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 64-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 23, 2025, at 2:29 a.m., the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On October 22, 2025, at 9:40 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) was on patrol in a fully marked Ford Explorer police vehicle when his Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) alerted him to a licence plate reported as “missing” attached to a Ford Ranger pick-up truck. The Service Employee Witness (SEW) was with the SO at the time. The SO activated his emergency warning lights. The pick-up truck turned a corner and stopped in a rear alleyway in the area of Wellington Street North and King Street East. As the SO exited his vehicle, the Complainant fled on foot and climbed a rear fire exit. The SO chased him on foot. The Complainant grabbed a railing on a second story landing. A struggle ensued, and the SO struck the Complainant in the face with his fist. The Complainant complained of pain to his face and was taken to hospital where he was diagnosed with a facial fracture.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/10/23 at 8:43 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/10/23 at 9:21 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on October 24, 2025.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on November 7, 2025.

Service Employee Witness

SEW Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The service employee witness was interviewed on October 28, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired at the rear of a building in the area of Wellington Street North and King Street East, Hamilton.

Physical Evidence

At the rear of the building was a staircase to the second floor. There were steps up to a landing then additional steps up to a second-floor balcony. There was a railing along the staircase and the second-floor balcony. There was a dried bloodstain on the floor of the balcony approximately midway of the length of the balcony.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – The SO, Officer #1, Officer #2 and Officer #3

On October 22, 2025, at 9:40:20 p.m., the SO activated his BWC as he exited his police vehicle. The emergency warning lights were activated on his police vehicle. The SO walked between some vehicles in a parking lot [behind a building in the area of Wellington Street North and King Street East] with his flashlight pointed ahead. A man [the Complainant] in the distance at the base of a set of stairs said, “I’m in my own backyard,” and the SO replied, “Okay well, I’m gonna tow the car then.” The Complainant ascended the stairs. The SO started to run up the stairs behind the Complainant and said, “Come here.” When the SO reached the top of the staircase, the Complainant tripped on the last step and fell to his knees as he grabbed the railing. The SO grabbed the Complainant by the back of his jacket and told him he was under arrest. The Complainant said, “For what?” The Complainant moved away from the SO until he was backed into a corner. The SEW arrived. The Complainant insisted he was in his own backyard and asked what he had done. The SO directed the Complainant to turn around or he would be “tased”. The SO held the Complainant by his left arm and the SEW held the right arm. The Complainant moved forward until he was up against the railing. The SO warned him not to jump down. They moved the Complainant up against a door. The SO told him he was under arrest for “obstruct” and he was under investigation for “impaired operation”. The Complainant told the SO he had not been drinking. The SO directed the Complainant to provide his hands and put them behind his back multiple times.

At 9:42:38 p.m., the SO’s BWC no longer showed anything [it became dislodged from his vest] but continued to record audio. The SO yelled at the Complainant, “I’m not going to tell you again, give me your hand, stop resisting.” The Complainant screamed incoherently and asked what he had done. The SO again threatened to use a conducted energy weapon on the Complainant if he did not comply. He also said he would punch the Complainant again. He yelled at the Complainant to provide his hands. The Complainant complained his nose was broken. The SO said multiple times, “Don’t grab on to me, put your hands behind your back.”

At 9:43:59 p.m., the SO advised [over his radio] that the Complainant was in custody. The SO asked the SEW to find his BWC. The Complainant was lifted to his feet. He was escorted away from where the BWC had landed on the ground and the audio no longer captured events until another police officer found the BWC.

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage

The footage was from a police vehicle assigned to Officer #1. It did not capture the events under investigation.

HPS Radio Communications & Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

On October 22, 2025, at 9:41:24 p.m., the occurrence type was identified as “Traffic Stop” [in the area of Wellington Street North and King Street East].

At 9:41:51 p.m., additional units were requested.

At 9:44:14 p.m., a man [the Complainant] was said to be in custody. Within 40 seconds, paramedic services were requested.

Video Footage from Witness #1

The SIU obtained a short video recording from Witness #1. The video was not time or date-stamped.

At six seconds of the video, a man [the Complainant] approached the base of the stairs. He grabbed the railing with his hand as if to ascend the stairs. He appeared unsteady on his feet. A bright light [the SO’s flashlight] flashed across the camera, which blurred the video.

At 11 seconds of the video, a man [the SO] with a flashlight ran towards the base of the stairs and ascended them.

At 15 seconds of the video, a second man [the SEW] with a flashlight followed the SO up the stairs.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from HPS between October 24, 2025, and November 12, 2025:

• General Occurrence Report
• CAD Report
• Notes – the SO and the SEW
• Use of Force training records – the SO
• HPS policies - Use of Force & Equipment
• BWC footage
• ICCS footage
• Communications recordings

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources on October 27, 2025:

• The Complainant’s medical records
• Video footage from Witness #1

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the evening of October 22, 2025, the SO was on patrol in a marked cruiser with the SEW when they decided to pull over a pick-up truck. While eastbound on Robert Street, the cruiser’s ALPR had registered the licence plate on the pick-up truck as “missing”. Suspecting the plate to be stolen, the SO followed the pick-up truck into an alleyway in the area of Wellington Street North and King Street East. The pick-up truck parked behind a residence, and the SO came to a stop nearby and activated his cruiser’s emergency lights.

Operating the pick-up truck was the Complainant. He exited the vehicle and walked towards a staircase, ignoring the SO’s requests that he stop. The Complainant climbed the stairs to a second-story landing, where he tumbled before the SO caught up to him and told him he was under arrest. The Complainant asked what he had done and did not surrender his hands to be handcuffed. The SO and the SEW, now also on the landing, struggled to control the Complainant’s hands behind the back. The SO punched the Complainant twice to the left side of the face, fracturing his left orbital bone in the process. The Complainant fell to the ground and was handcuffed behind the back.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with his injury.

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 the HPS on October 22, 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.

With information at his disposal that the licence plate on the pick-up truck the Complainant was driving was “missing”, the SO was within his rights in stopping the vehicle to investigate a possible theft and potential infractions of the Highway Traffic Act. Thereafter, when he attempted to flee from the officer, the SO was entitled to arrest the Complainant for obstruction of justice.

The SO was also entitled to resort to force when the Complainant struggled against the officers’ efforts to secure him in handcuffs. The struggle was occurring at a height on an exterior landing and the Complainant had forced his way to the railing, raising the risk of a fall. It was important in the circumstances that the Complainant be subdued as quickly as possible in the interests of everyone’s safety. Two quick strikes to the face, delivered in the course of a struggle after repeated verbal and physical efforts to suppress the Complainant’s resistance had failed, would not appear disproportionate to the needs of the moment. A version of events proffered in the evidence that the officers stomped on the Complainant’s back after he was on the ground, is contested by the accounts of the SO and the SEW and discredited by what appear to be falsehoods elsewhere in the account.

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

Date: February 18, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit