened before, and CW #1 responded no and that the behaviour was due to the new medication her daughter was taking.

CW #1 stated her daughter was usually very calm and was experienced with first responders, who often dealt with her regarding her epilepsy issues. The LPS call-taker advised police officers were on their way. CW #1 reported she was following her daughter down the street.

The LPS call-taker soon asked CW #1 if she could see the police and CW #1 responded yes. The LPS call-taker asked if CW #1 was with the police and, when CW #1 said she was, the call-taker ended the telephone call.

At 7:50 a.m., the LPS dispatcher called for officers to respond to a Code 1 mental health call at Residence #1, for a woman armed with a pair of scissors suffering dissociative behaviour.

At 7:52 a.m., the LPS dispatcher advised the responding police officers the caller believed her daughter’s issues were due to new medication she had been prescribed. The LPS dispatcher advised the Complainant still possessed the scissors and was trying to enter Residence #2, believing it was her residence. The LPS dispatcher advised the subject suffered from depression, lupus and epilepsy.

At 7:55 a.m., WO #1 reported he was just pulling up to the scene.

At 7:56 a.m., WO #1 reported he was with the Complainant.

At 8:00 a.m., another police officer reported a CEW had been deployed, and he requested the paramedics move up to the scene.

At 8:02 a.m., it was reported paramedics were at the scene.

At 8:23 a.m., a police officer reported the ambulance was on the way to the hospital.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the LPS between January 22, 2025, and April 16, 2025.

• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Personal Profile and Occurrence History - the Complainant
• Prosecution Summary
• General Occurrence Report
• Notes of witness officials
• Notes and Incident Report of subject official
• CEW deployment data
• Policy - Use of Force

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between January 4, 2025, and January 29, 2025.

• Video footage from Residence #3
• The Complainant’s medical records from London Victoria Hospital
• Ambulance Call Report from Middlesex-London Paramedic Services

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, and police and non-police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the morning of January 3, 2025, LPS officers were dispatched to the area of Wharncliffe Road South, following a 911 call placed by CW #1 reporting concern for the Complainant’s (her daughter) wellbeing. The Complainant, who suffered from several health conditions, had left the house at Residence #1 in a dissociative state. She was carrying a phone and a pair of scissors.

The SO, WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3, arrived on scene at about 8:00 a.m. They located the Complainant a distance from her home. WO #1 spoke to the Complainant, whereupon it became evident that she was of unsound mind. The officers decided to apprehend the Complainant under the Mental Health Act.

The Complainant did not go willingly with the officers. She backed up a distance and was seen to be holding a pair of scissors in her left hand. She was subjected to two CEW discharges fired by the SO, the first of which appears to have been without effect. Officers took hold of the Complainant and controlled her on the ground.

The Complainant was handcuffed behind the back and placed in an ambulance. En route to the hospital, she became unconscious. She experienced seizures at the hospital, and was intubated and admitted to the ICU.

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 fell into medical distress following her arrest by LPS officers on January 3, 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 medical condition.

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 was in possession of scissors and of unsound mind, the officers, I am satisfied, were within their rights in moving to take her into custody pursuant to section 17 of the Mental Health Act.

I am also satisfied the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing the force used by the SO, namely, two CEW discharges, were unwarranted. A version of evidence presented suggests the officer acted without warrant, and alleges that the Complainant was already on the ground being controlled by three officers when the SO fired his weapon. The evidence does not deny that the Complainant might have been holding scissors, but indicates that the Complainant was not seen brandishing them at the time of her arrest. This evidence is contested by the four officers – the SO in his notes and WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3 in their interviews – whose evidence indicates the Complainant was raising the scissors in WO #1’s direction when she was tasered by the SO. On this rendition of events, the use of the CEW would appear a reasonable response given the presence of a weapon and the potential for serious injury and death. As there is no reason to believe that one version of events proffered in the evidence is any likelier to be closer to the truth than that proffered by the officers, I am not persuaded there are reasonable and probable grounds on which to conclude that the SO acted precipitously when he discharged his CEW.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.[6] The file is closed.

Date: September 18, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit