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

Notification of the SIU[1]

On September 4, 2025, at 11:50 a.m., the South Simcoe Police Service (SSPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

The SSPS had recently been served with a civil lawsuit regarding injuries sustained by the Complainant in the course of her arrest by SSPS officers on March 10, 2023. Reportedly, on March 10, 2023, the Complainant had called SSPS to report a domestic dispute at a residence in Innisfil, during which she was struck by her boyfriend, Civilian Witness (CW) #1. Witness Official (WO) #1 and the Subject Official (SO) responded and arrested CW #1. As the incident occurred at CW #1’s parents’ residence, the Complainant was asked to leave. She refused and, instead, sat on a bed, went limp, and declined to get up. She then dropped to the floor, landing on her knees, and complained of pain in her left knee. An ambulance was called, but the Complainant refused medical assistance. Officers transported the Complainant to a shelter, where staff later called an ambulance, and she was taken to hospital. The civil claim indicated that the Complainant underwent reconstructive knee surgery on March 12, 2023, to repair a lateral tibial plateau fracture sustained during her removal from the residence on March 10, 2023. SSPS had not been aware of any injury until the civil claim was served.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/09/04 at 12:32 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/09/04 at 1:10 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

Interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on September 9, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on September 8, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on September 22, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in a bedroom of a residence situated in Innisfil.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

SSPS Communications Recordings – Phone

On March 10, 2023, at 8:44 p.m., the Complainant called 911. She told the communicator that she was okay, apologized for calling, and said everything was fine. The Complainant added that things would get worse if she said anything, that CW #1 would pack her belongings, and that she had nowhere to go and just wanted to sleep. When asked if she was hurt, the Complainant replied, “No, not today.”

The Complainant then handed the phone to CW #1, who said the Complainant had a drinking problem, was on probation, and enrolled in a program. He explained he had been at work, she drank a little, and things got out of hand. In the background, the Complainant yelled, “So that gives you the right to beat the f*** out of me,” to which CW #1 responded, “No one beat the f*** out of you, baby, you know that.” He confirmed members of his family were in the home. When asked why the Complainant called 911, she shouted, “You put your hands on me.” CW #1 denied this, saying she was violent and a repeat offender. He added that he had asked her to move out by the end of the month and mentioned her depression medication, which she did not take because she drank.

CW #1 told the communicator police attendance was unnecessary, but was informed officers would attend because the Complainant had called 911. The Complainant could be heard saying, “I am okay after he punched me in the face. I want all this to go away, to go to sleep and call it a night.” CW #1 denied hitting her.

At 9:39 p.m., an officer [believed to be WO #2] called SSPS and confirmed with the call-taker that the Complainant had reported being punched in the face.

At 9:55 p.m., WO #1 contacted SSPS requesting assistance in finding a shelter

for the Complainant, noting she was packing her belongings. WO #1 confirmed the Complainant had been drinking but had not taken drugs.

At 10:02 p.m., WO #1 spoke to a shelter representative, explaining the Complainant could not stay at the residence because CW #1 would be released on conditions that he not contact the Complainant. WO #1 said the Complainant had a cut on her nose from being punched but had declined an ambulance.

At 10:25 p.m., SSPS requested an ambulance to attend the residence for a female complaining of leg pain.

At 11:49 p.m., SSPS called again, advising that the Complainant had refused treatment earlier but now, at the shelter, was asking for an ambulance to take her to the hospital because she could not walk.

On March 11, 2023, at 12:22 a.m., an ambulance confirmed it would attend the shelter.

At 12:26 a.m., WO #1 spoke to SSPS, explaining that the Complainant had been difficult. She had refused to leave, and thrown herself on the floor, likely injuring her knee. WO #1 said the Complainant was handcuffed after resisting and pretended she could not walk to avoid leaving. WO #1 added that the Complainant had no rights to remain in the home as it was her boyfriend’s family’s property. WO #1 noted the Complainant later said her boyfriend did not hit her and refused to cooperate. WO #1 believed the Complainant would be fine once sober and confirmed she would be taken to the hospital by ambulance before returning to the shelter.

SSPS Communications Recordings – Radio

The dispatcher advised WO #1 and WO #2 of a 911 call concerning a domestic dispute at a residence in Innisfil. The caller [the Complainant] initially asked for help, then disconnected. When contacted again, the Complainant said everything was fine but later stated that CW #1 had punched her in the face. She declined an ambulance. Both parties had been drinking, and no drugs or weapons were involved.

At 9:48 p.m., WO #2 reported that CW #1 was in custody for assault. WO #3 acknowledged the transmission. The SO requested to be added to the call.

WO #1 confirmed one person was under arrest. The Complainant could be heard

yelling in the background.

WO #2 requested an ambulance for the Complainant, who was complaining of leg pain,

noting there was no rush. The SO later asked for the ambulance’s estimated arrival

time. The dispatcher advised 15 minutes.

At 10:57 p.m., WO #2 reported that the SO had released the Complainant, and WO #3 acknowledged. The SO confirmed the ambulance was on scene.

At 11:16 p.m., WO #1 advised she was transporting the Complainant to a shelter in Barrie.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the SSPS between September 4, 2025, and September 8, 2025:

• General Occurrence Report
• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Domestic Violence Risk Management Report
• Simcoe County Emergency Medical Services Report - the Complainant
• SSPS Domestic Violence Policy
• Notes - WO #1, the SO and WO #2
• Civilian Witness List

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between September 4, 2025, and September 8, 2025:

• The Complainant’s medical records from Royal Victoria Hospital
• Cell phone audio recording from CW #2

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

In the evening of March 10, 2023, SSPS officers were called to a residence in Innisfil. The Complainant had contacted police about a domestic disturbance involving her and her boyfriend, CW #1. CW #1 had reportedly assaulted the Complainant.

WO #1 and WO #2 were the first to arrive on scene, joined shortly by the SO. They spoke to the Complainant and CW #1 and decided to arrest CW #1 for assault. He was removed from the house with the intention that he would be released at the scene and returned inside once the Complainant was relocated. The two had resided together in an upstairs room of the house, which was owned by CW #1’s family.

Told she would have to leave, the Complainant objected. She paid rent on the room, and had nowhere to go. The officers insisted she had to leave, and offered to set her up in a woman’s shelter in Barrie. The Complainant was given some time to collect her belongings. She was eventually arrested by the SO for trespassing when she did not move quickly enough to vacate the home. The Complainant fell during the arrest process, fracturing her left knee.

The Complainant was refused admittance at the shelter because it appeared to staff that she was injured and experiencing difficulty walking. Paramedics attended at the facility and transported the Complainant to hospital where her injury was diagnosed.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code of Canada - 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.

On September 4, 2025, the SSPS notified the SIU that they were in possession of information indicating that the Complainant was seriously injured in the course of her arrest by SSPS officers on March 10, 2023. The SIU 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.

The lawfulness of the Complainant’s arrest for trespassing is not entirely clear. She was in her bedroom at the time, for which she paid rent, and had not been provided much of an opportunity to vacate the premises at the request of the homeowners. On the other hand, boarders, like the Complainant, do not have the same rights of notice as do tenants. They are entitled to reasonable notice of eviction, and that depends on the circumstances at hand. In this matter, there is an arguable case that the officers were entitled to enforce a very quick notice period in light of the domestic disturbance that had just occurred and a desire to want to keep the Complainant and CW #1 separate following his release. Moreover, the evidence indicates that the officers had provided the Complainant some time to collect her belongings before forcing her out of the house, and that they only acted to do so when there was reason to believe she was intentionally delaying the process. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the Complainant’s arrest was without a lawful basis.

With respect to the force used in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, there is conflicting evidence. There is a version of events proffered in the evidence that the Complainant was thrown to the floor by the SO, after she was handcuffed, for no apparent reason. On the other hand, WO #1, who assisted the SO in the arrest, says that she and the SO lifted the Complainant from the bed when it appeared she was refusing to leave, after which the Complainant went limp and fell to the floor when the officers released their grip. In his notes, made available to the SIU, the SO provides similar evidence. He explains that the Complainant dropped herself intentionally to the floor on two occasions, the second after she had been handcuffed for trespassing. On the officers’ rendition of events, no force of any significance was used in taking the Complainant into custody. The medical evidence collected by the SIU regarding the mechanism of injury suggested significant force was applied to cause the injury, but did not unequivocally rule out a self-inflicted injury of the type described by the officers. In the circumstances, there being no reason to believe that the incriminating version of what happened is any likelier to be closer to the truth than that offered by the officers, I am unable to conclude on reasonable and probable grounds that excessive force was brought to bear by the SO.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with charges against the SO in this case.

The SIU’s investigation gave rise to evidence suggesting possible violations of the service’s policy – Intimate Partner / Domestic Violence. I will be referring these matters to the SSPS for their review. Pursuant to the SIU’s legal obligation under section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, I will also be referring these matters to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: December 31, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit