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 35-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On September 2, 2025, at 1:25 p.m., Witness Official (WO) #2 of the Belleville Police Service (BPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On August 29, 2025, between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m., BPS officers were at a hospital Emergency Room (ER) when a patient [subsequently identified as the Complainant] became irate. One of the officers, the Subject Official (SO), assisted hospital staff in restraining the Complainant. The following day, the Complainant’s family attended the police station wanting to speak to internal affairs investigators about how their son was handled. The supervising officer arranged for an investigator to contact them on September 2, 2025. When asked if their son had any injuries, the family members said he had sustained a facial injury and an injury to an eye. On August 31, 2025, the BPS Deputy Chief called WO #2, advising the man was in the Intensive Care Unit not because of the interaction with the SO, but as result of psychosis, a potential concussion and a possibly broken nose. WO #2 advised the SIU that he would call back with an update on the man’s injuries, once confirmed.

On September 3, 2025, at 3:30 p.m., a staff sergeant called the SIU to provide an update on the injuries. He explained that he had spoken to Civilian Witness (CW) #3, who said that on August 29, 2025, he was bringing the Complainant to a hospital in Toronto for mental health issues but diverted to the Quinte Healthcare – Belleville General Hospital (BGH) because the Complainant was beginning to act up in the car. CW #3 provided the staff sergeant a copy of hospital documentation that noted the Complainant had arrived at the hospital extremely agitated. He lunged at CW #10 and tried to bite her shoulder. The hospital issued a “Code White” (need assistance), and the ER doctor immediately attended. The Complainant was quickly restrained by security guards and a police officer, who happened to be in the department with another patient. The Complainant was pinned to the ground and handcuffed. He was given a heavy dose of medication, but his behaviour continued to escalate. The police officer gave him several blows to the left chest and face while the Complainant was prone and handcuffed. The officer told the doctor that the Complainant, while handcuffed, had tried to reach for his gun. The Complainant was moved to a stretcher and placed in four-point restraints. A subsequent computed tomography of the head/neck/facial bones showed a nasal bone fracture and soft tissue swelling overlying one eye, requiring one suture. The doctor’s report further noted the fracture was likely sustained during the interaction with police.

The staff sergeant confirmed with CW #3 that the Complainant did not have any injuries prior to attending the hospital. CW #3 also told the staff sergeant he witnessed the incident and saw the officer strike the Complainant “seven to eight times with massive blows to the head after being handcuffed”.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/09/03 at 4:13 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/09/03 at 6:03 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on September 5, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

CW #7 Interviewed

CW #8 Interviewed

CW #9 Interviewed

CW #10 Interviewed

CW #11 Interviewed

CW #12 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between September 4 and 24, 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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness official was interviewed on September 9, 2025.

Investigative Delay

Delay was incurred in the investigation owing to resource pressures in the Director’s Office.

The Scene

The incident occurred in the ED of the BGH, in the area of an anteroom.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

On September 6, 2025, CW #3 provided photos of the Complainant’s injury.

On September 9, 2025, the ED manager provided a floor plan of the ED.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the BPS between September 3, 2025, and September 22, 2025:

• Hospital discharge documentation
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3
• Photos of the Complainant’s injuries
• CW #1’s email to SIU
• Correspondence from the BPS regarding public complaint of alleged assault by an officer
• Training records – the SO
• Occurrence Summary Report
• Use of Force Report
• Policies - Body-worn Cameras; Police Response to Mental Health Calls or Persons in Crisis; Use of Force; Arrest Procedure
• Communications recordings
• Correspondence from the BPS – IMPACT Training

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between September 5, 2025, and October 8, 2025:

• Correspondence from the OPP
• Correspondence from the SO’s counsel
• Security Report provided by the BGH manager of Occupational Health, Safety and Security
• Correspondence from the ED manager regarding BGH ED blueprint
• Floor plan marked by the ED manager
• The Complainant’s medical records from BGH
• Photos of the Complainant’s injury
• Email from CW #1
• Additional note of CW #5

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and a host of civilian eyewitnesses, 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 afternoon of August 29, 2025, the Complainant found himself in an anteroom of the Resuscitation Room in the Emergency Department of the Belleville General Hospital. He had been transported to hospital by CW #3 and CW #10, concerned about the Complainant’s mental health following a psychotic break earlier that day. The Complainant was highly agitated. While waiting in the anteroom, he started to bang on the glass walls and create a disturbance.

Security guards – CW #4 and CW #5 – responded to the area, as did a police officer – the SO – who happened to be present in the Emergency Department on other business. CW #4 took the Complainant to the floor and assisted the SO in handcuffing him behind the back. The Complainant was lifted to his feet and seated in a chair in the anteroom.

Moments later, the Complainant rose from the chair and lunged in the direction of CW #10. CW #4, CW #5 and the SO intervened and fought with the Complainant to force him to the floor. In the course of those efforts, the SO punched the Complainant to the right side of the face.

The Complainant struggled with the security guards and the officer, attempting to bite and headbutt them as they tried to keep him pinned on the floor. Additional staff entered the fray to assist in controlling the Complainant. A physician observing these events ordered that the Complainant be sedated. Three injections were administered. At some point before the last of the injections, the SO punched the Complainant three to four times to the left back and ribs area.

Following the last of the injections, the Complainant became very sedated. He was placed on a stretcher with restraints, taken to the trauma room, and eventually diagnosed with a nasal bone fracture.

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 a struggle with a BPS officer on August 29, 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.

Among the fundamental duties of a police constable is the preservation of the peace. The Complainant was in a state of psychosis and behaving in a very belligerent manner. There was a real concern among staff for their safety and the safety of others in the area. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights in intervening to help subdue the Complainant.

The force used by the SO, namely, the strikes to the Complainant’s head and torso, is subject to legitimate scrutiny. Serious questions are raised whenever an officer uses force against a handcuffed subject. The doctor present at the time and others, including CW #3, were sufficiently concerned about the strikes that they verbally objected as they were occurring.

On the other hand, there was substantial evidence from other eyewitnesses, including among those who participated in the struggle with the Complainant, of the Complainant’s formidable resistance following the initial takedown. This included a lunge in the direction of CW #10, who may or may not have been bitten by the Complainant before the SO and the security guards came between them, and the difficulty the three of them had in returning the Complainant to the floor. In the circumstances, it would not appear that one or two punches to the face constituted unnecessary force, particularly as it seemed to assist in the Complainant’s grounding. The strikes to the back and/or side after the second takedown are less easy to justify. In utterances made to bystanders, the officer explained that the punches were struck to counteract the Complainant’s resistance.[3] That evidence finds support in the accounts of others who were physically engaged with the Complainant at that time to the effect that the Complainant continued to struggle and even began to lift his chest from the floor at one point. There is also evidence that the Complainant’s movements on the floor were preventing the administration of the third and final dose of sedation. It might well have been that the SO, with the assistance of the security guards, could have accomplished their objectives without the punches. That said, I am mindful that an officer caught up in a dynamic situation is not expected to measure their degree of force with precision, what is required is a reasonable response, not an exacting one: R v Nasogaluak, [2010] 1 SCR 206; R v Baxter (1975), 27 CCC (2d) 96 (Ont. CA). On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO’s conduct fell afoul of the latitude recognized by the criminal law.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: March 13, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit