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 46-year-old man.

Notification of the SIU[1]

On September 17, 2025, at 11:31 p.m., South Simcoe Police Service (SSPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On September 17, 2025, at about 9:00 p.m., officers were dispatched to a residential address in the area of Big Bay Point Road and Yonge Street, Innisfil, with respect to an incident of intimate partner violence. Upon arrival of police, the Complainant got onto his motorcycle in an apparent attempt to leave. He was intoxicated at the time. The officers took control of the Complainant to arrest him and, in doing so, his ankle was pinned under the motorcycle. The Complainant was transported by ambulance to Royal Victoria Hospital (RVH) in Barrie where he was treated and released. The attending physician determined that the Complainant might have suffered a sprain or a small chip on the ankle and referred him to a radiologist to determine the exact injury.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/09/18 at 2:20 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/09/18 at 4:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on September 18, 2025

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on September 19, 2025

Subject Official

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials

WO #1 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #2 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the roadway in front of a residential address in the area of Big Bay Point Road and Yonge Street, Innisfil.

Physical Evidence

The incident involved a 2007 Suzuki Boulevard motorcycle with no licence plate. It had been towed from the scene and examined by the SIU. There were multiple scuff marks observed on the motorcycle, though none were congruous with any marks observed on the involved SSPS cruiser.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

SSPS Communications Recordings

On September 17, 2025, at 8:44 p.m., SSPS received a 911 call reporting a domestic dispute at a residential address in the area of Big Bay Point Road and Yonge Street, Innisfil. The caller advised that her friend, the CW, had been punched in the face by the Complainant. The Complainant was impaired, had consumed whiskey, and was attempting to leave the area of the residence on a motorcycle. The caller also reported that the Complainant had threatened the CW, stating he would hit her again if she called police.

As officers were dispatched, updates indicated that the Complainant had fallen over on his motorcycle but remained near the residence.

At 8:56 p.m., officers reported being on scene and seeing the Complainant on his motorcycle “trying to get away”.

At 8:57 p.m., the Complainant was taken into custody. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were requested because the Complainant complained of an ankle injury.

At 9:19 p.m., the Complainant reported a sore ankle and, by 9:20 p.m., an ambulance had arrived.

At 9:44 p.m., the Complainant was transported in ambulance to RVH for assessment.

At 11:58 p.m., the Complainant was discharged from hospital. He was escorted to South Division for booking and held for bail.

SSPS BWC Footage – WO #1, the SO, WO #3 and WO #2.

At 8:55 p.m., September 17, 2025, officers were captured travelling in their vehicles and advising dispatch that their suspect, the Complainant, was on a motorcycle.

At 8:56 p.m., emergency lights and sirens were activated as officers [the SO driving and WO #2 as passenger] followed the Complainant. The SO subsequently stopped his cruiser near the motorcycle, which was idling adjacent to the driver’s door. The SO exited the cruiser, approached the Complainant, and pushed him, using his hands against the Complainant’s right shoulder. The Complainant fell to his left side, and the motorcycle landed on his left ankle. He remained on the ground wearing a helmet as officers handcuffed his hands behind the back. The Complainant repeatedly stated, “I was going to my house,” and asked why he was being arrested.

The SO and WO #2 informed him that he was under arrest for domestic assault and impaired driving, adding that he had tried to flee. The Complainant denied seeing the officers and insisted he was not resisting. One officer warned, “Stop resisting or you’re going to get tazed.”

At 8:57 p.m., the Complainant complained of pain in his left ankle and requested an ambulance. Officers noted his ankle had been “crushed by the bike a little bit” and called for paramedics. He was assisted to his feet but said he could not bear weight on his left foot.

At 8:59 p.m., the Complainant was placed in the back seat of the police cruiser. The motorcycle was observed lying on its left side near the roadway. The SO told WO #1 that his cruiser never made contact with the Complainant.

At 9:25 p.m., paramedics arrived and spoke with the Complainant, who claimed that a police officer had tackled him and that the motorcycle fell on his ankle. He also stated that officers dragged him to the cruiser.

At 9:47 p.m., the Complainant was transported to the hospital via EMS. The ambulance arrived at the hospital at 10:14 p.m., and the video concluded shortly thereafter.

SSPS Custody Footage

On September 18, 2025, at 12:35 a.m., a Special Constable vehicle entered the sally port with a uniformed officer in the front passenger seat and the SO driving. The Complainant exited the rear passenger side, handcuffed to the front and visibly limping on his left foot. He was provided a crutch by the uniformed officer, while the SO carried a second crutch. The Complainant walked into the police station using the crutch for support.

At 12:38 a.m., the Complainant entered the booking area with the two officers and sat on a bench. The officer behind the counter informed him of charges for assault and impaired driving, which the Complainant acknowledged.

During booking questions, the Complainant stated he had a fractured ankle caused by the motorcycle tipping on him during arrest.

At 12:42 a.m., the Complainant’s handcuffs were removed, and he was searched.

By 12:49 a.m., the Complainant walked to the cells with the officers.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the SSPS between September 24, 2025, and September 25, 2025:

• General Occurrence / Supplementary / Arrest Reports
• SSPS Suspect Apprehension Pursuit Policy
• BWC footage – the SO, WO #3, WO #2 and WO #1.
• Police communications recordings
• Event Chronology
• GPS data - police vehicles.

• Notes – WO #1, WO #3, WO #2

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from RVH on September 18, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and a civilian witness, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of September 17, 2025, SSPS officers were dispatched to a residential address in the area of Big Bay Point Road and Yonge Street, Innisfil. A call had been received by police about an assault perpetrated on the CW by her intoxicated partner – the Complainant. The Complainant had reportedly mounted his motorcycle after the assault and fallen from the vehicle on one or two occasions.

The SO, operating a marked SSPS cruiser, arrived on scene at about 8:55 p.m. With him in the front seat was his partner, WO #2. The CW was near the residence awaiting the officers’ arrival. As the parties talked, the CW’s friends pointed to a motorcycle heading towards them, identifying the driver as the Complainant. The Complainant stopped, turned his motorcycle around, and began to travel away.

The officers followed the Complainant and turned on their cruiser’s emergency lights. A few seconds into the pursuit, the SO pulled alongside the Complainant. The Complainant was stopped on his motorcycle, its engine still running. The SO exited the cruiser and pushed the Complainant in the area of the right upper torso. The Complainant tumbled to his left with the motorcycle falling on top of him. He was subsequently handcuffed without issue.

The Complainant was eventually taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left ankle.

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 266, Criminal Code of Canada – Assault

266 Every one who commits an assault is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Section 320.14, Criminal Code of Canada – Impaired Operation of a Conveyance

320.14(1) Everyone commits an offence who

(a) operates a conveyance while the person’s ability to operate it is impaired to any degree by alcohol or a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a drug;

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by SSPS officers on September 17, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming the SO as 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 the Complainant had assaulted the CW and operated a motorcycle while inebriated, I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights in moving to arrest him for assault and impaired operation of a motor vehicle contrary to sections 266 and 320.14(1) of the Criminal Code, respectively.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the officer, namely, a push, constituted reasonable force in the circumstances. Though the Complainant was stopped by the side of the road, he was still atop his motorcycle with the motor running and in a position to quickly put the vehicle back in motion. Given his erratic and violent behaviour to that point, the SO would rightly have been concerned that the Complainant might well do so, endangering himself and others given his current condition. Moving quickly to knock the Complainant and the motorcycle down would prevent that from happening. While it might have been that foregoing force to first see if verbal direction would suffice to have the Complainant remove himself from the motorcycle, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO acted precipitously when he decided not to take that chance but move immediately to a physical intervention.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s broken ankle was caused when he was pushed by the SO and the motorcycle fell on him, there are no reasonable grounds to attribute the injury to unlawful conduct on the part of the officer. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: January 13, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit