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 32-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On November 3, 2025, at 3:41 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On November 2, 2025, at 7:45 p.m., TPS 51 Division police officers attended a residence in the area of Kingston Road and Brimley Road, Toronto, for the purposes of executing a search warrant on a residence in relation to firearms offences. Two men were observed to exit the residence, one of whom was believed to be the subject of an arrest warrant [now known to be the Complainant]. Police officers approached the Complainant, at which time he was grounded and arrested. The Complainant was subsequently transported to Scarborough General Hospital because of facial and chest pain. On November 3, 2025, at 2:59 a.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured right rib.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/11/03 at 6:20 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/11/03 at 7:05 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on January 13, 2026.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on December 12, 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

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #7 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #8 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #9 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between November 13 and 27, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the front lawn of a residence situated in the area of Kingston Road and Brimley Road, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On November 2, 2025, starting at about 7:37 p.m., WO #8 exited his police vehicle and ran to a residence [now known to be the scene], arriving at about the same time as WO #7. Multiple police officers shouted and identified themselves as “police”. They issued verbal commands at individuals to show their hands, place their hands behind their backs, and get on the ground. Two groups of individuals were seen on the front lawn. WO #8 ran past the group on the left side [now known to be WO #2, the SO and WO #3] with a man on the ground [now known to be the Complainant]. WO #8 and WO #7 approached the second group. Two plainclothes police officers [now known to be WO #4 and WO #6] were captured struggling with a man [now known to be the Complainant’s roommate] on the ground. WO #8 positioned himself on the roommate’s right side. He had his right hand on the back of the roommate’s neck, and his left hand held the roommate’s left hand, attempting to wrestle it behind the back. The roommate was eventually handcuffed with his hands behind the back by WO #8.

Starting at about 7:38 p.m., the Complainant was captured on the ground with WO #3 kneeling over him. WO #4 left the roommate and stood beside the Complainant on the ground. The Complainant was then seated on the ground with his legs crossed. WO #8 advised the roommate and the Complainant that the police were executing a search warrant.

Starting at about 7:43 p.m., the Complainant identified himself as “[redacted]”. WO #8 requested medical assistance after noting visible facial injuries to the Complainant.

Communications Recordings

On November 2, 2025, at 6:32 p.m., WO #1 advised that the operational plan was to arrest the target [now known to be the CW, who was subject to an arrest warrant] if he was outside the residence [now known to be the scene]. The police would not arrest the CW if he went back inside the residence. The police officers only had until 9:00 p.m., November 2, 2025, to execute the search warrant.

At 6:37 p.m., WO #4 and WO #2 were on scene. The officers had a view of the living room from the street, and they saw the CW in the living room. WO #1 repeated that the plan was to arrest the CW only if he left the residence.

At 7:14 p.m., WO #6 advised that the CW was wearing an orange shirt. WO #4 asked WO #6 if he had a good view of the residence. WO #6 advised that he did. The light was on in the kitchen and WO #6 said the CW appeared to be in the kitchen.

At 7:35 p.m., WO #6 advised that a man had left the residence, dumped garbage at the side of the house, and returned inside. It was hard to tell if it was the CW.

At 7:37 p.m., WO #6 advised that two men were exiting the property and approaching a vehicle. WO #6 broadcast, “Tighten up, tighten up,” and followed by, “Takedown.”

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between November 4, 2025, and December 17, 2025:

• Arrest Warrant - the CW
• BWC footage
• Communications recordings
• Central notes
• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Notes – WO #1, WO #7, WO #9 and WO #8, and WO #3, WO #5, WO #2, WO #4 and WO #6
• Policies –Arrest; Incident Response (Use of Force / De-Escalation)
• Criminal Code Search Warrant
• The Complainant - Release Form 10
• Training records – the SO

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained an Ambulance Call Report from Toronto Emergency Medical Services on November 13, 2025.

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 his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of November 2, 2025, the Complainant left a house in the area of Kingston Road and Brimley Road, Toronto, with a male acquaintance to get a coffee from a nearby Tim Hortons. They had descended the stairs off the porch and were on the front lot of the property when they were confronted by TPS officers. A group of them – the SO, joined by WO #2 and WO #3 – took hold of the Complainant while other officers dealt with the other male. The Complainant was taken to the ground and eventually handcuffed behind the back.

The officers were mostly plainclothes officers with the TPS Major Crime Unit. They were at the residence to execute an arrest warrant for the CW and a search warrant for the home. The warrants arose from an incident approximately 2 weeks earlier, in which police had discovered firearms in a vehicle they had pulled over. Two men had been arrested at the time but a third, believed to be the CW, had escaped. On seeing the two men exit the residence, one of whom was believed to be the CW, a signal was given calling for their arrests.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured right rib.

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 TPS officers on November 2, 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.

I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO, or the other officers involved in the Complainant’s arrest, were proceeding unlawfully to take him into custody. Though the Complainant had been misidentified as the CW, the officers were entitled to rely on WO #6, who was responsible for identifying the persons coming out of the home and called for the arrest.

As for the force brought to bear against the Complainant, here, too, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was unwarranted. It is alleged that the Complainant was immediately set upon by the officers, taken to the ground, and punched and kicked repeatedly. At no point did he resist. This account, however, is contested by the witness officials who participated in the Complainant’s arrest. In their rendition of events, the Complainant pulled way from the officers on his feet and struggled against the officers’ efforts to control his arms on the ground. It was in this context that WO #2 punched the top of the Complainant’s head three times (after the Complainant had elbowed him in the eye during the struggle) and WO #1, arriving mid-struggle on the ground, used his shin to also strike the Complainant’s head. This would not appear a disproportionate amount of force considering the need to quickly overcome the resistance of someone the officers reasonably feared could be in possession of a firearm.[3] On this record, there being no reason to believe the incriminating version of evidence is any likelier to be closer to the truth than that proffered by the witness officials, there are no reasonable and probable grounds to move forward with charges.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s fractured rib was incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury was attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the SO or the other arresting officers. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: March 3, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit