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 man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On August 20, 2025, at 3:29 a.m., the Windsor Police Service (WPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On August 19, 2025, at approximately 10:00 p.m., police officers were called to an address in the area of Lauzon Parkway and McHugh Street, Windsor, for an incident of family violence. The caller [now known to be Civilian Witness (CW) #1] reported that the Complainant was combative and highly intoxicated. Police attended and a physical struggle ensued in the hallway of the apartment building as officers moved to arrest the Complainant for public intoxication. The Complainant pushed one police officer, punched another, and kicked a third. The Complainant was transported to Windsor Regional Hospital – Ouellette Campus (WRH-OC) after his arrest, where he was examined. He had sustained a nasal bone fracture.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/08/20 at 4:03 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/08/20 at 9:24 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on August 20, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on August 25, 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

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between August 22, 2025, and September 11, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in a stairwell of a building in the area of Lauzon Parkway and McHugh Street, Windsor.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Police Custody Footage

On August 20, 2025, at 3:23 a.m., five WPS police officers exited an elevator in the WPS custody facility with the Complainant, who was seated in a wheelchair. The Complainant was handcuffed with his hands behind his back, and his legs were secured in leg restraints. The Complainant had a bruised left eye, and dried blood on his face and under his nose. The Complainant stood up and was subjected to a pat-down search. His shoes were removed.

The Complainant was uncooperative during the booking procedure. He said, “They attacked me for no reason, broke my nose, and I will not cooperate after the way you guys treated me.” He refused to answer questions about his alcohol consumption.

At 3:30 a.m., the Complainant was escorted to a holding cell.

Police Communications Recordings

On August 19, 2025, at 9:42 p.m., CW #1 called the WPS via 911 line and requested police attendance at an address in the area of Lauzon Parkway and McHugh Street, Windsor. CW #1 and his wife needed help with the Complainant, who was uncontrollable and violent. Arguing was heard in the background.

At 9:55 p.m., CW #1 called 911 again and asked where the police were. His voice was elevated, and he yelled it was an emergency. He advised that the Complainant had just assaulted someone.

At 9:57 p.m., WO #3, WO #2 and the SO were asked if they could clear for a priority. The officers acknowledged and were dispatched. The police officers were advised that the Complainant was extremely intoxicated. They were also told that the Complainant disliked police, was known to be violent, had a criminal record, had previously assaulted a police officer, and was prohibited from possessing weapons.

At 9:59 p.m., WO #1 asked to be assigned to the call.

At 9:59 p.m., WO #3 and WO #2 arrived on scene. The dispatcher reported that CW #1 had called 911 again. There was an open line, and crying was heard in the background. The police officers acknowledged.

At 10:01 p.m., the SO arrived on scene. CW #1 reported that the Complainant had assaulted his wife. He believed the Complainant had no weapons. The dispatcher advised the police officers that the Complainant had struck CW #1’s wife. CW #1 indicated that police officers had arrived, and the telephone call ended.

At 10:04 p.m., WO #3 requested paramedics due to a laceration to the forehead of CW #1’s wife. WO #3 advised that CW #1’s wife refused to cooperate with police.

At 10:08 p.m., WO #1 arrived on scene.

At 10:42 p.m., a breathless WO #3 advised that one person was in custody for public intoxication. WO #1 requested the prisoner transport vehicle.

At 10:45 p.m., the SO requested a second ambulance. The Complainant was now in custody for assaulting police, and the Complainant had injuries to his face. A struggle was heard in the background.

At 10:46 p.m., a second ambulance was dispatched. WO #3 advised that the Complainant was extremely irate, intoxicated and bleeding from the nose.

At 10:53 p.m., paramedics arrived on scene. The Complainant continued to spit at the police officers.

At 11:08 p.m., WO #3 advised a secondary ambulance had arrived on scene to administer sedation to the Complainant. Dispatch advised the prisoner transport vehicle had arrived, if required.

At 11:30 p.m., WO #3 advised she would travel in the ambulance with the Complainant, and WO #2 would follow en route to the WRH-OC.

On August 20, 2025, at 2:52 a.m., WO #3 advised the Complainant had escaped trauma room three and was assaultive again.

At 2:54 a.m., WO #3 advised the Complainant had been medically cleared, and would be transported to WPS cells. She requested that the prisoner transport vehicle attend at WRH-OC.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the WPS between August 21, 2025, and September 12, 2025:

• Person History – the Complainant
• Communications recordings
• Custody footage
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Civilian Witness List
• Scene photographs
• Notes and Supplementary Reports – WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3
• Supplementary Reports – Officer #1, Officer #2, Officer #3, Officer #4 and Officer #5, Officer #6 and Officer #7
• Ontario Public Police Interaction Model Framework Document
• WPS Policies – Arrest; Use of Force

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from the WRH-OC on August 27, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and several police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

In the evening of August 19, 2025, WPS officers were called to an address in the area of Lauzon Parkway and McHugh Street. CW #1 had called 911 to report a domestic disturbance involving the Complainant. Officers, including the SO, arrived at the address and were advised that the Complainant had struck CW #1’s wife in the head with a broomstick. CW #1’s wife refused to provide a statement against the Complainant, and it was agreed that the Complainant would leave the residence and spend the night elsewhere. A heavily intoxicated Complainant packed a bag and left with the officers.

The Complainant became verbally abusive and belligerent towards the officers as he was being led down the corridor to the stairwell. Concerned with the Complainant’s combativeness and intoxication, one of the attending officers – WO #3 – decided to arrest him for public intoxication as the parties were in the stairwell. Told he was under arrest, the Complainant turned to face WO #3 and delivered a two-handed push. WO #3 and the SO, and two others, WO #1 and WO #2, intervened physically. There ensued a protracted and violent struggle between the parties during which strikes were exchanged and the Complainant was grounded on the first-floor at the bottom of the stairwell. WO #3 and the SO received cuts to the arm and face, respectively. The Complainant suffered a broken nose in the melee. He was eventually handcuffed behind the back and taken into custody.

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 270(1), Criminal Code - Assaulting a Peace Officer

270 (1) Every one commits an offence who

(a) assaults a public officer or peace officer engaged in the execution of his duty or a person acting in aid of such an officer;

(b) assaults a person with intent to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of himself or another person; or

(c) assaults a person

(i) who is engaged in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure, or

(ii) with intent to rescue anything taken under lawful process, distress or seizure.

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 August 19, 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 reason to believe that the Complainant was significantly inebriated and a danger to himself and others, I am satisfied that the officers were within their rights in moving to arrest him for public intoxication under section 31 of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019. When the Complainant pushed WO #3, he was also subject to arrest for assault police contrary to sections 270(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code.

I am further satisfied that the SO and the other officers did not exceed the remit of justified force in effecting the Complainant’s arrest. The evidence indicates that the Complainant was on the receiving end of multiple punches and knee strikes by the officers, including a punch to the face by WO #3, several punches to the face by the SO, four knee strikes to the torso and legs by WO #1 and a couple of punches to the abdomen by WO #2. The evidence also indicates that the force used by the police occurred in the course of a violent and protracted struggle in which the Complainant punched and kicked at the officers, striking the SO in the face. It is alleged that the Complainant was punched after he was subdued by the officers. That evidence, however, is contested by the officers and undermined by a civilian who witnessed the tail end of the struggle and did not observe any such force. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the force used by the officers was more than was necessary in the circumstances.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant broke his nose in the altercation that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury was attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the arresting officers. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: December 15, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit