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 25-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 29, 2025, at 9:48 a.m., the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On October 28, 2025, a citizen called HRPS to report a man assaulting a woman with a skateboard. Police officers located the man walking northbound on Guelph Line before he disappeared into a forested area. He was later located on Guelph Line at the Queen Elizabeth Way where police officers approached to arrest him. The man ran and jumped over a road barrier, falling approximately 12 metres to the foliaged ground below. Emergency Medical Services transported him to Joseph Brant Hospital, and then Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation - Hamilton General Hospital (HGH) where he was diagnosed with a left arm fracture.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/10/29 at 11:07 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/10/29 at 11:57 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on October 29, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Interviewed, but declined to submit 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

SO #1 was interviewed on November 20, 2025.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on November 4, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question began on the east side of Guelph Line in the area of the Queen Elizabeth Way, continued north across a grassy area and onto the North Service Road on-ramp, travelled east a distance on the North Service Road on-ramp, and culminated on the ground below and to the north of the North Service Road on-ramp.

Physical Evidence

The ramp to North Service Road from Guelph Line was an elevated asphalt roadway. It was bordered by an on-grade 1.18-metre-high concrete barrier with a drop of 8.327 metres on the other side.

Image 1 – Ramp to the North Service Road from Guelph Line

Image 2 – Side view of the ramp’s concrete barrier

Forensic Evidence

Deployment Data - SO #1’s Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW)

On October 28, 2025, at 11:12:42 p.m., the trigger was pulled and Bay 1 deployed. Electricity was discharged for 2.037 seconds.

At 11:12:45 p.m., the trigger was pulled and Bay 2 deployed. Electricity was discharged for 1.133 seconds.

At 11:12:46 p.m., the safety was engaged and the weapon disarmed.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

HRPS In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – SO #1 and WO #2

On October 28, 2025, starting at 11:09 p.m., WO #2 stopped at the side of a road and activated his vehicle’s emergency lighting. He walked to the sidewalk out of camera view. WO #1 approached.

Starting at 11:10 p.m., the Complainant fled across the road. Neither police officer chased him. WO #2 entered the camera view carrying a skateboard, while a woman walked northbound on the sidewalk away from the police officers. The Complainant ran across Guelph Line in front of WO #2’s vehicle. A police officer chased him as he fled east down the ramp to the North Service Road.

HRPS Communications Recordings & Event Information

On October 28, 2025, starting at 11:05 p.m., HRPS Communications Centre received a 911 telephone call from a woman advising she saw a man, who she described in detail, assaulting a woman with a skateboard at Guelph Line and Fairview Street.

On October 28, 2025, starting at 11:05 p.m., police officers were dispatched on information a man was striking a woman with a skateboard. The Complainant was last observed walking northbound on Guelph Line carrying a skateboard.

Starting at 11:10 p.m., police officers were with the Complainant.

Starting at 11:11 p.m., the Complainant ran westbound, then north on Guelph Line.

Starting at 11:12 p.m., the Complainant was running westbound.

Starting at 11:13 p.m., the Complainant was southbound along the off-ramp in bushes. The Complainant jumped off the bridge.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the HRPS between November 3, 2025, and November 10, 2025:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Civilian witness list and statements
• General Report
• Arrest Report
• ICC footage
• CEW deployment data
• Event Information Report
• Communications recordings
• Notes - WO #1 and WO #2
• HRPS policy - Use of Force; Arrest; Release of Persons

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from HGH on November 4, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, SO #1 and other police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, SO #2 did not agree an interview with the SIU.

At about 11:10 p.m., WO #2 arrived in the area of Guelph Line and the Queen Elizabeth Way. He was joined shortly by WO #1. The officers were there following a call to police about an assault being perpetrated on a female in the area by a male. The male – white, skinny and wearing a black hooded-sweater – was reportedly striking the female with a skateboard. The officers confronted a male matching the description of the suspect – the Complainant – and eventually advised him he was under arrest. When WO #1 went to take hold of him, the Complainant fled from the officers on foot.

The Complainant ran northwards across a grassy field on the east side of Guelph Line towards the North Service Road on-ramp. He was pursued by WO #1 and two other officers arriving on scene, SO #1 and SO #2. SO #1 was nearest the Complainant. He deployed his CEW twice but neither deployment had an impact on the Complainant. The Complainant continued onto the North Service Road on-ramp where he travelled east a distance before jumping over the guardrail on the north side of the ramp. Unknown to him at the time, the ground on the other side was approximately eight metres below.

The Complainant fractured his left wrist in the fall. He was arrested by the officers and transported to hospital.

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.

On October 28, 2025, the Complainant was seriously injured in a fall from height in the course of a foot pursuit with HRPS officers. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1 and SO #2 the 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 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.

I am satisfied SO #1 and SO #2 were within their rights in moving to arrest the Complainant. He was riding a skateboard, matched the description of the assailant and was in the area of the reported assault.

I am also satisfied that the force used against the Complainant, namely, a couple of CEW discharges by SO #1, was legally justified. The Complainant was running from police and determined to evade apprehension. The use of a less-lethal weapon made sense in the circumstances. If it worked as intended, the Complainant would be immobilized by the weapon without the infliction of serious injury, allowing the officers to take him into custody. As it turned out, neither CEW discharge had an effect on the Complainant. The Complainant continued his flight and made an ill-advised decision to jump over the guardrail without knowing how far the drop was on the other side. He alone is responsible for that choice and the broken wrist that resulted.

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

Date: January 28, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit