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 54-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 27, 2025, at 8:40 a.m., the Brantford Police Service (BPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

In the early morning hours of February 10, 2025, BPS officers responded to a residence in the area of King George Road and Fairview Drive, Brantford, for a domestic disturbance. They encountered the Complainant and arrested him for assault. The Complainant resisted and was grounded by officers. He was transported to BPS headquarters, processed and held for a bail hearing. At no time during the arrest, booking or custody did he complain of any pain. The Complainant was released from custody on February 10, 2025. He was provided with a Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) complaint form as related to his concerns about his arrest.

On February 27, 2025, the BPS was referred a LECA complaint indicating the Complainant had attended Brantford General Hospital (BGH) on February 13, 2025, to have a torn right bicep surgically repaired. The Complainant reported suffering the injury during his arrest on February 10, 2025, and provided medical records with his LECA complaint.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/02/27 at 9:30 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/03/03 at 10:31 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on April 7, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on April 9, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview and to provide 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 between April 22, 2025, and June 16, 2025.

Investigative Delay

Investigative staffing and workload issues contributed to delay in the completion of this investigation.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the foyer of a residence in the area of King George Road and Fairview Drive, Brantford.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

BPS In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – WO #1

On February 10, 2025, at 2:29:48 a.m., WO #2 knocked at the front door of a residence and said, “Open the door now or I’m kicking it in.”

At 2:29:57 a.m., the front door opened. WO #2, WO #1 and the SO entered the home and left the camera’s view. A struggle and shouts were heard.

At 2:33:58 a.m., the Complainant was taken from the home with his hands handcuffed behind the back. WO #1 was on his left side and the SO was on his right. He was escorted to the rear driver’s side of the SO’s cruiser and searched.

BPS ICC Footage - The SO

On February 10, 2025, at 2:36 a.m., the Complainant was seated in the rear of the SO’s cruiser, with his hands handcuffed behind the back. He answered questions from the SO, and his speech was slow and slurred. He insisted, “I didn’t do anything wrong.”

At 2:41:03 a.m., WO #1 brought the Complainant his medications. Regarding his arrest, the Complainant stated to WO #1, “That was a little aggressive.”

At 2:41:28 a.m., the SO departed the scene for the BPS station. During transport, the Complainant complained multiple times that his handcuffs were too tight.

BPS Custody Footage

On February 10, 2025, at 2:50 a.m.,[3] the Complainant was escorted by the SO and Custody Sergeant from the sally port into the booking area.

During booking, the Complainant complained he was not allowed to wear his winter coat and his handcuffs were too tight. He was visibly intoxicated and mildly belligerent, but cooperative. He did not request a lawyer “’cause I didn’t do anything wrong”.

Officer #1 performed the Complainant’s Risk Assessment. The Complainant took medication for various medical conditions but had no other concerns. No injury was observed nor mentioned by the Complainant.

At about 9:40 a.m., the Complainant was escorted into the fingerprint room by Officer #2. Officer #3 photographed and fingerprinted the Complainant. He was not handcuffed and was cooperative.

At 9:43 a.m., while the Complainant was printed and photographed, he complained of bruises suffered on his left leg during his arrest and wanted to file a report. Officer #2 said she would inform someone, and he could file a report once released.The Complainant did not display or mention any injury to his right arm, nor was one seen. He flexed and extended both arms to photograph his tattoos without issue.

At around 4:00 p.m., the Complainant was escorted to the booking area by Officer #3. The Complainant stood steadily and spoke without slurring. Officer #4 provided him his release orders for assault with a weapon [cellphone], a LECA complaints form, and his personal property. The Complainant indicated bruises in his right bicep area to Officer #4 but tattoos on both arms made it difficult to discern the intensity of any bruises. He asked Officer #4 if police took photographs, to which she said no, but he could submit his own photographs with the LECA report. The Complainant displayed significant range of motion of his right arm as he sorted through property, signed documents with his right hand, raised his arm to shoulder level to don his jacket, and threaded his belt behind his back.

BPS Communications Recordings – Telephone

A family member called 911 for assistance at a residence in the area of King George Road and Fairview Drive, as the Complainant was hitting the CW.

Police had been called for previous interactions between the Complainant and the CW involving domestic confrontations.

The Complainant and the CW were unaware a family member had called police. The 911 caller stated the Complainant drank alcohol but was unsure if he had consumed alcohol that night.

A family member called 911 for assistance at a residence in the area of King George Road and Fairview Drive, as the Complainant was hitting the CW.

Police had been called for previous interactions between the Complainant and the CW regarding domestic confrontations.

The Complainant and the CW were unaware a family member had called police. The 911 caller stated the Complainant drank alcohol but was unsure if he had consumed alcohol that night.

BPS Communications Recordings – Radio

The CW was said to have a laceration under her swollen right eye and a blackened eye.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the BPS between April 8, 2025, and May 20, 2025:

• Arrest, Custody & Occurrence Reports
• Case File Synopsis
• Involved Officers List
• Policies – Arrest; Security; Prisoner Care and Control; and Use of Force
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• ICC recordings - the SO, WO #1 and WO #2
• Notes – WO #1 and WO #2
• Custody footage

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between April 7, 2025, and May 8, 2025:

• Photographs of injuries from the Complainant
• The Complainant’s medical records from BGH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, a civilian witness and a couple of police officers, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the early morning of February 10, 2025, BPS officers, including the SO, were called to the residence in the area of King George Road and Fairview Drive. The Complainant’s family member had called police to report that the Complainant was assaulting the CW. The SO, joined by WO #1 and WO #2, arrived on scene and knocked on the door, announcing they would force their way in if the door was not opened promptly.

The Complainant opened the door, and the officers quickly entered. A physical engagement ensued in which the Complainant was forced to the floor of the foyer. The Complainant was handcuffed behind the back, lifted to his feet, escorted outside and placed in the rear of a police cruiser.

The Complainant was released from police custody in the afternoon and attended hospital the next day. He was diagnosed with a torn right bicep tendon and underwent surgery on February 13, 2025.

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 seriously injured in the course of his arrest by BPS officers on February 10, 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.

With information at their disposal from the 911 call that the Complainant had assaulted the CW, I am satisfied that the officers had a legitimate basis to take him into custody for assault.

As for the force brought to bear by the officers in the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was unwarranted. There is a version of events proffered in the evidence that suggests the takedown was precipitous. It is alleged the Complainant had not demonstrated any threatening behaviour but was grounded anyway. On the other hand, there is evidence in the witness officials’ accounts of what occurred that the Complainant adopted an aggressive posture – his left hand raised in the direction of the officers – when the decision was made to take him to the floor. A takedown in these circumstances would seem a reasonable tactic to prevent an assault while better positioning the officers to deal with any continuing resistance on the part of the Complainant. On this record, I am not satisfied that the evidence of excessive force in relation to the takedown is sufficiently cogent to justify criminal charges. The only other force used by the officers was lifting the Complainant to his feet after he was handcuffed. Indeed, there is evidence that this is when the injury to the Complainant’s shoulder was incurred. Be that as it may, while the maneuver might have been awkward and accomplished with a degree of force – it is alleged the Complainant was “jerked” off the ground – I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officers transgressed the limits of justified force when they stood the Complainant up.

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

Date: October 9, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit