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 20-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On September 28, 2025, at 3:27 p.m., a criminal defence lawyer contacted the SIU with the following information.

The criminal defence lawyer was calling on behalf of a client, the Complainant. The Complainant was reportedly involved in an incident with off-duty Toronto Police Service (TPS) officers on September 26, 2025, at 12:30 a.m. Further details were unavailable to the criminal defence lawyer at the time, other than a medical note from a physician who examined the Complainant on September 27, 2025.

On September 28, 2025, at 5:11 p.m., the SIU contacted the Complainant. He confirmed that he was at the Rock N Horse Saloon, 250 Adelaide Street West, Toronto, on September 26, 2025, at 12:30 a.m. He was approached by two men, prompting him to walk backwards with his hand and palms up in the air. Security guards asked the Complainant to leave the premises, and he immediately complied. He subsequently was walking westbound on Adelaide Street West when he was confronted by one of the men from inside the bar. The Complainant was pinned to the ground by the man [now known to be the Subject Official (SO)]. He was not aware that the SO was a police officer, only learning that information after the SO identified himself as a police officer following their altercation. The Complainant said he acted in self-defence. Additional officers arrived on scene and he was arrested for assault. On September 27, 2025, the Complainant attended Trillium Hospital, 100 Queensway West, Mississauga, where X-rays and computed tomography (CT) scans were performed with negative results. The Complainant had swelling to his left eye. The Complainant was provided a physician’s note, reporting a concussion and indicating that the Complainant required time off school.

On September 29, 2025, at 9:34 a.m., the SIU contacted the TPS to obtain additional details. A report on file for the incident indicated that the Complainant had shoved an off-duty police officer, the SO, while in the bar. Due to their behaviour, all individuals, including the SO, were escorted from the bar. The altercation continued outside the premises where the Complainant was reported to have again shoved the SO. The SO identified himself as a police officer, and proceeded to arrest the Complainant, who was released at the scene. There were no reported injuries by either the Complainant or the SO.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/09/29 at 2:22 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/09/29 at 7:26 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on September 29, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between October 1, 2025, and October 7, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Officials (WO)

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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #7 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between October 15, 2025, and October 29, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in two locations: the dance floor of the Rock N Horse Saloon, 250 Adelaide Street West, Toronto; and, on and around the sidewalk in front of Toronto Fire Station 332, 260 Adelaide Street West, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage - Rock N Horse Saloon

On September 26, 2025, at 12:20:10 a.m., the interior video opened with a downward view of the dance floor. A man with a white top [now known to be the SO] stood on the dance floor and drank from a can in his right hand. He walked to the upper camera frame and stood with two women [now known to be CW #2 and CW #3]. To his right was a man [now known to be WO #1]. The group stood in a circle and danced. A man [now known to be the Complainant] walked towards the right side of the SO. He swayed side to side in the group and leaned close to CW #2. CW #3 stepped in front of CW #2 and put her arms around her. The Complainant circled the women to the right and then moved back to the space between the SO and CW #2. The Complainant interacted with the SO. The Complainant was squeezed out of the circle when CW #3 put her left arm around the SO and drew the SO closer. The Complainant circled to the right and swayed side to side at WO #1’s left. Using her left hand, CW #3 appeared to shoo the Complainant away. The SO walked across the circle and stepped in front of the Complainant. They stood about an arm’s length apart.

At 12:23 a.m., the SO stood face to face with the Complainant, and the Complainant used both his hands to push the SO backwards. The SO was pushed back a few steps. The Complainant moved forward, and WO #1 stepped between the SO and the Complainant. WO #1 held the Complainant by his upper body and the two struggled with each other. Bar security stepped in and separated the Complainant and WO #1. The Complainant was released by security. He raised both hands and walked to the exit. The SO returned to the dance floor and consumed his drink.

At 12:24 a.m., the security guards interacted with WO #1 and the SO on the dance floor, after which the SO and WO #1 were followed by security guards off the dance floor to the exit.

At 12:24 a.m., on the outdoor video, which was an overhead, downward, exterior westbound view of the entrance, the Complainant was captured exiting the bar and speaking with bar security next to the exit.

At 12:24:20 a.m., a man [now known to be CW #1] exited the bar, approached the Complainant, and handed him a baseball cap. The Complainant and CW #1 walked westbound on the north sidewalk, exiting the camera frame.

At 12:25 a.m., the SO exited the bar, turned and walked westbound, and left the camera frame. Shuffling feet [now known to be the SO and the Complainant] entered the camera frame but it was not clear what the men did. The SO raised his left bent knee, and the Complainant used his right leg to kick at the SO’s midsection. The SO was bent forward, and he backed into the camera frame. The Complainant had the SO under control. The Complainant used two hands to hold the SO’s sweater. The SO and the Complainant released each other. The Complainant backed out of camera frame and the SO walked forward. CW #1 was subsequently captured circling the Complainant and standing next to the SO. The SO took a few steps forward and looked eastbound in the direction of the entrance to the bar. The SO walked westbound towards the Complainant. The Complainant moved forward and the SO ducked. The SO moved towards the Complainant with his fists up as the Complainant stepped back with his hands at his side. WO #1 exited the bar and walked westbound.

Video Footage – City of Toronto Camera - Duncan and Adelaide Streets

The camera was situated at the southwest corner of Duncan Street and Adelaide Street, affording a view of the front of Toronto Fire Service Station 332 on the north side of Adelaide Street West, at 260 Adelaide Street West. To the east of the fire station was the Rock N Horse Saloon. The entrance to the Rock N Horse Saloon could not be seen. There was no audio to the video and the size of the people in the video was distorted.

On September 26, 2025, at 12:24 a.m., the Complainant and his friend, CW #1, were captured walking west on the north sidewalk from the bar.

At 12:25 a.m., the SO walked west on the sidewalk and approached the Complainant. The two stood face to face. The Complainant pushed the SO and then punched at the SO with his right fist, towards the SO’s left temple. The Complainant and the SO exchanged blows and the Complainant appeared to physically be in control. He kneed the SO in the chest area. CW #1 stepped in momentarily and separated the Complainant and the SO, after which the Complainant threw a right-handed punch to the SO’s head.

At 12:26 a.m., WO #1 arrived and both he and the SO struggled with the Complainant. They forced the Complainant to the pavement at the corner of the fire station parking lot. A light standard on the north sidewalk blocked the view. WO #1 stood up and the SO remained on top of the Complainant.

At 12:30 a.m., two women [now known to be CW #3 and CW #2] approached.

At 12:37 a.m., a fire truck backed into the lot at the west side and a firefighter approached the scene.

At 12:51 a.m., a TPS police vehicle [now known to be operated by WO #2] arrived and stopped on the fire station lot.

At 12:52 a.m., the Complainant was brought to his feet.

At 12:55 a.m., the SO placed the Complainant into the back seat of the police vehicle, as an ambulance arrived on the lot.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On September 26, 2025, at 12:51 a.m., WO #3 and WO #2 exited their police vehicle, which was parked in a driveway. A man [now known to be the Complainant] lay on his back, and another man [now known to be the SO] rested on the Complainant’s right side with his right leg slung over the Complainant. Another man [now known to be WO #1] knelt at the Complainant’s lower legs. The SO looked west towards WO #2 and said, “This guy was upstairs, he assaulted me.” WO #2 said, “So, if you’ve arrested him, I’ll give you those,” as he handed the SO a pair of handcuffs. A voice shouted, “Watch him, watch him,” as the SO and WO #1 started to move around. A voice said, “He’s been aggressive, he’s under arrest.” The SO told the Complainant to put his hands behind his back, and the Complainant continued to announce he did not resist. The SO used both his hands to grab the Complainant by the left elbow, and he dragged the Complainant eastbound. WO #1 assisted the SO as they lifted the Complainant to his feet and escorted the Complainant to the passenger side of the police vehicle. The Complainant’s hands were handcuffed behind the back. The SO told the Complainant he was under arrest and told him he had the right to consult a lawyer. WO #1 asked the Complainant if he wanted to be seen by the paramedics. The Complainant responded in the affirmative.

At 12:54 a.m., the SO said, “Thanks for coming, we’ll keep this as official as we can, so essentially, we were at the bar, it was maybe half an hour ago, something like that. We were with a group of girls. This guy butts in, starts talking to one of them, and I believe that was the girl in the white corset. She initially said she was not interested, that’s fine, he backed off, but then came back again for another girl, in which case, I approached him, told him, they don’t want to talk to you, back off, go away.” The SO explained that he could not remember his exact words, but had said something like, “Take a hike.” The SO continued, “That’s the point where he pushed me, shoved me hard, both hands, and I was like, what are you doing? So, I grabbed him to arrest him, to stop the altercation, for defence, for de-escalation. Security came and separated the both of us. He had already pushed me at that point, he had left, so I went downstairs to this level to see where he was, potentially to identify who he was, and arrest him. Once again, he shoves me again, attempts to strike, I don’t know if it’s one or two times, but at that point I was ready to engage my self-defence, I believe one time, in self-defence of course, and I was calling for my colleague, who also a police officer to arrive. He eventually arrived. He arrives, and we both put him down, put him in custody for assault. Waited for police officers and you two are kind enough to help us, and here we are, the situation.”

WO #1 said, “And we did identify ourselves as police officers.”

WO #1 and WO #2 stepped away to the north, so they could get a statement from a woman who was part of the SO’s group [now known to be CW #2]. WO #1 asked what time the incident occurred, and CW #2 said 12:45 a.m., in the Rock N Horse Saloon. CW #2 said, “So, a gentleman walked up to me and asked what my name was, I told him it was [CW #2’s first name].” CW #2 was not interested in the Complainant, so her friend, CW #3, pulled her away. The Complainant circled the group of four or five people and CW #2 did not ask others to get him away. CW #2 noticed the Complainant became physical with the SO and WO #1. The Complainant shoved the SO and WO #1, and they shoved him back. The bar security intervened and took the Complainant and the SO and WO #1 outside. CW #2 did not see the interaction outside.

At 1:31 a.m., WO #2 sat in the front seat of the police vehicle and WO #3 sat in the passenger seat. WO #2 said to the Complainant, “So, you’re going to get a piece of paper, and you get let go from here, so you don’t go to the station.” Off camera, WO #1 said, “So, the SO was fighting there, and then when I came out, that’s when I identified ourselves as well, and I never was hit.”

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from TPS between October 1, 2025, and November 3, 2025:

• BWC footage
• Video footage - Rock N Horse Saloon
• Video footage - City of Toronto Street Camera
• Police communications recordings
• In-car camera footage
• TPS History - the Complainant
• Civilian Witness List
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• General Occurrence Report
• Notes – WO #6, WO #1, WO #5, WO #4, WO #2, WO #7 and WO #3
• Release Document – the Complainant
• TPS policies - Incident Response; Arrest

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between October 1, 2025, and October 15, 2025:

• Video footage from the Rock N Horse Saloon
• Cellphone video footage from CW #1
• Doctor’s note from the Complainant
• The Complainant’s medical records from Trillium Health
• Written statement from CW #1

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

In the early morning of September 26, 2025, the Complainant was with a friend – CW #1 – at the Rock N Horse Saloon, 250 Adelaide Street West. He had been drinking and was intoxicated. He approached a group on the dance floor and attempted to dance with a female – CW #2. CW #2 was not interested and turned away from the Complainant. The Complainant left the group briefly before returning and attempting again to engage with the females.

The SO and WO #1 were together with CW #2 and other females in the group. They were off-duty. The SO walked up to the Complainant, stood face to face with him, and asked that he leave their party alone. The Complainant pushed the SO backwards. WO #1 intervened to keep the two separated. Quickly, bar security personnel intervened and escorted the Complainant out of the bar.

The Complainant, joined shortly by CW #1, walked west away from the bar on Adelaide Street West. They were in the area of a fire station a couple of properties west of the bar when the SO appeared and confronted the Complainant. The two became involved in a physical altercation in which the Complainant was getting the better of the SO. WO #1 exited the bar, observed what was happening and joined in the fracas. The Complainant was taken down and kept pinned to the ground by the SO. WO #1 advised the Complainant that they were officers and he was under arrest for assault.

WO #1 called for the attendance of on-duty officers. On their arrival, the Complainant was handcuffed behind the back. He was eventually released at the scene on a promise to appear in court.

The Complainant attended hospital the following day and was diagnosed with a concussion.

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 an altercation with off-duty TPS officers on September 26, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The SO was identified 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 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 Complainant appears to have been the aggressor in the bar. I accept that the SO walked up to him, stood in his personal space and, probably, not in the kindest of ways, told the Complainant to leave his group alone. That said, the Complainant had persisted in harassing a group and could have expected a rebuke of some nature. Moreover, there is no evidence that the SO uttered threats at any time. On this record, I am satisfied that the SO had lawful grounds to believe that the Complainant’s push constituted an unlawful assault. By extension, I am also satisfied that the SO had cause to arrest the Complainant for the offence.

With respect to the force the SO and WO #1 brought to bear in the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was excessive or unwarranted. There is a question whether the SO identified himself as an officer to the Complainant or advised him he was under arrest and, if not, whether the Complainant was within his rights in defending himself when challenged by the SO outside the fire station. As there is evidence on either side of this issue, I am unable to reasonably conclude the officer’s interventions were without legal authority. Again, it appears that the Complainant gave more than he received in terms of the fight that ensued between he and the SO. In the circumstances, his takedown at the hands of the SO and WO #1 was a reasonable tactic. It brought the skirmish to an end and better positioned the officers to deal more effectively with any continuing resistance on the part of the Complainant.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant suffered a concussion in the clash that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury was the result of unlawful conduct on the part of the SO. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: January 22, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit