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 21-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 30, 2025, at 12:50 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On February 23, 2025, TPS Drug Squad officers in plainclothes investigated and arrested suspects at a residence in the area of Eglinton Avenue East and McCowan Road. The Complainant resisted arrest and was struck in the face by an officer. A loaded firearm fell from his clothing. He was eventually handcuffed and charged with several criminal offences, and held for a bail hearing. The Complainant was later transported to St. Joseph’s Health Centre and diagnosed with a fractured left nasal bone. The TPS did not learn of the injury until much later. The Complainant reported the injury to his lawyer and to his father on March 21, 2025, but neither reported the matter to the TPS. On April 30, 2025, the Complainant, through his lawyer, alleged in court that his nose was fractured during his arrest by TPS officers. The Public Prosecution Service of Canada notified the TPS of the allegation. On May 23, 2025, the TPS Professional Standards Bureau received the Public Prosecution Service of Canada complaint and requested the Complainant’s medical records to substantiate his reported injury. On May 30, 2025, the Complainant’s medical documents were received, revealing a minimally displaced fracture to his left nasal bone.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/06/02 at 9:15 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/06/02 at 9:37 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

Interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on June 16, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between August 26, 2025, and September 1, 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 12, 2025.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

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

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #7 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #8 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between July 23, 2025, and October 6, 2025.

Investigative Delay

Delay was incurred because of resource pressures in the Director’s Office.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the basement of a home situated in the area of Eglinton Avenue East and McCowan Road, Scarborough.

Physical Evidence

Upon entering the side door of the home, there was a landing with stairs leading up to the main floor of the residence and down to the basement.

A bloodstain was located in the basement on the carpeted floor outside the laundry room.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Communications Recordings

The recordings contained a telephone notification alerting the communications centre that a search warrant was to be executed. The remainder of the recordings were efforts to arrange for transportation to the police station for arrested parties.

Search Video

A video recording prepared by WO #2 revealed the layout of the residence. While WO #2 was recording in the living room, he panned around the room and captured an image of the Complainant seated in a chair. The Complainant had numerous abrasions to his eyebrow, forehead, left cheek, chin and lips.

While WO #2 was recording in the basement, he captured an image of one male police officer dressed in grey clothing and a police protective vest. The other police officers inside the residence were only recorded from the legs down. None of them appeared to be in uniform.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) and In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

The SIU obtained BWC and ICC recordings from WO #6 and WO #7, who transported the Complainant from the scene. At 8:52 p.m., February 23, 2025, a female officer, believed to be WO #5, and a male police officer wearing a balaclava over his face escorted the Complainant out of the residence and turned him over to WO #6 and WO #7. The male officer informed WO #6 and WO #7 that there were approximately four people to be transported, but the Complainant should be transported alone because he was wearing so many layers of clothing. The officer was concerned it would be difficult to assign responsibility for anything found in the vehicle following the transport to the station, given the challenge of properly searching the Complainant. WO #7 asked the Complainant if he had anything on his person, and the Complainant responded his telephone was inside the residence.

At 8:57 p.m., the Complainant asked WO #6 if the officers inside the residence had BWCs. WO #6 responded he did not know. The Complainant stated he was accused of assaulting a police officer and he was concerned regarding lack of cameras to confirm he did not assault anybody.

The Complainant complained of feeling nauseous on the way to the police station.

TPS Booking and Release Footage

The SIU reviewed the booking hall and release recordings. At 9:39 p.m., February 23, 2025, the Complainant was escorted before the booking officer. The booking officer was told an investigative search was conducted at the scene. When asked whether he had any injuries, the Complainant’s response was difficult to hear, but he did mention being punched. The booking officer commented the Complainant appeared to have bruising to his forehead, a cut above his left eye and a cut to his bottom lip. The booking officer instructed WO #7 to complete an injury report. The Complainant was searched while in the booking area.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between May 30, 2025, and July 24, 2025:

• Letter from the Public Prosecution Service of Canada
• A list of involved police officers
• A mugshot photograph of the Complainant following his arrest
• Record of Arrest
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Prosecution Summary
• General Occurrence Report
• A copy of a warrant issued to the Toronto Drug Squad
• Communications recordings
• Notes of all designated witness officials
• Video recorded inside a residence following a search
• Custody footage
• ICC footage from the vehicle used to transport the Complainant
• BWC footage from WO #6 and WO #7 – transporting officers
• Injury Report

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained records from the following other sources between June 16, 2025, and July 31, 2025:

• The Complainant’s medical records from St. Joseph’s Health Centre
• Photographs of the Complainant’s injuries from his father

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, and additional police and non-police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the evening of February 23, 2025, the Complainant was a guest in a house situated in the area of Eglinton Avenue East and McCowan Road, Scarborough. As he was making his way upstairs from the basement with the apparent intention of leaving the residence, he was confronted by officers entering the residence through a side door. The Complainant turned around and moved back down the stairs.

The officers were TPS Drug Squad officers entering the house on the strength of a warrant to search for illicit drugs. Once through the side door, the SO made his way down the stairs to the basement where he encountered the Complainant on the floor. With the Complainant in a prone position, the officer positioned himself on top of his back. Following a series of punches to the Complainant’s back and head, the SO handcuffed him behind the back.

A handgun in the Complainant’s possession was located and seized by officers in a subsequent search of his person.

The Complainant’s nose was broken in the course of his 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 was seriously injured in the course of his detention by TPS officers on February 23, 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.

The SO and the Drug Squad team entered the home lawfully on the strength of a search warrant authorizing entry to search for drugs and drug paraphernalia. Though the Complainant was not named in the warrant, the police were within their rights in moving to detain him when he immediately fled at the sight of the officers.

With respect to the force brought to bear against the Complainant by the SO, the evidence does not reasonably establish it was excessive. There is a version of events proffered in the evidence in which the Complainant surrendered to police by prostrating himself on the basement floor and extending his arms above his head but was nevertheless punched repeatedly in the back of the head though he offered no resistance. This account of what occurred, however, must be taken with a grain of salt. It is contested by a civilian witness, whose evidence suggested the Complainant had slipped and fallen to the floor before he was set upon by an officer, belying the suggestion that he had given himself up. It is also contested by the account of WO #8, who, in evidence similar to that provided by the SO, says that the Complainant slipped and fell while trying to get away. The SO concedes that he repeatedly punched the Complainant’s upper body and head but says that he did so when the Complainant refused to release his arms from underneath his torso and in the fear that he was reaching for a weapon. Following the strikes, the officer says he was able to wrestle control of the Complainant’s arms behind the back and secure them in handcuffs. On the officers’ rendition of events, the force used by the SO would appear commensurate with the exigences of the situation. On this record, there being no reason to believe that the incriminating version of events is any likelier to be closer to the truth than that proffered by the police, and some reason to doubt it, I am unable to reasonably conclude that there is sufficient evidence to move forward with charges in this case.

For the foregoing reasons, the file is closed.

Date: January 8, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit