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 25-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On August 19, 2025, at 5:16 p.m. the Barrie Police Service (BPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On August 19, 2025, the Complainant was arrested for an assault at the Georgian Mall in Barrie. At approximately 11:35 a.m., he was brought into the BPS police station to be processed. The Complainant became aggressive while waiting to be processed. Once the booking process was completed by Witness Official (WO) #1, the Complainant was walked towards the cells for lodging. The Complainant hesitated at the entrance to the cell door before he quickly turned with a closed right fist and attempted to strike Subject Official (SO) #1. SO #1 then struck the Complainant with a closed hand. A second police officer [now known to be SO #2] tried to subdue the Complainant but was unsuccessful. A third police officer [now known to be WO #4] deployed a conducted energy weapon (CEW). The Complainant tensed up, leaned towards the wall, and fell to the floor. The Complainant was transported to Royal Victoria Hospital (RVH) in Barrie and diagnosed with a broken nose. He declined treatment and was returned to custody at the police station for a bail hearing.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/08/19 at 5:38 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/08/20 at 6:20 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on August 29, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

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

SO #2 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

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between August 22, 2025, and August 28, 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 28, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the corridor outside a cell of the BPS Headquarters.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data - WO #4

On August 19, 2025, at 12:06:36 p.m.,[2] the trigger was pulled, and Cartridge 1 was deployed.

At 12:06:37 p.m., the trigger was pulled, and Cartridge 2 was deployed.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

BWC Footage

On August 19, 2025, starting at about 10:53 a.m., WO #3 arrested the Complainant for assault. He was placed in a police vehicle and complained that his handcuffs were too tight.

Starting at about 11:30 a.m., the Complainant again complained that his handcuffs were too tight. He promised that he would not fight, and the handcuffs were loosened.

Starting at about 12:06 p.m., the Complainant was escorted from the custody room of the police station into the cell hallway. The Complainant was not handcuffed, and no one held onto him. Behind the Complainant were SO #1, SO #2, WO #2 and WO #4, followed by WO #3. Suddenly, WO #4 was seen with his CEW drawn. SO #2, to the left of SO #1 and on the Complainant’s right side, delivered a right-handed punch towards the Complainant. Where the punch landed could not be discerned. SO #2 delivered a second punch and struck the Complainant’s left shoulder. The Complainant was heard to say, “Ow, ow, okay, okay.” The Complainant was captured laying on the floor on his stomach, his head next to the door frame on the right side of the cell. SEW #2 knelt by the right side of the Complainant’s head. SO #2 and SO #1, and SEW #1, handcuffed the Complainant, and WO #2 stood nearby. WO #4 had his CEW drawn.

Starting at about 12:07 p.m., the Complainant was instructed to get his arm out or the CEW would be deployed again. WO #3 advised that the Complainant’s nose was bloody and he was going to need a medic. The Complainant said, “Please kill me,” a few times, and WO #3 said, “He hit [SO #1’s first name].”

Starting at about 12:08 p.m., SO #2 said, “Did he catch you there.” SO #1 said, “I don’t know where it was, but it wasn’t clean though.” SO #1 was asked if he was okay, and he said, “Yes.”

Starting at about 12:10 p.m., SO #1 told police officers that he did not know where the Complainant hit him, and that his eyeglasses were still on. WO #4 said one CEW prong was on the Complainant’s stomach, and one was on his thigh. A police officer said there was blood coming from the Complainant’s nose, and there was a mark on the top of the Complainant’s head. WO #3 said the Complainant might have hit his head on the way down.

Starting at about 12:16 p.m., the Complainant said to a paramedic that he had spent hours in a car and his hands were numb.

Custody Footage

On August 19, 2025, starting at about 11:59 a.m., the Complainant was being escorted into the booking room by WO #3 and WO #2. The Complainant sat on a bench when directed and was paraded in front of WO #1. The Complainant cried and complained of being in pain. He was directed to stand to be searched by SEW #2, and again complained of pain in his right wrist. SEW #2 removed the handcuffs from the Complainant. SEW #2 conducted a search of the Complainant without incident.

Starting at about 12:06 p.m., the Complainant was directed to walk towards the cells. No one held onto the Complainant, who checked his right hand as he walked. SEW #1 was on the Complainant’s left side, closest to a wall. SO #1 walked on the Complainant’s left side. WO #4 and WO #2 walked behind the Complainant, and SO #2 walked on the Complainant’s right side. The Complainant continued down the hall towards the cells. He asked, “Why would you guys do that to me?” The Complainant reached the door leading to the cells. SEW #2 was ahead of the Complainant as they entered the cell area. SEW #2 directed the Complainant towards a cell on the left side of the hallway.

Starting at about 12:06:40 p.m., as the Complainant approached the cell, he turned to his left, faced SO #1, and threw a right-handed punch at the officer. SO #1 recoiled away from the Complainant, and then moved forward, pushing the Complainant back. SO #1 threw five right-handed punches towards the Complainant. SO #2 threw a right-handed punch towards the Complainant. Where the punches landed on the Complainant could not be discerned. WO #4 discharged his CEW twice at the Complainant at close range. The Complainant fell to the floor on his stomach in front of the cell.

Communications Recordings

On August 19, 2025, at 10:37 a.m., the BPS dispatcher advised that two men and a woman were at the Georgian Mall causing a disturbance. The suspects were reportedly aggressive and had tried to remove a turban from a security guard.

At 10:53 a.m., WO #3 said she had one person in custody [now known to be the Complainant].

At 11:04 a.m., the dispatcher advised that there was a surety committal warrant for the Complainant. He was flagged as violent and known to carry weapons. He had a history for assaultive behaviour, which included “assault police officer”.

At 11:30 a.m., WO #3 reportedly was en route to the police station.

At 12:28 p.m., WO #2 was said to be with the Complainant in the ambulance en route to the RVH.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the BPS between August 21, 2025, and September 15, 2025:

• BWC footage
• Custody footage
• Communications recordings
• CEW deployment data
• Arrest Report
• Booking Report
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Committal Warrant
• History Report – the Complainant
• Notes – WO #3, WO #2, WO #4 and WO #1
• Notes – SEW #1 and SEW #2
• Policies – Use of Force
• Prisoner Medical Treatment Form – the Complainant
• Release Order

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between August 28, 2025, and September 11, 2025:

• Ambulance Call Report from Simcoe County Paramedics
• The Complainant’s medical records from RVH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews of the Complainant and police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

The Complainant was arrested without incident at the Georgian Mall in Barrie by WO #3 and SEW #1. He was taken to the police station and searched, again without incident. Additional officers made their way to the booking area during the Complainant’s intake procedure because of “violence” flags in his police records.

Shortly after noon, the Complainant was escorted to his cell surrounded by several police officers, including SO #1 and SO #2, and two special constables. His handcuffs had been removed. Arriving at the cell, the Complainant turned counterclockwise, cocked his right hand, and threw a punch at SO #1’s head. The blow glanced off the officer’s neck and shoulder area. He and SO #2 reacted by pushing the Complainant back against the cell wall and punching at him with their right hands. WO #4 was also present. He deployed his CEW at the Complainant as the last of the punches were being thrown. The Complainant locked-up and fell to the floor.

The Complainant was seen at hospital after the incident 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.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the custody of the BPS on August 19, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1 and 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 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.

There are no questions raised in the evidence regarding the lawfulness of the Complainant’s arrest.

Once under arrest, the Complainant’s police custodians were entitled to exercise reasonable control of his movement so he could be safely processed according to law. I am satisfied that this is what happened when the Complainant, without warning or provocation, punched SO #1. The officer reacted with like force when he pushed the Complainant back and delivered a series of his own punches in rapid succession. The same can be said for SO #2’s blows and the use by WO #4 of his CEW. Engaged as they were in a violent clash with the Complainant, the officers were within their rights in responding with sharp force to immediately subdue and re-establish custody over their detainee. No further strikes or CEW use occurred after the Complainant was on the floor. In arriving at this conclusion, I am mindful that the law does not require officers in the heat of a physical engagement to measure their responsive force with precision; what is required is a reasonable response, not an exacting one: R v Nasogaluak, [2010] 1 SCR 206; R v Baxter (1975), 27 CCC (2d) 96 (Ont. CA).

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

Date: December 11, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit