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 19-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On September 19, 2025, at 2:08 a.m., the Woodstock Police Service (WPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On September 18, 2025, at approximately 10:30 p.m., a police officer [now known to be the Subject Official (SO)] saw two men on motorcycles getting gas at the Petro-Canada gas station located at 503 Norwich Avenue in Woodstock. The officer attempted to speak to the two motorcyclists as neither motorcycle had a licence plate attached. One of the two motorcyclists [now known to be Civilian Witness (CW) #2] fled on his motorcycle. The SO attempted to arrest the Complainant, the second motorcyclist. During those efforts, the Complainant fell, injuring his left ankle. The Complainant subsequently refused medical attention at the scene. On September 19, 2025, the Complainant attended Woodstock Hospital (WH) and was diagnosed with a torn ligament and broken tibia of the left leg.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/09/19 at 8:21 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/09/19 at 1:47 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on September 19, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Not interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on September 22, 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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

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

The witness official was interviewed on October 6, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired near the gas pumps of the Petro-Canada gas station, 503 Norwich Avenue, Woodstock.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Police Communications Recordings

The SO asked over the police radio if there was another police unit in the area as he had observed two motorcycles with no licence plates attached to the vehicles. He thought the motorcycles had pulled into a Petro-Canada gas bar. The dispatcher’s reply transmission was inaudible. The SO responded, “No, I haven’t really tried to stop them.” He broadcast, “North on Norwich Avenue, two motorcycles came off the highway, unattached.” WO #1 stated over the police radio “I’m south on Norwich.” WO #1 subsequently reported, “I have two here and one motorcycle took off.”

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The SO

On September 18, 2025, starting at about 10:15:02 p.m., a police cruiser operated by the SO stopped a short distance from a gas bar kiosk near the centre island of gas pumps. The SO exited his cruiser and ran around the rear of the vehicle towards the centre gas pumps, where the Complainant was seated on a red motorcycle.

Starting at about 10:15:15 p.m., as the SO approached the Complainant, a black pick-up truck police cruiser stopped in front of the Complainant’s motorcycle. The SO approached the Complainant from behind. The Complainant was still seated on his motorcycle with both hands on the handlebar. The SO and the Complainant subsequently fell to the ground in front of a gas pump. The Complainant landed on his left side and his motorcycle fell on its right side.

Starting at about 10:15:23 p.m., the SO had a hold of the Complainant’s right wrist as the Complainant remained on his left side. The Complainant’s left lower pant leg was caught on one of the foot pegs near the kick stand on the left side of the motorcycle, resulting in his left leg being twisted in an awkward position. The SO used his right hand and freed the Complainant’s lower left pant leg from the motorcycle.

Starting at about 10:15:45 p.m., the Complainant’s arm was brought around his back and he was stood up.

Starting at about 10:16:12 p.m., the SO asked the Complainant who owned the motorcycle, and he replied, “My buddy’s.” The Complainant moaned in pain and grabbed his left pant leg. The SO told the Complainant to send his friend [CW #2] a text message to come back to the gas bar. The Complainant removed his left boot and started limping, favouring his left leg or foot.

Starting at about 10:19:52 p.m., the SO said to the Complainant he was calling his father to pick him up. The SO then sat in his vehicle and prepared Highway Traffic Act (HTA) tickets.

Video Footage - Petro-Canada

Starting at about 10:12 p.m., September 18, 2025, two motorcycles entered the image travelling westbound. The gas bar was well lit. The motorcyclists stopped on the north side of pump 2. CW #2 operated a blue motorcycle and stopped directly beside the gas pump. The Complainant stopped directly beside CW #2 to the north (CW #2’s right). Both motorcyclists wore helmets. The Complainant got off his motorcycle, walked around it and stood in between the two motorcycles. The Complainant subsequently remounted his motorcycle.

Starting at about 10:14:18 p.m., headlights shone on the gas pumps and the product sales bunker that was next to the gas pumps. The SO’s cruiser entered the image travelling westbound on the south side of pump 1. The SO started to turn right (to the north) attempting to stop directly in front of CW #2, who sped away.

The Complainant used his feet to push his motorcycle forward in a clockwise semi-circle to move away from the SO’s vehicle.

As the Complainant turned slowly but sharply, the headlight of his motorcycle flashed on and off, suggesting the Complainant was attempting to start the engine as he pushed with his feet on either side of the motorcycle. The SO exited his cruiser and ran around the back of the vehicle.

Starting at about 10:14:38 p.m., the SO reached the Complainant and tackled him off the motorcycle from behind. The SO and the Complainant fell forward onto a product display bunker, the cover of which was closed. The motorcycle fell over to the south onto its right side. The Complainant’s left foot was caught in the left side of the motorcycle near the foot peg.

Starting at about 10:14:48 p.m., a second police officer - WO #1 - arrived. The SO freed the Complainant’s left foot from the motorcycle and rolled him onto his stomach. The police officers then sat the Complainant up with his legs stretched out in front of him.

The Complainant pointed and put his hand near his left ankle. He took his left boot off.

Starting at about 10:19 p.m., the Complainant stood up. He was clearly in discomfort and favouring his left leg. He talked on a cellular phone. The Complainant appeared calm and cooperative.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the WPS between September 22, 2025, and October 7, 2025:

• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Arrest Report
• List of involved officers and badge numbers
• BWC footage
• Notes and Written Statements - the SO, WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3
• WPS Use of Force Policy
• Use of Force Report

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between September 19, 2025, and December 29, 2025:

• Video footage from Petro-Canada

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

In the evening of September 18, 2025, the SO was on patrol when he observed two motorcyclists on Highway 401 riding together without licence plates affixed to their vehicles. Intending to stop them for a Highway Traffic Act infraction, the officer followed them as they exited the highway at Norwich Avenue and travelled a short distance north to the Petro-Canada gas station on the east side of the road.

The motorcyclists were the Complainant and his friend, CW #2. They had pulled up to a gas pump when in front of them appeared a marked police pick-up truck. CW #2 accelerated away from the cruiser and left the gas station. The Complainant, still seated on his motorcycle, used his feet to turn the vehicle around in front of the truck and was also trying to drive away from the scene when he was forced to the ground by the SO.

The SO had exited his cruiser and run after the Complainant. The officer had quickly made up the ground on the Complainant, who was having trouble re-starting his engine, and tackled him from behind.

The Complainant landed awkwardly. His left pant leg became stuck on his vehicle’s foot peg as he landed to the left and the motorcycle landed to the right. The result was 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 7(1), Highway Traffic Act – Permit Requirements

7 (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway unless,

(a) there exists a currently validated permit for the vehicle;

(b) there are displayed on the vehicle, in the prescribed manner,

(i) number plates issued in accordance with the regulations showing the number of the permit issued for the vehicle, or

(ii) number plates described in subsection (7.2) if the vehicle is an historic vehicle and the Ministry has issued a currently validated permit for it; and

(c) if required under the regulations, evidence of the current validation of the permit is affixed to a number plate in the prescribed manner.

Section 216 (1) Highway Traffic Act– Power of Police Officer to Stop Vehicles

216 (1) A police officer, in the lawful execution of his or her duties and responsibilities, may require the driver of a vehicle, other than a bicycle, to stop and the driver of a vehicle, when signaled or requested to stop by a police officer who is readily identifiable as such, shall immediately come to a safe stop.

216 (2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable, subject to subsection (3),

(a) to a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $10,000;

(b) to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months; or

(c) to both a find and imprisonment.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by a WPS officer on September 18, 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 was within his rights in seeking to stop the Complainant. He was operating a motorcycle without a licence plate in contravention of section 7(1)(b)(i) of the Highway Traffic Act. When the Complainant failed to stop for the officer and, instead, attempted to drive away, he further rendered himself subject to arrest for an offence under section 216 of the Highway Traffic Act.

As for the force the SO used to take the Complainant into custody, I am satisfied it was legally justified. A physical interdiction of some sort was necessary if the SO was going to prevent the Complainant’s escape. The takedown doubtless carried risk of injury but it was a calculated risk in the circumstances. The motorcycle had not yet attained the kind of speed that would have carried a more serious injury risk and rendered a tackle ill-advised. On the contrary, it was essentially moving forward at a walking pace when the SO intervened to remove the Complainant from the vehicle. Indeed, but for the unfortunate fact that the Complainant’s left pant leg snagged on the foot peg of the motorcycle, he would likely have emerged uninjured in the arrest.

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

Date: January 14, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit