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 29-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 28, 2025, at 7:52 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On October 27, 2025, at 9:00 p.m., security staff at the Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment Centre (MLSEC), 40 Bay Street (commonly know as the Scotiabank Arena), attempted to trespass an intoxicated patron - the Complainant - who was attending an event at the location. When the Complainant did not cooperate with security, paid duty officers at the event were summoned to the area. As one officer approached to effect an arrest, the Complainant attempted to remove the officer’s service firearm from the holster while verbally indicating his intention to do so. As a result, the officer is said to have punched the Complainant in the face to obtain control. The Complainant was arrested at 9:10 p.m., and transported to the Toronto General Hospital (TGH) by police at 10:02 p.m. At 5:28 a.m., October 28, 2025, the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured orbital bone.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/10/28 at 9:11 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/10/28 at 9:30 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on October 28, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between October 28, 2025, and November 21, 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

The witness officials were interviewed between November 4 and 6, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the concourse by Gate 1 of the Scotiabank Arena, 40 Bay Street, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage - Scotiabank Arena[3]

At 9:16:59 p.m., October 27, 2025, the footage captured Gate 1 at the Union Station entrance of Scotiabank Arena. Two uniformed police officers wearing yellow high visibility vests - the SO and WO #1 - were stationed near the entrance.

At 9:18:09 p.m., the SO and WO #1 walked out of camera frame away from the entrance.

At 9:18:25 p.m., the SO and WO #1, and the Complainant, entered the camera frame. The SO faced the Complainant with his right hand on the Complainant’s chest. His left hand held the Complainant’s right elbow. WO #1 was directly behind the Complainant. The Complainant had his hands at his side. With his left hand still on the Complainant’s right arm, the SO’s right hand reached for the Complainant’s hood on his hoodie and the back of the Complainant’s head.

At 9:18:27 p.m., the SO backed off from the Complainant. WO #1 remained behind the Complainant. The SO stepped to his right with his right leg and used his right hand to pull the Complainant towards the floor. WO #1 held the Complainant’s right elbow.

At 9:18:28 p.m., the SO pulled the Complainant’s upper body into the right side of his chest as WO #1 continued to hold the Complainant’s right elbow. The SO used both hands and grabbed the Complainant’s hood as the Complainant was crouched towards him. WO #1 had lost her grip on the Complainant. The SO held the Complainant’s head at his waist level. The Complainant used his right hand to grab at the SO’s left elbow. The Complainant had his back to the camera. WO #1 stood behind the Complainant and used her right hand to hold his right elbow. The SO switched his weight from his right leg to his left leg. He was partially bent at the waist looking down at the Complainant. The Complainant had his left hand on the SO’s right forearm with WO #1 behind him. The SO lost his grip on the Complainant’s hood. The Complainant stood erect and faced the SO. His right hand was cocked. The SO’s right hand had a hold of the Complainant’s right shoulder. WO #1 had her right hand around the Complainant’s waist. The Complainant had his right hand up and his right arm bent at the elbow. The SO’s head snapped back and he used his left hand to block the Complainant’s right fist. He used his left hand and held the Complainant by his right shoulder to keep him at bay. The SO had a hold of the Complainant’s right shoulder, and he brought up his right arm. WO #1 hugged the Complainant at the waist. The SO placed his left hand on the Complainant and the Complainant’s left hand held the SO’s right forearm. The Complainant used his left hand to grab the SO’s right forearm and push it away. He then used his right hand and punched the SO in the face a second time. The SO punched the Complainant in the face with his right fist, after which the Complainant went down to the floor.

At 9:19:22 p.m., two uniformed TPS officers arrived and walked out of frame.

At 9:21:00 p.m., WO #4 arrived.

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

WO #3’s and WO #2’s footage captured the Complainant after being handcuffed. Officer #1’s camera captured the transport to hospital.

WO #1 was not equipped with a BWC.

The SO’s BWC did not record the interaction.

All BWC footage was reviewed, summarized, and filed with SIU.

TPS Communication Recordings

At 9:24:19 p.m., October 27, 2025, a staff sergeant reported the Complainant had been arrested at the Scotiabank Arena and needed an officer to assist with transport. He advised that the Complainant was arrested for disarming a police officer and assault, and identified WO #1 and the SO as the arresting officers.

At 9:26:33 p.m., the staff sergeant reported that the Complainant had a swollen right eye and requested an ambulance.

At 10:01:45 p.m., Officer #1 and WO #1 departed from the Scotiabank Arena with the Complainant en route to the TGH.

At 10:02:27 p.m., the staff sergeant reported that the SO had sustained an injury to his right hand and needed to go to hospital.

At 10:11:16 p.m., Officer #1 arrived at TGH with the Complainant.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between October 30, 2025, and November 17, 2025:

• Names and contact information of civilian witnesses
• Involved Officers List
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• General Occurrence, Supplementary, Arrest and Show Cause Reports
• Communications recordings
• BWC footage
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3 and WO #4

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between October 29, 2025, and November 19, 2025:

• Video footage from CW #1
• The Complainant’s medical records from TGH
• Video footage from Scotiabank Arena

In the evening of October 27, 2025, the Complainant was at a concert at the Scotiabank Arena. He was inebriated and had vomited several times. Asked to leave by security personnel, the Complainant stood from his seat and accompanied the employees out into the concourse area of the arena beside Gate 1. The Complainant became belligerent, gave one of the guards the finger and refused to continue his egress out of the arena.

The SO and his partner at the time, WO #1, were working a paid duty at the arena and stationed by Gate 1. They noticed what was happening with the Complainant nearby and walked over to intervene. The SO grabbed a hold of the Complainant and started to escort him towards the exit. The Complainant pulled his arm free of the SO’s hold and turned to confront the officer. There followed a scuffle between the two in which the Complainant punched in the direction of the SO’s head two or three times. Following the last of these punches, the SO punched the Complainant in the face, breaking his right orbital bone. The parties fell to the floor where the Complainant refused to release his arms to be handcuffed and kicked out with his legs. The SO delivered a right knee strike to the Complainant’s torso, after which his hands were handcuffed behind the back and leg restraints applied.

The Complainant was transported to hospital after his arrest 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.

Section 2(1), Trespass to Property Act - Trespass an Offence

2 (1) Every person who is not acting under a right or authority conferred by law and who,

(a) without the express permission of the occupier, the proof of which rests on the defendant,

(i) enters on premises when entry is prohibited under this Act, or

(ii) engages in an activity on premises when the activity is prohibited under this Act; or

(b) does not leave the premises immediately after he or she is directed to do so by the occupier of the premises or a person authorized by the occupier,

is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000.

Section 9(1), Trespass to Property Act - Arrest Without Warrant On Premises

9 (1) A police officer, or the occupier of premises, or a person authorized by the occupier may arrest without warrant any person he or she believes on reasonable and probable grounds to be on the premises in contravention of section 2.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on October 27, 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.

The SO and WO #1 were within their rights under sections 2(1) and 9(1) of the Trespass to Property Act in arresting the Complainant to escort him out of the arena. There was evidence that he was becoming confrontational with security personnel and refusing to leave willingly.

As for the force the SO brought to bear in the Complainant’s arrest, I am satisfied on reasonable grounds it was authorized at law. When the Complainant became physically violent with the SO, the officer was entitled to resort to a measure of force to defend himself and maintain custody. In the context of a struggle in which the Complainant directed several strikes at the officer’s head, and with evidence suggesting the Complainant attempted to dispossess the officer of his firearm as the two fought, a single punch (or, possibly, two) would not appear disproportionate to the circumstances at hand. The same may be said of the knee strike delivered by the SO. A crowd was gathering around the site of the arrest and it was important to quickly overcome the Complainant’s resistance on the ground and secure him in restraints.

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

There was evidence in the investigation of potential misconduct on the part of the SO in possible contravention of section 27 of the Police Code of Conduct. Though wearing a BWC at the time of the events in question, his camera did not record the incident. That footage, had it been captured, would have provided important evidence to the SIU. I will be referring this matter to the TPS Chief of Police for review and action as the service considers appropriate. Further to this office’s legal obligation under section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, I will also be referring the matter to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: February 19, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit