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 November 3, 2025, at 11:42 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On November 2, 2025, the Complainant was arrested by TPS officers from 43 Division. He had been fighting with the CW and had an injured foot and a cut to his head. The Complainant was taken to Scarborough Centenary Hospital (SCH) and medically cleared, after which he was transported to 43 Division and held for a bail hearing. On November 3, 2025, the Complainant was given an opportunity to telephone duty counsel, but he became physically assaultive to custody staff and had to be grounded. The Complainant was returned to his cell. A short time later, the Complainant complained of having pain to his face. At 2:16 p.m., he was taken to SCH again. At 9:47 p.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured orbital bone and released back to TPS.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/11/04 at 8:08 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/11/04 at 9:04 a.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 4, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on November 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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #10 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between December 5, 2025, and January 22, 2026.

Service Employee Witnesses (SEW)

SEW #1 Interviewed

SEW #2 Interviewed

The service employee witnesses were interviewed between December 5 and 16, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around two cells of TPS 43 Division.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Radio Communications

On November 2, 2025, at 8:22 p.m., WO #2 and WO #1 responded to the Complainant’s house for a fight between the Complainant and the CW. TPS communications telephoned for an ambulance.

At 9:10 p.m., the CW called 911 to request the police return to his residence because the Complainant’s behaviour had escalated again.

At 9:27 p.m., WO #2 and WO #1 reported that the Complainant was in custody.

At 9:39 p.m., the Complainant was taken to SCH by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). He was later transported to 43 Division, arriving at 11:15 p.m.

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – WO #1 and WO #2

On November 2, 2025, starting at about 9:27 p.m., WO #1 and WO #2 spoke with the Complainant next to an ambulance. The Complainant swatted WO #1’s hands twice. WO #1 pushed the Complainant and struggled with him, telling him he was under arrest. The Complainant held onto WO #1’s vest. WO #1 struck the Complainant six times to the top of the head, after which he handcuffed his hands to the front. WO #1 told the Complainant he was under arrest for assaulting a police officer.

TPS Booking and Cells Video Footage

On November 2, 2025, starting at about 11:30 p.m., the Complainant was escorted into the booking area. WO #9 listed the Complainant’s visible injuries as scratches to the face, a bandage on the right arm and surgery to his right foot. The Complainant reported no other injuries and was escorted to a cell.

On November 3, 2025, SEW #1 opened the door of the cell and had a conversation with the Complainant. SEW #1 went to close the cell door and the Complainant stuck his foot in the doorway. SEW #2 and WO #2 arrived to assist and kicked at the Complainant’s foot. Officers tried to close the door several times. SEW #1 entered the cell and pushed the Complainant away from the door. The Complainant continued to struggle with officers and prevented officers from shutting the door. The Complainant was eventually dragged out of the cell by WO #8 and the SO and placed into another cell at about 12:43 a.m., November 3, 2025, at which time he used both his hands to grab the SO’s left leg. The SO punched the Complainant on the left side of the head six times until the Complainant let go. The Complainant was shackled to the bench, and the SO, WO #8, WO #7 and WO #9 exited the cell.

On November 3, 2025, at 2:11 p.m., the Complainant was escorted into the booking area. WO #10 talked to the Complainant about the blood from his nose. He was to be taken to the hospital.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from from the TPS between November 3, 2025, and December 29, 2025:

• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• General Occurrence Report
• List of involved officers and badge numbers
• BWC footage – WO #2 and WO #1
• Custody footage
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5, WO #6, WO #7, WO #8, WO #9, WO #10, SEW #1 and SEW #2
• TPS policies - Persons in Custody; Use of Force

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

Between November 14, 2025, and November 19, 2025, the SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources:

• Themedical records from SCH
• Toronto EMS reports

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

In the evening of November 2, 2025, WO #1 and WO #2 were dispatched to a house in the area of Ellesmere Road and Meadowvale Road, Toronto, in connection with a reported disturbance. The Complainant had been quarrelling with the CW and the argument had turned physical. The Complainant was belligerent with the officers and refused to be assessed by attending paramedics. At one point, while outside in front of the ambulance, the Complainant swatted WO #1’s hands. The officer reacted by pushing the Complainant backward towards the ambulance and through the open side door. The two tussled for a brief period before WO #1 delivered a series of right-handed punches to the Complainant’s head area. Shortly after, the Complainant was handcuffed. He was subsequently brought to 43 Division and lodged in a cell.

Early the following day, SEW #1 attended at the cell to retrieve the Complainant to have him speak with duty counsel. The Complainant refused to exit the cell and then prevented the special constable from closing the cell door, continually positioning a leg to block its closure. Additional officers attended and, following a struggle, removed the Complainant from the cell in order to place him in another cell. The second cell had a “D” ring that could be used to further restrain the Complainant while in the cell. The Complainant refused to cooperate with his relocation and was dragged from the first cell to the second cell and forced inside.

Just inside the second cell, the Complainant grabbed hold of the SO’s left leg. The officer reacted by punching the Complainant six times to the head, after which he let go of the leg. Additional officers entered the cell and assisted in handcuffing the Complainant to the “D” ring.

The Complainant was transported to hospital in the afternoon of the same day. His left eye was swollen and his nose had started bleeding. He was diagnosed with a fracture of the left orbital bone.

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 by a TPS officer on November 2 or 3, 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 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 satisfied that the Complainant was lawfully taken into custody by WO #1 and WO #2. When he swatted WO #1, he rendered himself subject to arrest for assault. Once in custody, the police were entitled to control his movements to ensure he was safely processed according to law.

I am also satisfied that the police used no more force than was legally justified during the Complainant’s arrest and period of custody. The Complainant was combative from the moment he laid hands on WO #1. The officer reacted reasonably to defend himself by pushing the Complainant backwards. The punches he subsequently struck were significant but within the range of what was reasonable considering that the Complainant had grabbed hold of the officer’s vest and was struggling with him as the two entered the ambulance. The same can be said of the punches struck by the SO. The Complainant had made it clear that he would not cooperate with his relocation. He escalated the situation, however, when he wrapped his arms around the SO’s left leg and refused to let go until the last of the officer’s punches.

It remains unclear whether the Complainant fractured his left orbital bone during his altercation with WO #1 or the SO. Be that as it may, for the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with charges against either officer. The file is closed.

Date: March 3, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit