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 40-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 29, 2025, at 3:08 p.m., the Complainant left a telephone message with SIU reception to report an injury he sustained during an interaction with Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) officers. On October 30, 2025, the SIU intake manager spoke with the Complainant, who reported the following.

On October 17, 2025, the Complainant attended the HRPS station and reported his wife was being followed and that persons inside vehicles parked in front of his residence were watching him. After reporting the incidents, the Complainant returned home and was followed by vehicles. Believing the drivers to be aggressive, he, in turn, followed them. At approximately 10:30 p.m., the Complainant was home when alerted to the presence of police officers outside. He went to the front door and was met with a loud flash bang and bitten by a Police Service Dog (PSD). The Complainant was taken to Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital (OTMH), treated for a laceration to his head and held for a mental health assessment.

On November 18, 2025, the Complainant provided SIU images of his injuries, one of which was a large laceration on top of his head.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/11/19 at 1:35 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/11/19 at 2:04 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on November 21, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on December 3, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between November 27, 2025, and December 4, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the exterior area by the front door of a house situated in the area of Great Lakes Boulevard and Rebecca Street, Oakville.

Forensic Evidence

HRPS Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) Deployment Data - SO #2 - Model Taser 10

Starting at 2:19:57 a.m.,[2] October 18, 2025, the CEW was armed, the trigger pulled and Cartridge 1 deployed.

Starting at 2:19:58 a.m., the trigger was pulled and Cartridge 2 deployed.

Starting at 2:19:58 a.m., the trigger was pulled and Cartridge 3 deployed.

Starting at 2:19:59 a.m., the trigger was pulled and Cartridge 4 deployed.

Starting at 2:19:59 a.m., the trigger was pulled and Cartridge 5 deployed.

Starting at 2:20:00 a.m., the trigger was pulled and electricity stopped after 1.623 seconds. Cartridge 6 was deployed.

Starting at 2:20:01 a.m., the trigger was pulled and Cartridge 7 deployed. Electricity stopped after 1.727 seconds.

Starting at 2:20:02 a.m., the trigger was pulled and Cartridge 8 deployed followed by Cartridge 9.

Starting at 2:20:03 a.m., the trigger was pulled and Cartridge 10 deployed.

Starting at 2:20:04 a.m., the trigger was pulled. After 8.191 seconds, electricity stopped due to timer expiration.

Starting at 2:20:45 a.m., the electricity started and stopped after 4.979 seconds.

Starting at 2:20:59 a.m., the CEW was placed in safe mode.

HRPS CEW Deployment Data - WO #1 - Model Taser 10

Starting at 2:20:18 a.m., October 18, 2025, the CEW was armed, the trigger pulled and Cartridge 1 deployed.

Starting at 2:20:20 a.m., the trigger was pulled and Cartridge 2 deployed.

Starting at 2:20:21 a.m., the trigger was pulled and Cartridge 3 deployed.

Starting at 2:20:21 a.m., the trigger was pulled. After .82 seconds, electricity stopped.

Starting at 2:20:21 a.m., the trigger was pulled and Cartridge 4 deployed.

Starting at 2:20:21 a.m., the trigger was pulled twice and Cartridge 5 deployed.

Starting at 2:20:22 a.m., Cartridge 6 was deployed.

Starting at 2:20:22 a.m., the trigger was pulled and Cartridge 7 deployed.

Starting at 2:20:23 a.m., the trigger was pulled and Cartridge 8 deployed.

Starting at 2:20:23 a.m., the trigger was pulled and Cartridge 9 deployed.

Starting at 2:20:24 a.m., the trigger was pulled twice and Cartridge 10 deployed.

Starting at 2:20:25 a.m., the trigger was pulled. Electricity started and stopped due to timer expiration after 11.5 seconds.

Starting at 2:20:36 a.m., electricity started and stopped after 2.31 seconds.

Starting at 2:20:38 a.m., the CEW was placed in safe mode.

Starting at 2:20:55 a.m., the CEW was armed.

Starting at 2:20:58 a.m., electricity started and stopped due to timer expiration after 4.94 seconds.

Starting at 2:27:13 a.m., the CEW was placed in safe mode.

HRPS CEW Deployment Data - WO #2 - Model Taser 10

Starting at 2:20:20 a.m., the CEW was armed, the trigger was pulled and Cartridge 1 deployed.

Starting at 2:20:26 a.m., the trigger was pulled and Cartridge 2 deployed.

Starting at 2:20:26 a.m., the trigger was pulled and Cartridge 3 deployed.

Starting at 2:20:27 a.m., a connection was detected and electricity stopped after 5.5 seconds.

Starting at 2:21:29 a.m., the CEW was placed in safe mode.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

HRPS Remote Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) Video Footage

On October 18, 2025, starting at 2:18:08 a.m., the Complainant was captured standing on the front grass of a residence in the area of Great Lakes Boulevard and Rebecca Street, halfway between the porch and the sidewalk. There were police officers on the road by an armoured vehicle. The Complainant was gesticulating with his arms. He returned to the porch and, seconds later, walked back onto the grass. SO #2, SO #1, WO #2 and WO #1 approached from north to south towards the side of the house as the Complainant got closer to the road. SO #2, SO #1, WO #2 and WO #1 walked westbound along the north side of the house and advanced quickly towards the front porch and the Complainant. There was a bright flash, and the Complainant turned and ran back towards the porch. SO #1 jumped onto the porch as a second flash occurred and CEWs were deployed. A third flash occurred as the Complainant reached the front porch and disappeared under the overhang and out of camera view. Multiple police officers converged onto the front porch.

HRPS Radio and Telephone Communications Recordings & Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report

On October 17, 2025, starting at 11:26 p.m., officers notified dispatch that there were reasonable and probable grounds to apprehend the Complainant.

Starting at 11:47 p.m., police officers spoke to the Complainant at the front door.

On October 18, starting at 12:01 a.m., the Complainant telephoned the HRPS communications centre and said he did not want to go outside and speak to the police officers because he feared for his life.

Starting at 12:05 a.m., the Complainant appeared at the front door in an agitated state and was encouraged by police officers to surrender.

Police officers were to contain the address, encourage the surrender of the Complainant, and apprehend him under section 17 of the Mental Health Act (MHA).

Starting at 12:09 a.m., the Complainant went back inside the house before appearing again at the front door.

Starting at 12:10 a.m., a surrender plan was developed.

Starting at 12:12 a.m., the Complainant was on the front porch.

Starting at 12:13 a.m., the Complainant was agitated and returned inside the house. There was discussion of the plan of arrest.

Starting at 1:39 a.m., crisis negotiators were speaking with the Complainant, and he was talking about potentially surrendering.

Starting at 1:40 a.m., the Complainant was at the front door in an agitated state.

Starting at 1:41 a.m., the Complainant was on the front porch and police officers were attempting to get him to surrender. He was at times calm and agitated.

Starting at 2:07 a.m., the Complainant was on the front porch and indicated he would not come out. Police officers would have to put hands on him to take him into custody.

Starting at 2:22 a.m., the Complainant was said to be in custody and CEWs had been deployed.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the HRPS between November 21, 2025, and January 27, 2026:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Civilian Witness List
• Arrest Report
• General Report
• Crown Brief Synopsis
• CAD Report
• Communications recordings
• CEW deployment data - SO #2, WO #2 and WO #1
• RPAS video footage
• Notes - SO #2, WO #2, WO #1, WO #3 and SO #1
• Policies - Tactical Rescue Unit (TRU); Public – Police Interactions and Use of Force; Arrest and Release of Persons

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between October 18, 2025, and November 21, 2025:

• The Complainant’s medical records from OTMH
• Video footage from a private residence

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed interviews with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes.

Shortly before midnight, October 18, 2025, a team of HRPS TRU officers, including SO #1 and SO #2, were dispatched to a house in the area of Great Lakes Boulevard and Rebecca Street, Oakville, the residence of the Complainant. They arrived intending to arrest the Complainant under the Mental Health Act following a number of calls to police in which he was reported to have attacked motorists, brandishing a knife in one instance.

The Complainant refused to surrender to police. Over the course of the next couple of hours, he would exit and re-enter his home through the front door, challenging the officers gathered by the road outside his house. He told them they would have to engage him physically to take him into custody.

At about 2:20 a.m., as the Complainant was two to three metres away from his front door gesticulating at the officers on the roadway, SO #1 and SO #2, in the company of WO #1 and WO #2, snuck up behind him around a corner of the home. SO #1 attempted to distract the Complainant, who reacted by turning to run towards the front porch and door. SO #2, WO #1 and WO #2 discharged their CEWs and also attempted to distract the Complainant as he made it onto the front porch but no further. SO #1 cut him off before he could re-enter the house, using his left arm to tackle him against the wall adjacent the front door. Following additional CEW discharges, the Complainant’s arms were handcuffed behind the back.

The Complainant was seen at hospital after his arrest and treated for a deep laceration to the scalp.

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 17, Mental Health Act - Action by Police Officer

17 Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician.

The Complainant was injured in the course of his arrest by HRPS officers on October 18, 2025. 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 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.

In the evening of October 17, 2025, the Complainant had attended a police station to report being followed and surveilled by vehicles, drones and persons. He gave the impression of being mentally unwell and delusional, though the police did not think they had enough to warrant an apprehension under the Mental Health Act for purposes of a psychiatric examination at hospital. That changed after the police subsequently received reports of unprovoked attacks at the hands of the Complainant on persons he did not know. At that point, I am satisfied, the Complainant was subject to apprehension under section 17 of the Mental Health Act as a danger to himself and others because of mental disorder.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the TRU officers, including SO #1 and SO #2, did not exceed what was reasonable to effect the Complainant’s apprehension. The Complainant’s reported attacks on motorists in the hours preceding the officers’ arrival at his residence would have given them reason to be concerned that he would physically contest his arrest. In fact, the Complainant greeted the officers with hostility and refused to peacefully surrender into custody. The police attempted to de-escalate the situation through negotiations but to no avail. Under the circumstances, the police plan that was devised, namely, to prevent the Complainant’s re-entry into the house in the event he ventured a certain distance off his porch, with the use of distraction and CEWs, made sense. Despite the distraction and the CEW discharges, the Complainant made it back and was just about through the front door when SO #1 intervened, using his left arm in a type of clothesline maneuver to knock him against the wall and to the floor. A single strike of the nature executed by SO #1, in a situation in which some form of physical intervention was going to be necessary to stop the Complainant, would not appear excessive or disproportionate. The Complainant was subjected to additional CEW discharges on the ground. Here, too, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the force was excessive in light of evidence that the Complainant struggled against the officers’ efforts to control his arms.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s laceration was incurred in the physical confrontation that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe it was the result of unlawful conduct on the part of either subject official. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: February 25, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit