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 36-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 31, 2025, at 4:58 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On October 31, 2025, members of the Special Enforcement Bureau (SEB) were conducting surveillance on the Complainant in relation to firearms offences. A search warrant was to be executed at the Complainant’s home address. At 12:38 p.m., the Complainant was located by SEB officers in the Tim Hortons parking lot, 156 Sandalwood Parkway East, Brampton, and arrested. He complained of shoulder pain and was taken to Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH) where he was diagnosed with a fractured clavicle.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/10/31 at 5:33 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/10/31 at 6:40 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on October 31, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on November 7, 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 18, 2025.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between November 10 and 11, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the parking lot behind the Tim Hortons, 156 Sandalwood Parkway East, Brampton.

156 Sandalwood Parkway East, Brampton, was a shopping complex, which included a large parking lot. The Complainant was arrested in the carpark behind Tim Hortons.

The area was canvassed for video cameras. The only store that was likely to have captured the interaction declined to provide any recordings to SIU investigators and declined to allow investigators to view any recording to ascertain whether the arrest was captured by any camera.

Forensic Evidence

Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) Deployment Data - SO #2

At 12:29 p.m., October 31, 2025, the arc button was pressed, and electricity was discharged for two seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

PRP Communications Recording

The dispatch radio recording commenced on October 31, 2025, at 12:38 p.m. An officer requested an ambulance at Sandalwood Parkway East and Kennedy Road North for a man [the Complainant] with shoulder pain. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) had initially advised a wait time of four hours. PRP communications telephoned ambulance communications and requested a quicker response time, stating the Complainant was having difficulty breathing due to a potential broken shoulder. EMS arrived at 1:25 p.m., and the Complainant was transported to BCH about 20 minutes later.

PRP Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - Officer #1

Officer #1 arrived at Sandalwood Parkway East on October 31, 2025, at 12:48 p.m., after the Complainant had been arrested. The Complainant was sat on the ground with his hands handcuffed behind his back. He appeared to be in discomfort. WO #1, WO #2 and SO #2 stood next to him and advised Officer #1 that the Complainant had some shoulder pain and wanted to wait for EMS.

PRP In-car Camera (ICC) Footage - Officer #2

On October 31, 2025, at 4:09 p.m., Officer #2 transported the Complainant from BCH to 21 Division and arrived at 4:47 p.m. During the transport, he asked what his charges were. Officer #2 advised him he was under arrest for unauthorized possession of a firearm. There were no discussions on the mechanism of injury or what happened during the arrest.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the PRP between October 31, 2025, and November 10, 2025:

• General Occurrence Report
• BWC footage – Officer #1
• ICC footage – Officer #2
• CEW deployment data - SO #2
• Photographs
• Endorsed Criminal Code search warrant – the Complainant’s residence
• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Notes – WO #1 and WO #2
• Use of Force Policy

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

On November 12, 2025, the SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from the BCH.

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

In the early afternoon of October 31, 2025, members of the PRP SEB, including SO #1 and SO #2, were in the parking lot of Tim Hortons, 156 Sandalwood Parkway East, Brampton, waiting to arrest the Complainant. The Complainant was wanted for being in unlawful possession of a firearm. He had been tracked to the location from his home a short distance away. A search warrant was to be executed on the Complainant’s residence after his arrest.

Upon leaving Tim Hortons, the Complainant was confronted by SO #2 and WO #2 of the SEB, the former taking him to the ground. SO #1 and WO #1 arrived shortly and assisted in taking the Complainant into custody. The Complainant was subjected to knee strikes and a CEW discharge on the ground prior to being handcuffed behind the back.

The Complainant was transported to hospital following his arrest and diagnosed with a fracture of the right clavicle.

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 PRP officers on October 31, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1 and SO #2 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.

With information at their disposal that the Complainant had an illegal gun, and a search warrant in effect naming the Complainant for unlawful possession of a firearm, I am satisfied that the SEB were within their rights in seeking to effect his arrest.

As for the force brought to bear during the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was unwarranted. It is alleged that the Complainant did not resist arrest but was nevertheless taken down and subjected to multiple kicks and punches, and a CEW discharge. The broken collarbone, in this account, was the result of the Complainant’s right arm being brought behind his back on the ground. That version of events is contested by the police evidence, in which the Complainant was forced to the ground when he continued to walk away from the officers after being told he was under arrest. A takedown in this context makes sense. The officers had cause to be concerned that the Complainant was in possession of a firearm and would rightfully have wanted to bring him under control as soon as possible. The same can be said of the knee strikes and the CEW discharge based on the police evidence that the Complainant refused to surrender his arms to be handcuffed. No further force was used after his arms were restrained behind the back. On this record, there being no reason to believe that the incriminating account of what happened is any likelier to be closer to the truth than that proffered by the police, there are no reasonable and probable grounds to move forward with criminal charges.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s collarbone was broken in the altercation that marked his arrest, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the injury was attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the subject officials. The file is closed.

Date: February 27, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit