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

Notification of the SIU[1]

On August 22, 2025, at 8:50 a.m., the Barrie Police Service (BPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On August 22, 2025, at about 12:40 a.m., officers were called to an address in Barrie in connection with a woman - the Complainant - refusing to leave an Uber vehicle. At 1:06 a.m., arriving officers observed the Complainant. She appeared to be intoxicated by alcohol and/or drugs. She had reportedly been picked up at the bus terminal by the Uber driver and taken to this location, where she refused to leave and jumped into the front seat, attempting to drive. The Complainant was arrested for public intoxication and transported to the BPS station. At about 6:50 a.m., while in a police cell, the Complainant began striking her head against the wall causing a significant head injury. Several officers attended, and the Complainant was restrained and subsequently transported to the Royal Victoria Hospital (RVH) via ambulance.

At 12:29 p.m., the BPS contacted the SIU and further advised that the Complainant had been admitted to the Intensive Care Unit with non-life-threatening injuries.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/08/22 at 12:45 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/08/22 at 2:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on August 26, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO #1 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 on September 16, 2025.

Service Employee Witnesses (SEW)

SEW #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SEW #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SEW #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The service employee witnesses were interviewed on September 15, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a cell of the cellblock of the BPS police station.

The cell was a standard holding cell equipped with a concrete bed, toilet and surveillance camera. The cell was part of a secure facility monitored continuously via camera and staffed by officers and special constables. The cell itself was enclosed by solid walls and a secure door with a slot hatch used for communication and item exchange.

During the incident, the cell became contaminated with blood, particularly on the wall

behind the concrete bed and across the floor. The hallway outside the cell was part of the booking and monitoring area, where officers responded to the emergency. The Complainant had been dragged into the hallway, where she was restrained and provided medical attention by police and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

BPS Cellblock Video Footage[3]

On August 22, 2025, at 1:38 a.m., a BPS cruiser arrived in the station’s garage. The Complainant was removed and informed she was under arrest for public intoxication. Officers advised that she would be released without charges once sober. During booking, the Complainant disclosed she had a seizure disorder and mental health issues but denied any intent to harm herself.

The Complainant was placed in a cell at 1:51 a.m. Over the next several hours, she

exhibited increasingly erratic behaviour. She called out repeatedly for officers, appeared distressed, and at times spoke incoherently.

By 3:39 a.m., the Complainant removed her shirt and dipped her hair into the toilet water.

At 4:12 a.m., SEW #2 approached her cell and attempted communication. Shortly after, the Complainant reached through the cell door slot, grabbed SEW #2’s vest, and removed a set of keys, including the cell key. She threw the keys onto the bench inside the cell and resisted efforts to return them. Despite repeated verbal requests from SEW #2, the Complainant refused to surrender the keys.

At 4:21 a.m., SEW #2 and WO #4 entered the cell to retrieve the keys. The Complainant resisted and a struggle ensued. She was eventually brought to a seated position on the bench, where officers worked to restrain her and recover the keys. The Complainant continued to resist, kick and thrash during the interaction. Following the struggle to retrieve the cell keys, the Complainant continued to resist officers inside the cell.

At 4:22 a.m., the Complainant stated, “I gave you the keys,” but remained physically combative. She attempted to push off SEW #2 and slide into the hallway, and later grabbed onto SEW #2’s legs while on the floor. Both officers exited the cell shortly after recovering the keys.

At 6:16 a.m., the Complainant asked SEW #1, “Do you want to fight me?” SEW #1 calmly declined and exited the area.

At 6:48 a.m., the Complainant began slamming the back of her head against the cell floor. Despite verbal intervention from SEW #1, she began to hit her head against the wall with increasing force, causing visible bleeding.[4] She made statements such as, “I can touch my brain,” and continued to strike her head repeatedly, using her body to spring off the bed. Blood was observed running down her body and pooling on the floor.

At 6:53 a.m., officers observed her through the cell window before entering at 6:54 a.m. to intervene. Verbal attempts to de-escalate were made, but the Complainant resisted and flailed on the ground. She was pulled into the hallway and placed on her back, where officers began rendering first-aid. The Complainant appeared unconscious briefly but then tensed and attempted to break free again.

EMS arrived at 7:04 a.m., and the Complainant was transferred to a stretcher at 7:19 a.m.

BPS Footage - Officer #1 and Officer #2

At 1:02 a.m., August 22, 2025, the Complainant was captured speaking with Officer #1 and Officer #2. She explained that she was trying to reach her friend’s house for a planned Narcotics Anonymous camping trip in Algonquin Park but believed she had been dropped off at the wrong address by an Uber driver. Her cellphone was dead, and the driver refused to let her use his phone.

During the interaction, the Complainant appeared distressed. She slurred her words, acted jumpy, and stated she was “freaking out”. When asked if she had consumed any substances, she said she had a Twisted Tea and denied drug use. She also mentioned having sustained a concussion and experiencing seizures earlier in the week, which she believed were affecting her emotions and memory, making her appear “really high”.

At 1:11 a.m., she reiterated that she had not taken drugs but had consumed “half a mickey” and a Twisted Tea. The Complainant requested to spend the night in a cell, explaining she had no money for a hotel and did not feel safe staying elsewhere due to her mental state.

At 1:22 a.m., officers placed the Complainant under arrest for public intoxication. During transport to the station, she was unable to maintain coherent conversation. When asked again if she was high, she responded affirmatively but did not specify what substance she might have consumed.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the BPS between August 22, 2025, and September 2, 2025:

• Notes - WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4
• Notes – SEW #1, SEW #2 and SEW #3
• General Occurrence Report
• Supplementary Report
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Prisoner Custody Log
• Detainee Policy
• Arrest Report
• Video footage of police cellblock
• BWC footage of Officer #1 and Officer #2
• Communications recordings

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources on August 26, 2025:

• The Complainant’s medical records from RVH
• Injury photos provided by the Complainant

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and her police custodians, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was her legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of her notes.

The Complainant was arrested for public intoxication by Officer #1 and Officer #2 in the early morning of August 22, 2025. An Uber driver had contacted police when the Complainant refused to exit his vehicle after arriving at an address in Barrie. The Complainant was taken into custody without incident, transported to the police station and lodged in a police cell at about 1:50 a.m. During her booking, she explained that she suffered from a seizure disorder and had mental health issues. She denied suicidal ideation.

The Complainant’s behaviour became increasingly erratic during her time in the cell. She repeatedly called out for officers, spoke incoherently and began to dip her hair into the toilet water. Shortly after 4:00 a.m., concerned with the Complainant wrapping her shirt around her head, SEW #2 attended at her cell. Reaching through the cell door hatch, the Complainant was able to remove a set of keys from SEW #2’s vest, including the key to her cell. SEW #2 attempted to convince her to return the keys, but she refused.

Together with WO #4, SEW #2 entered the cell. Following a physical engagement with the Complainant during which she struggled against the officers, they were able to secure the key and exit the cell.

At about 6:48 a.m., the Complainant began to bang her head forcefully against the cell’s hard surfaces. Special constables observing her behaviour alerted police officers at the station. From outside the cell, they spoke to the Complainant to have her stop what she was doing. When she continued, several of them entered the cell, including the SO, to physically stop her hurting herself. The Complainant struggled with the officers but was eventually pulled out from the cell and restrained on the floor.

Paramedics attended the cell area, administered two rounds of sedation, and took charge of the Complainant’s care. She was transported to hospital and treated for serious scalp lacerations. Toxicological testing revealed the presence of amphetamines and benzodiazepines.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

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 while in the custody of the BPS on August 22, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming the officer with overall responsibility for the care of detainees at the time of the events in question – 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 injuries.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the Complainant’s custodians, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to her injuries. In my view, there was not.

I am satisfied that the Complainant was lawfully in police custody through the series of events culminating in the episode of self-harm inside the cell. She appeared impaired, slurred her words, admitted to alcohol consumption and expressed concern to the arresting officers about having a safe place to stay that night. In the circumstances, Officer #1 and Officer #2 were within their rights in taking her into custody for public intoxication pursuant to section 31 of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019.

I am also satisfied that the officers charged with the Complainant’s supervision during her time in cells comported themselves with due care and regard for her health and safety. The evidence indicates that she was regularly checked by special constables. The evidence further indicates that her custodians promptly detected her banging her head inside the cell and took action to prevent her harming herself, first by attempting to verbally dissuade her from continuing, and by subsequently entering her cell to physically restrain her. Paramedics were also summoned quickly, and arrived in a timely fashion to assume the Complainant’s care. On this record, there is no reason to believe that the SO, ultimately responsible for the Complainant’s wellbeing while in police cells, transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.

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

Date: December 16, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit