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 47-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

At 6:56 a.m., August 7, 2025, the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On August 6, 2025, at 6:59 p.m., PRP received a call regarding the Complainant, who was in mental health crisis at his parents’ residence - in the area of Dixie Road and Queen Street East, Brampton. Officers arrived shortly after 7:00 p.m. and formed grounds to conduct a mental health apprehension. The apprehension took place without incident at 7:17 p.m. The Complainant was transported by police to Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH) where a mental health form was issued by a doctor.[2] Hospital security took custody of the Complainant at 11:10 p.m., and police were released of their responsibilities. On August 7, 2025, at around 1:00 a.m., hospital security reported that the Complainant had become physically aggressive and punched one security officer in the head. PRP officers, who were already on scene at the hospital for an unrelated matter, assisted security officers in detaining the Complainant. Officers were involved in taking the Complainant to the ground and handcuffing him. The involved officers returned to their previous locations in the hospital and security officers returned the Complainant to his gurney. Minutes later, the Complainant went into medical distress with vital signs absent.

At 8:56 a.m., PRP contacted the SIU to advise that hospital staff had told police that the reason for admission to hospital was because of cardiac arrest.

At 11:15 a.m., PRP advised that the Complainant’s diagnosis was now determined to be an Anoxic Brain Injury.[3]

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/08/07 at 12:56 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/08/07 at 1:20 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

47-year-old male; not interviewed; unfit for interview

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

CW #7 Interviewed

CW #8 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between August 17, 2025, and August 20, 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 September 4, 2025.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on August 21, 2025.

Service Employee Witnesses (SEW)

SEW #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SEW #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The service employee witnesses were interviewed on August 14, 2025.

Investigative Delay

There was an initial delay in conducting interviews of officials while causation of injury was determined and to correctly designate officials.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in an examination room of the emergency unit of the BCH, 2100 Bovaird Drive East, Brampton. The room contained a bed and sink.

SIU forensic services attended the scene and took photographs.

Source – SIU FIS. The above image is the room where the interaction took place.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[4]

PRP Communications Recordings – Radio

On August 6, 2025, at 7:03 p.m., PRP officers attended the Complainant’s home following reports that he was behaving erratically. The Complainant was apprehended under the Mental Health Act and transported by PRP officers to the BCH without incident.

On August 7, 2025, a PRP officer phoned PRP communications bureau and requested an incident number for an assault at BCH.

Hospital Video Footage - BCH - Paladin Security

The hallway outside the examination room where the interaction occurred was captured by video camera. BCH allowed SIU investigators to view the footage.

On August 7, 2025, starting at about 1:07:16 a.m., the Complainant was captured exiting the examination room he was in and punching CW #1 in the face. The Complainant returned to the room and slammed the door closed; he was clearly agitated. The SO, SEW #2 and CW #1 entered the room 20 seconds later, followed by security officers CW #2, CW #3, CW #4 and CW #5. The door to the room shut and the view through the door’s window was obscured by guards and officers, but there appeared to be a violent struggle.

Starting at about 1:08:52 a.m., the door was opened, and the Complainant was face down on the floor, struggling against officers’ attempts to handcuff him. All officers’ and guards’ feet and knees could be seen on the ground, not on the Complainant’s body. The door closed again.

Starting at about 1:10:50 a.m., the door opened, and two guards lifted the Complainant to his feet and sat him on a bed. The Complainant slumped onto his back and a guard called CW #7 into the room.

At 1:12:11 a.m., CPR was commenced, and the Complainant was taken from the room and out of camera view.

Four minutes and ten seconds elapsed from the time the SO entered the room to when CPR commenced. Three and a half minutes elapsed from the time when the Complainant last struggled with officers on the ground to when CPR was commenced.

Source – SIU FIS. The image shows the location of a security camera in the vicinity of the examination room.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from PRP between August 7, 2025, and August 18, 2025:

• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Occurrence Reports
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2, SEW #1 and SEW #2
• Use of force training records – the SO
• PRP policies relating to use of force and persons in crisis

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

PRP officers were called to a residence in the area of Dixie Road and Queen Street East, Brampton, in the evening of August 6, 2025. The Complainant’s parents had called police to report that their son, present on the property, was behaving erratically and causing them concern for their safety. The Complainant was arrested without incident and taken to the BCH for psychiatric assessment.

Several hours later, while alone in an examination room in the emergency department of the hospital, the Complainant began to act out. He repeatedly struck his head against a wall and, exiting the room momentarily, punched a security officer – CW #1 – in the head.

The SO was with SEW #2 in the emergency department on other business. They witnessed the assault on CW #1 and decided to arrest the Complainant. Entering the examination room with CW #1 to find the Complainant banging his head on the wall, the three grabbed hold of the Complainant and pulled him to the centre of the room to prevent him further self-harming. The Complainant resisted and was eventually taken to the floor in a prone position. Other security and police personnel entered the room and assisted in subduing the Complainant. His arms were eventually controlled behind the back and handcuffed. Moments later, the Complainant stopped breathing.

The Complainant was lifted to his feet and placed on a bed where CPR was initiated by CW #1. Medical staff entered the room and continued emergency medical treatment.

The Complainant was diagnosed with an anoxic brain injury, the result of positional asphyxia during his arrest and a resulting cardiac arrest.

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 suffered a serious injury in the course of his arrest by PRP officers on August 7, 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.

I am satisfied that the SO, having observed the Complainant punching CW #1 in the head, was within his rights in moving to take him into custody for assault.

I am also satisfied that the quantum of force brought to bear by the SO and others in the Complainant’s arrest was no more than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances. The evidence establishes that the Complainant was very combative and strenuously resisted his arrest, flailing his arms and legs at the police and security personal around him. The SO and the others reacted in kind by wrestling him to the floor. The takedown was a reasonable tactic as it would allow the officers and security staff a positional advantage from which they could more safely manage the Complainant’s resistance. Though the SO and the others were aware of the risks of positional asphyxia, there were also risks associated with the more prolonged struggle that could have materialized had they not acted as they did, including a delay in medical attention for the Complainant to address his manic state. It should also be noted that the police and security personnel, in an effort to minimize the risks associated with the Complainant’s position on the floor, went out of their way to avoid placing weight on the Complainant’s back while they worked to control and handcuff his arms. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the Complainant was subjected to unwarranted force.

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

Date: December 5, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit