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 injuries of a 38-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On November 4, 2025, at 10:19 a.m., the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On November 3, 2025, at approximately 12:34 a.m., a HRPS officer observed a vehicle travelling eastbound on Rebecca Street at Third Line, Oakville. The officer followed the vehicle suspecting the driver was impaired and activated his emergency warning lights. The driver refused to stop and continued eastbound on Rebecca Street. The pursuit eventually crossed over into Peel Region. At 12:44 a.m., a successful rolling block was conducted at Lakeshore Road West and Hazelhurst Road. The driver, the Complainant, refused to exit the vehicle and was forcefully removed. He suffered an injury to his face and was transported to Credit Valley Hospital (CVH) by Peel Region Paramedic Services (PRPS). HRPS processed the scene and documented photographs. They also towed the vehicle to a secure compound. At approximately 10:10 a.m., the driver was diagnosed with facial fractures and surgery was recommended.

The Team

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

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/11/04 at 11:50 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on November 18, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between November 5 and 10, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject official was interviewed on January 29, 2026.

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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

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

WO #10 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #11 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #12 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #13 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between November 9 and 17, 2025.

Service Employee Witnesses (SEW)

SEW #1 Not interviewed; interview deemed unnecessary

SEW #2 Not interviewed; interview deemed unnecessary

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the eastbound lane of Lakeshore Road West in and around the area of its intersection with Avonhead Road, Mississauga.

Physical Evidence

Lakeshore Road West consisted of one eastbound lane, one westbound lane, and a centre turn lane, which could be used for either direction of travel. The ground surface of the road was paved asphalt. There were streetlamps in the area, which provided artificial lighting. The scene was in an industrial area. The posted speed limit on Lakeshore Road West was 60 km/h.

On November 5, 2025, SIU forensic services attended HRPS 20 Division located at 95 Oak Walk Drive, Oakville, to examine a marked police vehicle [WO #2]. On approach to the vehicle in the parking lot, it was rainy, and the rear right window was in the lowered position. Rain had collected on the rear seat area and blood smears on the seat. The vehicle was moved into a garage for further examination. There was blood smeared on the rear right quarter panel window area and on the window bars. There was blood spatter on the rear right door and on the rear right quarter panel. Two tire deflation devices (TDD) were also examined, which showed minimal damage.

SIU forensic services attended TowTal Solutions located at 1092 South Service Road West, Oakville, and examined the white Ford F150 truck with Quebec licence plate operated by the Complainant. The front left tire had been completely shredded from the rim and there was damage to the rim. There was damage to the front bumper. It appeared to have been pulled away from the body of the vehicle. There was a glass pipe located on the driver’s seat. The keys were in the ignition.

On November 7, 2025, SIU forensic services attended First Professional Collision located at 8060 Lawson Road, Milton, to examine a black unmarked Ford Explorer HRPS vehicle [WO #1] involved in the incident. There were emergency lights mounted inside the front windshield of the vehicle. The front bumper of the vehicle had been removed and set aside. The exterior front bumper showed signs of minimal damage along with the interior metal bumper.

SIU forensic services attended the Halton Region – Woodlands Operation Centre, located at 1179 Bronte Road, Oakville, to examine a black unmarked Ford Explorer HRPS vehicle [the SO]. There were emergency lights mounted inside the front windshield. There was minor damage to the centre of the rear bumper, which was pushed inward.

Forensic Evidence

Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) Deployment Data

On November 4, 2025, at 12:44:26 a.m.,[2] the CEW assigned to WO #1 was armed. There were two live cartridges seated in their respective bays. At 12:44:27 a.m., the cartridge in Bay 2 was deployed. Electricity was discharged for 4.96 seconds. At 12:44:37 a.m., the cartridge in Bay 1 was deployed. Electricity was discharged for 5.07 seconds. At 12:45:01 a.m., the CEW was disarmed.

On November 4, 2025, at 12:44:30 a.m., the CEW assigned to WO #7 was armed. There were two live cartridges seated in their respective bays. At 12:44:32 a.m., the cartridge in Bay 1 was deployed. Electricity was discharged for 4.98 seconds. At 12:45:04 a.m., the CEW was disarmed. At 12:45:28 a.m., the CEW was armed again. The cartridge in Bay 2 was deployed. Electricity was discharged for 5.07 seconds. At 12:45:35 a.m., the CEW was disarmed.

On November 4, 2025, at 12:44:35 a.m., the CEW assigned to WO #9 was armed. There were two live cartridges seated in their respective bays. At 12:45:12 a.m., the cartridge in Bay 1 was deployed. Electricity was discharged for 2.02 seconds. At 12:45:14 a.m., the cartridge in Bay 2 was deployed. Electricity was discharged for 5.05 seconds. At 12:45:26 a.m., the CEW was disarmed.

Global Positioning System (GPS) Data

The pursuit of the Complainant from the location he was first discovered by WO #4 at Third Line and Rebecca Street, Oakville, to the location where the Complainant was stopped at Lakeshore Road West and Avonhead Road, Mississauga, covered a total distance of 17.5 kilometres. The pursuit lasted approximately 12 minutes.

HRPS Blood Warrant

The SIU requested the results of any Drug Recognition Evaluation (DRE) conducted by HRPS. However, it was subsequently learned HRPS had decided to proceed by way of a warrant for a sample of the Complainant’s blood taken and submitted for analysis. The Complainant’s blood tested positive for methamphetamine.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Video Footage

The SIU received ICCS videos from HRPS for police vehicles assigned to WO #13, WO #9, WO #7, WO #2, the SO, WO #1, WO #4, WO #6, WO #5, WO #11, Officer #1, WO #3 and WO #10.

On November 4, 2025, at 12:31:36 a.m., a police officer [WO #4] was parked at a green traffic light at an intersection [Third Line and Rebecca, Oakville]. WO #4 walked around the front of his police vehicle to the passenger side, then walked back over to the driver side. A white pick-up truck [operated by the Complainant] slowly moved forward into the camera frame on the passenger side of WO #4’s vehicle. Once through the intersection [southbound on Third Line], the truck put on its four-way flashers and travelled slowly.

At 12:32:07 a.m., WO #4 activated his emergency lights. The Complainant did not pull over to the side of the road. Seven seconds later, WO #4 activated his siren. The Complainant turned left [eastbound] onto Hixon Street into a residential neighbourhood. WO #4 followed. The Complainant turned left [northbound] onto Walby Drive through the stop sign without a complete stop. He did not signal his turn, and his four-way flashers were still activated. WO #4 advised over the radio that the Complainant was “passed out at the wheel and now he’s failing to stop for me”. WO #4 also reported, “I believe it might be coming back val tag stolen.” The Complainant de-activated his four-way flashers and increased his speed slightly. WO #4 followed the Complainant as Walby Drive turned into Seagram Avenue [westbound]. The Complainant turned right [northbound] onto Tracina Drive, which quickly turned [eastbound] into Willowdown Road. The Complainant continued to increase his speed. WO #4 followed and increased his speed from 40 km/h to 75 km/h. The Complainant turned left [northbound] onto Savannah Gate, then turned right [eastbound] onto Rebecca Street.

At 12:34:14 a.m., WO #4 turned [eastbound] onto Rebecca Street through a red traffic light. He did not come to a complete stop as he made his turn. He drove in the centre lane of traffic and passed a civilian vehicle in the eastbound lane at 120 km/h. The posted speed limit was 50 km/h. He increased his speed to 133 km/h to catch up to the Complainant, whose taillights were ahead in the distance.

At 12:36:11 a.m., the Complainant travelled through a red traffic light at Rebecca Street and Kerr Street. The traffic light turned green before WO #4 arrived at it. Shortly after the traffic light, Rebecca Street became Randall Street.

At 12:36:40 a.m., the Complainant travelled through a stop sign at Randall Street and Dunn Street and did not stop. WO #4 followed him through the stop sign and did not stop. The Complainant turned left [northbound] through a red traffic light at the next intersection onto Trafalgar Road. He did not stop at the light, and he turned left from the through-lane around a civilian vehicle waiting to turn left. WO #4 followed the Complainant through the red traffic light at 40 km/h, around the civilian vehicle, and did not stop at the light. WO #4 followed the Complainant northbound on Trafalgar Road at 110 km/h. The posted speed limit was 50 km/h.

At 12:37:26 a.m., the Complainant arrived at police vehicles with emergency lights activated stopped in the southbound lanes of Trafalgar Road, just south of Macdonald Road. There were TDDs deployed across the road. The Complainant drove slowly past the police vehicles and over the TDDs. WO #4 came to a complete stop, as HRPS officers pulled the TDDs out of the roadway, then followed after the Complainant, who had increased his speed again. An unmarked police vehicle with emergency lights activated made a U-turn in front of WO #4’s vehicle and became the lead police vehicle.

At 12:38:08 a.m., WO #4 and WO #1 turned left [westbound] onto Cross Avenue, which curved back southbound. The Complainant could no longer be seen. WO #4 travelled 125 km/h along Cross Avenue. The posted speed limit was 50 km/h.

At 12:38:50 a.m., WO #4 and WO #1 turned left [eastbound] onto Cornwall Road through a red light. WO #4 travelled 23 km/h through the red light and did not come to a complete stop.

At 12:39:11 a.m., WO #4 and WO #1 followed the Complainant through a red traffic light at Cornwall Road and Trafalgar Road at 29 km/hr. They followed him eastbound along Cornwall Road at 123 km/h in a posted 60 km/h zone.

At 12:39:37 a.m., at Cornwall Road and Watson Avenue, the shredded tire from the Complainant’s vehicle fully detached from the vehicle and flopped along the roadway. WO #1 swerved to avoid the tire debris.

At 12:41:12 a.m., an unmarked police vehicle [the SO] passed WO #4. The lead police vehicle was WO #1, followed by the SO, then WO #4.

At 12:42:02 a.m., the Complainant travelled through a red traffic light at Cornwall Road and Ford Drive. WO #1, the SO and WO #4 all stopped at the red light and proceed through it. Shortly after Ford Drive, Cornwall Road turned into Beryl Road. The SO drove in the oncoming lane of traffic. There were no vehicles in the oncoming lane.

At 12:42:33 a.m., the Complainant turned right [southbound] at a red traffic light from Beryl Road onto Winston Churchill Boulevard.[4] WO #1, the SO and WO #4 travelled through the red light and did not stop. WO #4 turned at 26 km/h onto Winston Churchill Boulevard and continued southbound at 143 km/h.[5]

At 12:43:29 a.m., the Complainant turned left [eastbound] onto Lakeshore Road West and drove into Peel Region. WO #1 turned eastbound through the red light and did not stop. The SO turned eastbound through the oncoming left turn lane and did not stop at the red light. WO #4 turned left at the red traffic light at 39 km/h and did not stop. The SO became the lead police vehicle and travelled in the centre turn lane of traffic.

At 12:44:04 a.m., the SO passed the Complainant and moved in front of the pick-up truck. WO #1 remained behind the truck. WO #4 drove parallel to the driver’s door of the truck. The police vehicles slowed down, forcing the Complainant to slow down.

At 12:44:15 a.m., the front right corner of WO #4’s vehicle collided with the front left corner of the Complainant’s truck at 18 km/h. WO #4 and the Complainant came to a complete stop. The SO reversed his vehicle into the front of the Complainant’s stopped vehicle. WO #1 contacted the rear bumper of the Complainant’s vehicle.

At 12:44:26 a.m., the SO exited his vehicle and drew his firearm. He pointed it at the driver side of the Complainant’s truck, which was just out of camera frame on the right. An unseen police officer said, “Get out of the fucking car right now. Get your seatbelt off.” WO #1 arrived from around the driver side of WO #4’s vehicle with his CEW drawn and pointed at the driver side of the Complainant’s truck. He reached across the hood of WO #4’s vehicle and the tip of his CEW went out of camera frame but when it returned into camera frame there were CEW wires dangling from the tip of the CEW.

At 12:44:33 a.m., WO #7 arrived from around the left side of WO #4’s vehicle and pointed his CEW at the driver side of the Complainant’s truck. He deployed his CEW probes towards the driver side of the Complainant’s truck. The Complainant’s foot briefly became visible, then disappeared. The SO had kept his pistol pointed towards the Complainant, but he briefly disappeared from camera frame. When he returned, his pistol had been holstered. A siren continued to operate and commands from the officers were difficult to hear.

At 12:44:58 a.m., the SO reached past WO #7 and deployed his oleoresin capsicum (OC) (OC) spray towards the driver side of the Complainant’s vehicle. He holstered the OC spray. The siren was deactivated.

At 12:45:05 a.m., both of the Complainant’s feet entered into camera frame from the driver side of his truck. WO #7 jumped and grabbed the Complainant’s right foot. The SO climbed up onto his knees on top of the hood of WO #4’s vehicle. He reached out of camera frame towards the driver side of the truck. WO #6 and WO #3 arrived at the front of WO #4’s vehicle. Someone said, “Get your hands up.” The Complainant was pulled completely onto the hood of WO #4’s police vehicle. He was in a right lateral position with his knees curled up towards his chest. The SO held the Complainant’s left forearm. The Complainant’s left elbow was parallel to the left side of his body with the forearm flexed somewhere in front of his body.

At 12:45:12 a.m., the pick-up truck’s passenger side door was opened, and CW #1 was pulled out of the vehicle by HRPS officers.

At 12:45:15 a.m., the SO struck the Complainant three times quickly to the upper torse / head area. The Complainant’s right hand was raised in a protective fashion over his head. The SO slid off the hood of the vehicle. The Complainant was pulled off the hood of the vehicle by the SO and WO #1. As the Complainant was pulled off the hood, he disappeared from camera view in front of the police vehicle. It appeared as if he would land on his right side as he was pulled down.

At 12:45:18 a.m., the SO’s body moved in a manner consistent with the delivery of right-handed strikes. There were six police officers positioned immediately around and on top of the Complainant. WO #1’s upper body moved in a manner consistent with knee strikes or a press down of the knee into the Complainant.

At 12:45:34 a.m., the SO stood up from the pile of police officers. He kicked the Complainant six times. After the kicks were finished, he disengaged from the pile of officers. WO #3 arrived from around the front of the SO’s vehicle and kicked the Complainant once.

At 12:47:08 a.m., the Complainant was stood upright. There was obvious injury to his face with blood present. The SO and WO #7 escorted the Complainant away from the front of WO #4’s vehicle over to another police vehicle [WO #2’s vehicle]. The Complainant was placed up against the rear right quarter panel of WO #2’s vehicle.

Radio Communications

The SIU received radio communications from HRPS. The audio files were not time and date stamped.

At five seconds of the audio, a police officer [WO #4] advised there was a white Ford pick-up truck travelling northbound on Walby Drive that had failed to stop for him. He advised the driver [the Complainant] had been passed out at the wheel and the “val tag” returned as stolen with Quebec markers.

At one minute and 16 seconds, WO #4 advised that the Complainant was eastbound on Rebecca Street at 60 km/h and increasing speed. He advised there was grounds for ‘impaired operation’.

At one minute and 47 seconds, WO #4 advised “speeds up to 120 now”. Forty seconds later, WO #4 advised the roads were dry with no traffic. The traffic lights had all been green so far.

At two minutes and 57 seconds, a police officer [WO #13] advised, “I have sticks down.” Thirteen seconds later, WO #4 advised the Complainant had driven through a red light at Kerr Street. WO #4 said there were grounds for dangerous driving.

At three minutes and 47 seconds, WO #4 advised he was northbound on Trafalgar Road.

At four minutes and 29 seconds, a police officer [WO #2] advised the TDDs were successful. WO #4 advised another unit [WO #1] was in front of him and would take over communications.

At five minutes and 15 seconds, WO #1 advised that he was westbound near the GO station [Cross Avenue] at 120 km/h. A dispatcher confirmed the vehicle was reported stolen. Thirty seconds later, WO #1 advised that the Complainant was travelling eastbound on Cornwall Road through a red traffic light.

At seven minutes and 44 seconds, someone [a staff sergeant] directed that the truck be blocked if there was an opportunity to do so. WO #1 confirmed they were looking for that opportunity.

At eight minutes and ten seconds, WO #1 advised that the Complainant had slowed a bit as they neared Maplegrove Drive and someone should get in front of him to perform a rolling block. Twenty seconds later, WO #1 advised there was debris falling off the truck. Thirty seconds later, he advised the Complainant had driven through a red traffic light.

At nine minutes and 39 seconds, WO #1 advised they were southbound on Winston Churchill Boulevard at 130 km/h, and the Complainant was driving on his wheel rim. One minute later, WO #1 advised they had entered Peel Region and were eastbound on Lakeshore Road.

At 11 minutes and eight seconds, WO #1 advised they would try a rolling block.

At 11 minutes and 35 seconds, an unidentified police officer advised that CEWs had been deployed at the Complainant. One minute later, WO #2 advised that the Complainant was resisting arrest.

At 13 minutes and 54 seconds, the dispatcher confirmed there were two people [the Complainant and CW #1] in custody at 12:46 a.m.

At 14 minutes and 18 seconds, paramedic services were requested to attend the scene for the Complainant because of the CEW deployment.

Scene Photographs

The photographs showed the contact between the Complainant’s truck with the SO’s and WO #1’s police vehicles. WO #4’s vehicle had been cleared away from the driver side of the Complainant’s truck prior to the photography. There was a puddle of blood located on the ground between the Complainant’s front left tire and the SO’s rear left tire.

Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) Camera Data

The SIU received ASE camera data from the Town of Oakville for a speed camera located at Rebecca Street just east of Southview Road. The camera faced east. The camera was located within a 40 km/h school zone. The camera captured the Complainant’s truck as it drove past at 129 km/h. The camera captured WO #4’s vehicle as it drove past at 129 km/h. The camera captured a marked HRPS vehicle as it drove past at 118 km/h.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from HRPS between November 5, 2025, and March 4, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Arrest Report
• Scene photographs
• ICCS footage
• Communications recordings
• Policies - Use of Force; Vehicle Pursuits; Police Video Program
• Use of Force training records – the SO and WO #7
• ICCS audit logs
• GPS data
• Injury Report – WO #7
• CEW deployment data – WO #1, WO #7 and WO #9
• Notes – WO #7, WO #6, WO #1, WO #3, WO #5, WO #4, WO #11, WO #9, Officer #1, WO #13, WO #2, WO #8, WO #10, and WO #12
• Blood Warrant – toxicology results

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between November 7, 2025, and December 17, 2025:

• Ambulance Call Report from PRPS
• ASE camera data
• The Complainant’s medical records from CVH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, and other police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the early morning of November 4, 2025, WO #4, on patrol in a marked vehicle, came across a pick-up truck on Third Line stopped for a red light at Rebecca Street, Oakville. When the light turned green, the pick-up did not move. The officer exited his cruiser to check the driver and noticed him asleep with his head slumped forward. After banging on the window for a period, WO #4 was able to rouse the driver and directed him to pull over on the other side of the intersection.

The driver was the Complainant. With him in the front passenger seat was a female – CW #1. The Complainant proceeded south through the intersection, put on his four-way flashers as if he was going to stop, and then accelerated away.

WO #4 radioed what had happened and began to pursue the truck. Other officers heard the transmissions and headed in the area of the pursuit to assist, including WO #1 in an unmarked police vehicle. The officer would come to occupy the lead cruiser in pursuit, in front of WO #4. The SO, also operating an unmarked police cruiser, intervened as well.

The pursuit continued at speed for about 12 minutes. The Complainant disregarded multiple red lights, as did police officers. A spike belt was deployed in front of the pick-up truck at one point, causing damage to the truck’s front driver side tire. As the pursuit turned onto eastbound Lakeshore Road West from Winston Churchill Boulevard in Mississauga, the three vehicles closest to the Complainant’s truck – WO #4, WO #1 and the SO – decided to perform a rolling block. In the area of the roadway’s intersection with Avonhead Road, the SO overtook the truck and began to slow in front of it. The Complainant brought the truck to an abrupt stop in front of the officer. WO #4 stopped his cruiser alongside the driver side of the truck (preventing the driver’s door from opening) and WO #1 directly behind. The time was about 12:44 a.m.

The SO exited his vehicle and approached the front of WO #4’s cruiser, pointing his semi-automatic pistol at the Complainant in the driver’s seat of the truck. The officer was joined by WO #1 and WO #7, who each fired their CEWs at the Complainant through the open driver’s door window. Orders were shouted at the Complainant to exit the vehicle. The SO holstered his gun and took out his OC canister, which he sprayed at the Complainant. Shortly after, the SO climbed on top of the hood of WO #4’s cruiser, grabbed a hold of the Complainant’s leg, which had appeared through the driver’s window, and, with WO #1 and WO #7’s help, pulled the Complainant out of the truck onto the hood. The Complainant had his arms together by his chest and was on his right side on top of the hood when the SO punched him three times to the upper torso / head area. The Complainant was pulled off the hood onto the ground in front of WO #4’s cruiser. There were now about six officers surrounding the Complainant. Among them, the SO punched in the direction of the Complainant’s torso five times and WO #1 dropped his knee onto the upper body and head area two or three times. The SO then stood up and kicked at the Complainant’s right hip area six times. Shortly after, the Complainant was handcuffed, stood up and lodged in the backseat of one of the cruisers.

The Complainant was transported to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with multiple facial fractures.

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 320.13, Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm or Death

320.13(1) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by HRPS officers on November 4, 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 injuries.

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 subject to arrest at the time of the events in question. He gave the appearance of driving while impaired and certainly had operated the pick-up truck in a dangerous manner contrary to section 320.13(1) of the Criminal Code.

The quantum of force used to take the Complainant into custody was significant and subject to legitimate scrutiny, but I am unable to reasonably conclude with any confidence that it went beyond what was necessary in the circumstances. The Complainant had just led multiple cruisers on a pursuit of some length, disregarding red lights, driving at excessive speeds, and endangering public safety. He seemed bent on escape and would have given the involved officers cause to suspect that he would physically resist arrest once his vehicle had been stopped. The SO also talked about a concern that the Complainant could be armed with a gun as he (the officer) had been involved in other cases involving suspected stolen vehicles containing firearms. Without any specific articulable reason to believe that the Complainant was in possession of a weapon, that consideration would ordinarily be accorded limited weight in the liability analysis but for the fact that there is evidence, provided by multiple officers, including the SO, that the Complainant turned his attention on several occasions to the centre console area of the vehicle as orders were being shouted at him to exit the vehicle. On this record, I accept that the CEW discharges, the use of the OC spray and the initial punches struck by the SO were legally justified as a way to immediately neutralize the Complainant.

More difficult is the question of justification with respect to the force brought to bear once the Complainant was on the ground. He was at this point surrounded by a half-dozen or so officers. Was it necessary to repeatedly punch and kick him, as the SO did, or for WO #1 to use his knee, as he did? The difficulty derives in part from the absence of clear evidence regarding what the Complainant was doing at the time. The ICCS footage that captures the officers’ conduct does not depict the Complainant because he was obstructed by the bodies of other officers and the top of WO #4’s cruiser. The SO and WO #1 say that the Complainant physically resisted the officers’ efforts to control his arms behind the back and that they used force until his arms were freed and handcuffed, and not beyond that point. If that is true, then the strikes might well be considered commensurate with the exigencies of the moment, particularly in light of the concern about a possible weapon. While hindsight suggests the officers could have subdued the Complainant by way of their greater numbers without the need for strikes, the law recognizes that officers embroiled in volatile and dynamic situations cannot be expected to measure their responsive force with precision: R v Nasogaluak, [2010] 1 SCR 206; R v Baxter (1975), 27 CCC (2d) 96 (Ont. CA). It should be noted that there is a version of events in the evidence that the Complainant at no point resisted arrest. That evidence is not only contested by the accounts of the involved officers, but undermined by certain frailties, such as the claim that the Complainant’s head was smashed off a cruiser multiple times after the arrest. The available ICCS footage suggests that did not happen. In the result, as there is no reason to believe that this evidence is any likelier to be closer to the truth than that proffered by the police, and some reason to doubt it, there are no reasonable grounds for moving forward with charges in this case.

I note what appears to have been possible misconduct on the part of certain HRPS members. In apparent violation of the service policy governing police pursuits and section 27 of the Police Code of Conduct, the SO, WO #1 and WO #6 involved themselves in the pursuit of the Complainant while operating unmarked police vehicles. In apparent contravention of section 20(1) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, and section 3 of the Police Code of Conduct, there is evidence to suggest the HRPS did not take sufficient steps to preserve important evidence with respect to blood in WO #2’s cruiser and the damage done to certain cruisers in the course of the incident under investigation. The investigation also revealed that a number of officers failed to stop at red lights in the course of the pursuit, including the SO, WO #4 and WO #1, in potential violation of section 144(20) of the Highway Traffic Act, the police service’s pursuit policy and section 27 of the Police Code of Conduct. Lastly, there is evidence that WO #1 and WO #3 may have minimized the extent of the force they used in the course of the Complainant’s arrest, contrary to sections 19 and 31 of the Police Code of Conduct. I will be referring these matters to the Chief of Police for review and action as the service deems appropriate. Further to the SIU’s legal obligation under section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, I will also be referring these matters to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: March 4, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit