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 September 15, 2025, at 11:24 a.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On September 15, 2025, at 2:10 a.m., an officer was patrolling the Western University grounds when he observed the Complainant riding a bicycle with a chainsaw visible inside his backpack. The officer stopped the Complainant and confirmed he was wanted on a warrant. The Complainant dropped his bicycle and fled when the officer attempted to effect an arrest. The officer deployed his conducted energy weapon (CEW) and took the Complainant into custody. He was transported to the station, processed and lodged in the cells, subsequently complaining of soreness to his wrist. The Complainant was transported to London Health Sciences Centre - Victoria Hospital (LHSC – VH) and diagnosed with a broken left wrist.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/09/15 at 12:00 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/09/15 at 3:15 p.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 September 15, 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 October 28, 2025.

Witness Official (WO)

WO Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the intersection of Brough Street and University Crescent, London.

Physical Evidence

Brough Street was a two-lane paved street that runs north and south. University Crescent was a two-lane paved street that runs east and west. The area was a residential neighbourhood consisting of mainly single-family dwellings near the University of Western Ontario.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – The SO

On September 15, 2025, at 2:15:07 a.m.,[2] a cartridge was deployed and electricity was discharged for 4.96 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

LPS Communications Recordings & Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

Starting at 2:16:14 a.m., September 15, 2025, the SO advised LPS dispatch that he was with the Complainant near Brough Street and University Crescent.

Starting at 2:17:23 a.m., the WO was dispatched to assist the SO.

Starting at 2:19:46 a.m., the SO requested that LPS dispatch confirm a Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) result.

Starting at 2:23:37 a.m., the WO telephoned a CPIC operator to confirm the Complainant was the subject of an unendorsed warrant.

Starting at 2:39:56 a.m., the Complainant arrived at LPS holding cells.

LPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The WO

Starting at 2:19:10 a.m., September 15, 2025, the SO was captured holding onto the Complainant, whose hands were handcuffed behind the back. The Complainant was brought to the WO’s vehicle.

Starting at 2:20:55 a.m., the Complainant spoke with the WO and was advised he had been arrested for a bench warrant.

Starting at 2:30:35 a.m., the WO left the scene with the Complainant. As they travelled in the cruiser, the Complainant told the WO he had been tasered because he attempted to run after providing the SO his name. He knew he would be arrested once he gave his name and did not want to get “dope sick” while in custody.

Starting at 2:44:03 a.m., the Complainant complained of pain in his left wrist and told the WO he thought it was broken.

LPS Cell & Booking Area Footage

Starting at 2:55:24 a.m., September 15, 2025, the Complainant was captured supporting his left arm while in the LPS cell area.

Starting at 2:59:05 a.m., the Complainant was asked about injuries. The Complainant did not mention any injuries but said that had been tasered and that he felt “dope sick”.

Starting at 3:04:29 a.m., the Complainant informed a special constable that his wrist hurt.

Starting at 3:45:48 a.m., the Complainant was placed in a cell.

Starting at 7:29:41 a.m., the Complainant was removed from his cell favouring his left arm.

Starting at 7:33:06 a.m., the Complainant was transported to the hospital.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the LPS between September 18, 2025, and October 14, 2025:

• Names/call signs and roles of involved police officers
• General Occurrence Report
• Arrest Report
• BWC footage - the WO
• Notes – the WO
• Booking and cell video footage
• CEW deployment data
• CAD Report
• Police communications recordings
• LPS policies – Use of Force; Arrest and Detention

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from LHSC - VH on October 3, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the early morning of September 15, 2025, the Complainant was riding his bicycle in the area of Brough Street and University Crescent when he was stopped by a LPS officer operating a marked police pick-up truck. The officer – the SO – explained that the Complainant was riding the bicycle without a light. Asked for his name, the Complainant provided it before attempting to cycle away from the SO.

The SO reversed his cruiser to block the Complainant’s path and then completed a computer check. He learned that the Complainant was subject to an arrest warrant on charges of theft, assaulting police and resisting police. The officer exited his vehicle, took hold of the Complainant’s arm, and told him he was under arrest.

The Complainant, now off his bicycle, broke free of the SO’s hold and began to run away from the officer. He had not travelled very far before his body locked-up and he fell to the ground.

The SO had discharged his CEW, striking the Complainant in the back. The officer approached the Complainant on the ground and handcuffed him behind the back.

The Complainant was transported to the police station and lodged in a cell. He complained of soreness in his left arm and was transported to hospital where he was diagnosed with a broken left wrist.

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 arrest by a LPS officer on September 15, 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 information at his disposal that there was a warrant in effect authorizing the Complainant’s arrest, I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights in moving to take him into custody.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, namely, a single CEW discharge, was legally justified. The Complainant had already attempted to thwart the officer by cycling away from the scene when, now on foot, he tried to evade arrest by running away. The use of the CEW made sense in the circumstances. If it worked as intended, it would put an end to the Complainant’s flight without inflicting serious injury. At the same time, it would position the SO to better deal with any continuing resistance by the Complainant, which the officer might reasonably expect of a fleeing suspect. But for the broken wrist, which may or may not have occurred when the Complainant fell from the CEW discharge,[4] that is essentially what occurred. That the Complainant broke his wrist is regrettable, but the injury did not render what was otherwise a reasonable use of force, unreasonable.

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

Date: January 9, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit