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 48-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On September 30, 2025, at 7:34 a.m., the Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On September 30, 2025, at approximately 12:35 a.m., GSPS was notified by the Provincial Monitoring Office of an ankle monitor detected away from its assigned residence. The ankle monitor indicated a residence in Chelmsford. GSPS officers responded to the location indicated by the device’s geocoordinates. When the owner of the residence saw police officers, he flung open the garage door and the wanted person - the Complainant - took off on a bicycle. The Complainant was eventually arrested. A struggle ensued and a conducted energy weapon (CEW) was deployed. The Complainant advised his shoulder was injured, so he was taken to Health Sciences North (HSN) to be examined. At 6:15 a.m., HSN advised the shoulder was not seriously injured but the Complainant had a broken nose.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/09/30 at 9:10 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/09/30 at 10:03 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 6

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on September 30, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Not interviewed (unable to locate)

The civilian witness was interviewed on October 9, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 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

The witness officials were interviewed between October 9, 2025, and October 15, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the driveway of a residence situated in Chelmsford, Greater Sudbury.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – WO #2

On September 30, 2025, at 12:33:36 a.m.,[2] the CEW assigned to WO #2 was armed. At 12:34:31 a.m., the arc button was pressed, and electricity was discharged for 6.55 seconds. At 12:34:58 a.m., the CEW was rendered safe.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Police Communications Recordings

On September 24, 2025, GSPS received a call from a person reporting the Complainant had breached the conditions of his release because he was not with his surety at the address he was supposed to reside at.

On September 29, 2025, a GSPS officer made attempts at various addresses to locate the Complainant. At 11:42:50 p.m., GSPS officers arranged to attend a residence in Chelmsford on information from Recovery Sciences, which confirmed the location of the Complainant’s ankle monitor at that location. It was reported the Complainant was likely to run if confronted by GSPS officers.

At 12:18:31 a.m., September 30, 2025, GSPS officers had surrounded the residence and could see two people [the Complainant and CW #2] inside. They were possibly armed with a bat and a cane.

At 12:33:17 a.m., there was the sound of a struggle over the police radio.

At 12:35:18 a.m., the Complainant was reported to be in custody. GSPS officers sounded out of breath.

At 12:58:03 a.m., WO #4 called the staff sergeant’s office and reported that the Complainant complained of a broken nose. WO #4 doubted the nose was broken because the Complainant did not wince from the pain, and it did not look broken. WO #4 reported SO #1 had likely caused the nose injury and WO #2 had used his CEW to drive-stun the Complainant.

Injury Photographs

The SIU received four injury photographs of the Complainant from GSPS taken in the ambulance and at the hospital.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from GSPS between October 2, 2025, and October 17, 2025:

• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Arrest Report
• Injury Report – SO #1
• Use of Force training records – SO #1 and SO #2
• Notes – WO #3, WO #2, WO #1 and WO #4
• Police communications recordings
• CEW deployment data – WO #2
• Use of Force Policy
• Photographs of injury

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from HSN on October 28, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and other witnesses, both police and non-police, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the early morning of September 30, 2025, GSPS officers, including SO #1 and SO #2, arrived at a residence in Chelmsford. They were there to arrest the Complainant for breaching a condition in a release order that he remain at a particular address. The homeowner – CW #1 – confirmed that the Complainant had been there earlier and agreed to check his detached garage for the Complainant’s present whereabouts.

The Complainant was, in fact, in the garage with CW #2. Aware of the police presence outside the garage and his pending arrest, he swung the garage door open and attempted to flee the scene on a bike.

WO #3 blocked the Complainant’s path, took hold of his arms and handed him to fellow officers so he could deal with CW #2. The Complainant began to resist arrest and was met with several strikes by SO #1 and SO #2, as well as WO #2. He was subsequently forced to the ground by WO #3 where he continued to struggle. WO #3 applied what he described as a “loose rear naked choke style of grappling without actually choking him” and WO #2 used his CEW to drive-stun the Complainant in the back, after which officers wrestled control of his arms and handcuffed them behind the back.

The Complainant was seen in hospital after the arrest and diagnosed with a broken nose.

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 GSPS officers on September 30, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming two of the arresting officers – SO #1 and SO #2 – subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official 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.

There are no questions raised in the evidence regarding the lawfulness of the decision to arrest the Complainant. The ankle monitoring device he was wearing gave the arresting officers reasonable grounds to believe he was at an address in Chelmsford in violation of a condition of a release order.

With respect to the force used by the officers in the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was excessive. The Complainant had attempted to evade arrest and then fought against the officers’ efforts to take him into custody. A punch each thrown by SO #1 and SO #2, and several knee strikes delivered by WO #2 and, possibly, SO #2, would not seem a disproportionate amount of countervailing force, particularly as there is evidence the Complainant continued to struggle after he was grounded. An account in the evidence suggesting the Complainant was punched as many as 15 times before the grounding is belied by the absence of more severe injury to his face. The takedown itself made sense as a tactic to suppress the Complainant’s continuing fight and better position the officers to deal with his resistance. The same can be said for the CEW discharge by WO #2.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant broke his nose in the altercation that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the injury is attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the subject officials.[4] As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: January 23, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit