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 47-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On September 19, 2025, at 6:45 p.m., the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At about 1:00 a.m., that morning, HPS officers responded to a call for service regarding a break and enter at the vacant St. Helen School, 785 Britannia Avenue, Hamilton. Officers located the Complainant climbing out a window and attempted to arrest him. A struggle ensued, resulting in a cut to the Complainant’s head. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were offered to the Complainant but he declined. He was issued a trespass notice and released. One of the involved officers subsequently attended Hamilton Health Sciences Centre - Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Centre (JHCC) for blood exposure and was advised to either take a post exposure prophylaxis as a precaution or have the Complainant attend for a blood test. The Complainant was located and agreed to attend JHCC. While at hospital, the Complainant complained of sore ribs and was diagnosed with two broken ribs.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/09/19 at 7:02 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/09/20 at 12:30 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on September 20, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Not interviewed (unable to locate)

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on November 7, 2025.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Not interviewed; notes and body-worn camera (BWC) footage reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

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

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

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the exterior grounds of the vacant St. Helen School building, 785 Britannia Avenue, Hamilton, beside the building’s northernmost wall.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

HPS BWC Footage

On September 19, 2025, at 1:10 a.m., the SO arrived at St. Helen School and walked around the northeast corner of the building. Two minutes later, he told the dispatch operator that he had located two people, and the officer ran towards an open window. The CW stood next to a fence and the Complainant was climbing out the open window, feet first. The SO grabbed the Complainant by his sweater and told him he was under arrest. The officer directed the Complainant to get onto the ground and took him down. The Complainant spun and struggled against the SO, before crawling along the pathway by the building’s exterior wall.

The SO continued to give commands for the Complainant to lay down and warned him he would be hurt if he did not. The Complainant continued to struggle against the SO and move along the wall in an easterly direction. The SO held onto the Complainant’s sweater, and it slipped over his head. Nearly two minutes after the Complainant came out of the window, the SO delivered a knee strike to the left side of the Complainant’s body. The impact of that blow appeared to cause the Complainant’s head to hit the wall. The SO sounded shocked and said, “Oh, my god.” The Complainant’s head was bleeding and the SO continued to direct him to put his hands behind the back. The entire struggle between the SO and the Complainant lasted for about two-and-a-half minutes.

The SO requested EMS and a bandage. The Complainant apologized and said he did not want to go to jail. He told the SO he was in the building because he was curious. The SO provided first-aid to the Complainant.

At 1:20 a.m., other officers arrived. WO #3 took over first-aid and the SO returned to his cruiser.

EMS arrived and, at 1:45 a.m., the Complainant was issued two provincial offence notices.

**********

At 1:52 p.m., September 19, 2025, two officers attended the Complainant’s home address. The Complainant told the officers he got his head “smashed” against the wall the day before. He had resisted and was kneed. He reported that his rib felt broken as he touched his lower left rib cage area.

HPS In-car Camera (ICC) Footage - The SO’s Cruiser

The SO arrived at the former St. Helen School on September 19, 2025, at 1:10 a.m..

At 1:30 a.m., the Complainant walked past the cruisers with WO #3 to a waiting ambulance, holding a shirt to his head.

The Complainant’s arrest was not captured by the ICC.

**********

At 2:06 p.m., September 19, 2025, the Complainant was driven from his home address to JHCC.

HPS Communications Recordings

On September 19, 2025, at 1:01 a.m., a male caller phoned 911 to report noises coming from within an abandoned learning centre.

The SO responded and arrived at 1:10 a.m. Three minutes later, the SO advised that a male [the Complainant] was resisting arrest. One minute later, the officer requested EMS.

EMS arrived at 1:30 a.m., and the Complainant was taken to JHCC.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the HPS between September 22, 2025, and November 12, 2025:

• General Occurrence Report
• BWC footage – the SO, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #1
• ICC footage – the SO
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Notes – the SO, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #1
• HPS policies – Arrest; Use of Force
• Use of Force training records – the SO

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

On September 23, 2025, the SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from JHCC.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the early morning of September 19, 2025, police were called to a vacant building at 785 Britannia Avenue – the former premises of St. Helen School – with respect to a break and enter in progress. A passerby had heard noises coming from the former school and contacted 911. The SO was the first officer to arrive at the address. The officer exited his cruiser and began to look around the exterior grounds of the scene for suspects. Turning the northeast corner of the building, the SO located a male with a bike beside the building’s north wall and another male – the Complainant – in the process of exiting a window feet first.

The SO took hold of the Complainant by the chest as he was climbing out the window and told him he was under arrest. He told the other male not to move and directed the Complainant to lay down. The Complainant refused to get on the ground of his own volition and was forced down by the officer. There followed a struggle in which the SO repeatedly told the Complainant to stop resisting and lay flat on the ground. When the Complainant refused to do so, the officer warned that he would hurt him and delivered about seven or eight knee strikes to the left upper body, after which the struggle ended. The last strike caused the Complainant’s head to impact the wall, causing it to bleed. The SO called EMS but the Complainant refused treatment by paramedics.

The Complainant was cited for trespass and released. Later that day, he attended hospital and was diagnosed with two left-sided rib fractures.

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 348(1), Criminal Code - Breaking and Entering with Intent, Committing Offence or Breaking Out

348 (1) Every one who

(a) breaks and enters a place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein,

(b) breaks and enters a place and commits an indictable offence therein, or

(c) breaks out of a place after

(i) committing an indictable offence therein, or

(ii) entering the place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein,

is guilty

(d) if the offence is committed in relation to a dwelling-house, of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and

(e) if the offence is committed in relation to a place other than a dwelling-house, of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by a HPS officer on September 19, 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 injuries.

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 had spotted the Complainant red-handed climbing out the window of a building he had no right to be in. In the circumstances, the officer was within his rights in seeking to arrest the Complainant for break and enter contrary to section 348(1) of the Criminal Code.

As for the force used by the SO, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was excessive. The officer was alone with the Complainant and another male at the back of the building when he confronted the Complainant climbing out a window. A takedown made sense when the Complainant refused to lower himself at the officer’s direction, as the technique would better position the officer to deal with any further resistance. In fact, the Complainant continued to resist, using his arms to keep his upper body off the ground despite the SO’s efforts to wrestle him into a prone position. There followed a series of about seven or eight knee strikes by the officer to the Complainant’s left side, the side exposed to the officer. These were accompanied by repeated warnings by the SO that he would hurt the Complainant if he did not stop resisting. This quantum of force and the words that accompanied it are subject to legitimate scrutiny, the latter capable of suggesting the officer was motivated by roadside justice rather than a legitimate law enforcement exercise. But for the last knee to the torso, the strikes themselves were delivered in rapid succession, leaving the Complainant little time to comply between strikes had he been so inclined. On the other hand, there is evidence that the SO’s words were only intended to warn the Complainant’s of the potential for pain and injury if force became necessary to ensure his compliance. I am also persuaded that the number of knee strikes delivered by the officer did not exceed what was warranted based principally on the fact that the Complainant continued to resist the SO after the penultimate knee strike, and did not relent until the final strike by the officer.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s fractured ribs were the result of one or more of the knee strikes by the SO, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injuries are attributable 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