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 injuries of a 35-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 3, 2025, at 1:43 a.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On October 2, 2025, at about 4:30 p.m., the Complainant was in custody at the LPS Headquarters, having been arrested in relation to a stabbing incident. He was in the phone room when he began to smash the phone and Plexiglas window. A police cadet attempted to intervene and was assaulted by the Complainant. Subsequently, the custody sergeant, an officer and a second cadet intervened. During the struggle, the sergeant punched the Complainant in the face, and he fell to the ground. Officers gained control of the Complainant and returned him to his cell. The Complainant’s face began to swell significantly, and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called. The Complainant refused to let EMS examine him. The paramedics recommended that they be called back if the Complainant began to vomit. At about 9:00 p.m., the Complainant began to vomit. He was taken to Victoria Hospital by EMS and diagnosed with a fractured cheekbone and a fractured orbital bone.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/10/03 at 3:09 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/10/03 at 8:23 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on October 4, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on October 14, 2025.

Service Employee Witnesses (SEW)

SEW #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SEW #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The service employee witnesses were interviewed on October 17, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around Phone Room 2 in the detention area of LPS Headquarters, 601 Dundas Street, London.

Physical Evidence

At 12:10 p.m., October 3, 2025, SIU forensic services attended the LPS Headquarters, 601 Dundas Street, London. An altercation had reportedly occurred in the centre of three interview rooms and the adjacent hallway. The area had been cleaned up prior to an injury being identified and the SIU being notified. Each of the rooms was divided with a Plexiglas and metal barrier at one end to allow a person in custody to meet with an individual in private, without direct contact. The in-custody side had a metal and Plexiglas door. A camera was mounted inside the room and a phone handset was attached to the wall by a bench. Room 2 was measured to be 1.612 metres wide X 2.07 metres long X 2.48 metres in height. The earpiece of the handset had dents and scratches on its surface that appeared be recent. Photographs of the phone and the area were taken along with measurements. At 1:35 p.m., the cell and interview areas were returned for service to LPS.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

LPS Custody Footage

The footage, date and time-stamped, captured the Complainant’s movements and actions while in custody in the LPS cell block.

At 3:51:25 p.m., October 2, 2025, the Complainant was escorted into the booking area where he was cooperative while the SO processed him. The Complainant said he had consumed two beers and smoked some marijuana approximately two hours prior. He further advised that he did not have any injuries, was not suicidal although he had been in the past, and had various mental health issues.

At 4:12:06 p.m., the Complainant was placed into a phone room by himself, where he sat temporarily before pacing in circles.

At 4:28:11 p.m., the Complainant used his right shoulder to hit the Plexiglas on the phone room door four times. He then banged his forehead off the Plexiglas seven times and delivered a single punch to the area with his right hand.

At 4:28:27 p.m., the SO attended the door where the Complainant was secured. The Complainant appear to scream at the SO and gave him the finger.

At 4:28:52 p.m., SEW #2 entered the hallway, secured another individual into a different phone room, then joined the SO. The two appeared to converse.

At 4:29:10 p.m., the Complainant repeatedly banged the phone receiver against the phone mount.

At 4:29:15 p.m., SEW #2 opened the door and entered the phone room, while the SO remained in the hallway. SEW #2 made several unsuccessful attempts to restrain the Complainant, who repeatedly pushed SEW #2 away with both hands.

At 4:29:28 p.m., the Complainant pushed SEW #2 out of the phone room into the hallway where the altercation continued towards the end of the hallway. The SO, SEW #1 and the WO followed.

At 4:29:35 p.m., the SO assisted by pushing the Complainant’s left side against the wall at the end of the hallway.

At 4:29:37 p.m., the SO held the Complainant with his left hand against the wall and delivered a single closed fist punch with his right hand that struck the Complainant in the face. The Complainant was subsequently taken to the floor by SEW #2 and the SO where he continued to resist. SEW #1 and the WO assisted; however, the view was obstructed by the officers.

At 4:30:27 p.m., the Complainant, now handcuffed behind the back, was assisted to his feet by the officers and placed back in the phone room. A pool of blood was visible on the floor in the area where the Complainant had been.

At 4:43:30 p.m., the SO returned to the door of the phone room and appeared to have a discussion with the Complainant.

At 4:51:26 p.m., a custodial staff member mopped blood from the floor.

At 5:16:12 p.m., EMS arrived and entered the phone room where they examined the Complainant, while officers stood in the hallway.

At 5:24:50 p.m., EMS left the phone room and the door was re-secured. The Complainant remained in the phone room.

At 5:29:36 p.m., SEW #2 opened the door of the phone room. The Complainant exited the room with his hands still handcuffed behind the back. He was escorted down the hallway by SEW #2, the SO and SEW #1.

At 5:30:34 p.m., the parties arrived at the open door to a cell. The Complainant turned to face the officers. His right eye was visibly swollen and bruised. The SO appeared to take a photograph of the Complainant’s injuries with a cell phone. SEW #2 removed the handcuffs and the Complainant was secured in the cell where he laid on the bench.

At 8:53:36 p.m., the Complainant vomited on the floor of his cell.

At 9:41:20 p.m., EMS arrived at the Complainant’s cell accompanied by two male LPS officers.

At 9:42:49 p.m., the Complainant was removed from his cell and placed on a stretcher.

At 9:45:52 p.m., EMS transported the Complainant on a stretcher out of camera view.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the LPS between October 3, 2025, and October 30, 2025:

• Custody footage
• Booking Report
• Occurrence Report
• Supplementary Reports
• Arrest Report
• Crown Brief Synopsis
• Use of Force Report
• Use of Force policy

• Notes - the WO
• Notes - SEW #1 and SEW #2
• Notes and will-say – the SO

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from London Health Sciences Centre - Victoria Campus on October 21, 2025.

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

In the afternoon of October 2, 2025, the Complainant found himself in police cells, having been arrested in relation to a stabbing incident. He was placed in a phone room to await a call from duty counsel and started to act up. He paced around the room and repeatedly banged on the Plexiglas door. The SO took notice of the Complainant’s behaviour and went to the phone room to speak to him. The Complainant refused to calm down. When he picked up the phone receiver and started banging it against the phone mount on the wall, a special constable – SEW #2 – entered the room.

SEW #2 attempted to grab hold of the Complainant’s arms. The Complainant pulled his arms away and tried to grab onto SEW #2. The two grappled in this manner for a few seconds before the Complainant pushed SEW #2 out through the open door onto the adjacent corridor. The SO, who had been standing outside the room observing the altercation, intervened at this point. He pushed the Complainant against a wall and delivered a right-handed punch to his face. The Complainant was grounded after the punch, handcuffed behind the back and returned to the phone room. The time was 4:30 p.m.

Paramedics were called to the scene to assess the Complainant but he declined their services. At about 9:40 p.m., after the Complainant had vomited in his cell, paramedics returned to the station. The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fracture of the right maxillary sinus anterior wall and a mildly displaced fracture of the right orbital lateral wall.

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 while in the custody of the LPS on October 2, 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 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.

With the Complainant in lawful custody because of a stabbing incident earlier in the day, the police were entitled to restrict his movements to ensure he was processed safely in accordance with law. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that his custodians were within their rights in moving to subdue the Complainant when he repeatedly banged his head and the phone receiver in the phone room.

I am also satisfied that the force brought to bear against the Complainant was legally justified. By the time the SO intervened, the Complainant had managed to keep SEW #2 at bay and even push him out of the phone room. The SO could have opted to join in the wrestling contest that was unfolding to grapple the Complainant into submission. Conceivably, the combined power of two officers could have subdued the Complainant without the necessity of strikes. That said, the criminal law does not require a perfectly tailored response or that the defensive force in question be the absolute minimum required. The force must be reasonable and proportional with due consideration to the heightened dynamics inherent in physical conflicts. In my view, the SO’s single punch, ending the confrontation with the Complainant without need for additional strikes or the use of weapons, may fairly be characterized in this manner.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s facial fractures were the likely result of the SO’s punch, there are no reasonable grounds to believe they are attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the officer. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.

Date: January 26, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit