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 alleged sexual assault of a 17-year-old male (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 16, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On September 16, 2025, LECA received a complaint from a staff member - Civilian Witness (CW) – of the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre, Brampton. The CW reported that on September 9, 2025, a youth – the Complainant. - complained of physical and sexual assault when he was arrested by a Toronto Police Service (TPS) officer with a shorter build and a particular tattoo. The officer handcuffed the Complainant and told him to stop resisting. He then reportedly bashed the Complainant’s head against a wall, told him to spread his legs so he could search him, and slapped his testicles three times.

At 2:55 p.m., October 16, 2025, the SIU notified the TPS of the complaint. At 3:55 p.m., the TPS advised that inquiries into the Complainant’s arrest revealed he was most recently arrested by TPS on February 24, 2025, and that a CPIC query revealed he was arrested by York Regional Police (YRP) for an offence committed on September 1, 2025, for which he appeared in court on September 2, 2025.

At 4:24 p.m., the SIU contacted the YRP and notified them of the complaint.

On Friday, October 17, 2025, at 10:17 a.m., the YRP advised the SIU that on September 1, 2025, the Complainant was one of six men arrested during a home invasion at an address in Markham in which the homeowner was shot in the hip and his daughter kidnapped that morning. A number of police officers were in the kitchen during the Complainant’s arrest. According to police records, an officer later identified as the Subject Officer (SO) arrested and transported the Complainant.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/10/17 at 11:02 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/10/21 at 12:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

Declined an interview

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on October 21, 2025

Subject Official

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

The subject official was interviewed on November 12, 2025

Witness Officials

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

The witness officials were interviewed on October 29, 2025

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the kitchen of a house in Markham and beside a cruiser outside the residence.

Audio/Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

YRP Communications Recordings

A man called 911 to report an armed robbery. He was at home with his parents. A commotion could be heard in the background, and the man stopped communication.

A police officer was subsequently heard shouting, “Hands up! Get on the ground, get on the fucking ground! Hands behind your back!”

The dispatcher reported there was a shooting at a residence with four men in custody and one outstanding. A police officer reported they were inside, and two suspects had run into the backyard. A police officer requested Emergency Medical Services as there was one person shot. A Glock with an extended magazine had been located on the ground. Four persons were reported in custody - two in grey hoodies and two in dark clothing. One suspect was possibly outstanding.

Video Footage – The Residence

On September 1, 2025, between about 7:59:44 a.m. and 8:02:39 a.m., a group of people were captured arriving at the address. A vehicle drove by the residence, then reversed and parked in the driveway. A man exited a rear passenger door and walked up to the house empty-handed. He appeared to input a garage door code to open the garage door. A second man exited the front passenger door with nothing in his hands. A third man sitting in a rear passenger seat handed a crowbar to the first man, who had exited the rear passenger door. A fourth man exited from the driver side rear door carrying an axe. The third man exited from the rear passenger seat holding a hammer and carrying two duffle bags. All men were masked and walked towards the residence. The second man walked back to the vehicle. He opened the passenger door and appeared to have a conversation with the driver. A fifth man (the driver) exited from the driver’s door and walked with the second man holding an unknown device in his hands. The fifth man ran back towards the driver’s door of the vehicle, retrieved something and then ran back towards the house.

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – Officer #1’s Cruiser

Between about 8:53:17 a.m. and 9:01:26 a.m., September 1, 2025, multiple police officers were captured in the area of the incident. The Complainant’s associates were escorted from the house to different police vehicles.

Starting at about 9:03:17 a.m., WO #4 and WO #2 escorted a male – the Complainant. - in a grey tracksuit, hands handcuffed behind the back, from the residence and bent him over the police vehicle. The SO followed them. WO #2 left and WO #3 joined the SO and the Complainant.

Starting at about 9:03:39 a.m., the SO stood to the left of the Complainant. He put his right hand on the Complainant’s right arm and moved his left arm below the camera view. The SO jostled and moved his lower body around but, due to the camera frame, it was unclear what happened below the police vehicle. The SO moved below the police vehicle out of camera frame.

Starting at about 9:04:32 a.m., the SO used his right hand to grab hold of the Complainant’s hair and pulled his head up from the hood. The SO and WO #3 pulled the Complainant off the hood and stood him up. The SO searched the upper clothing of the Complainant.

Starting at about 9:05:57 a.m., the Complainant was escorted out the left camera frame.

ICC Footage – Officer #2’s Cruiser

On September 1, at 9:07:21 a.m., the rear passenger door opened, and the Complainant was placed into the rear passenger seat.

At 9:07:48 a.m., the Complainant shook his head and said, “I knew it, why these [redacted] putting this stuff in my head, tricking me and stuff.” He whispered, “Please God, please. Fucking idiot.”

At 9:09:01 a.m., the rear passenger door opened and the SO provided the Complainant his rights to counsel and adult representation.

At 9:20:43 a.m., the Complainant was transported to the police station.

At 9:36:57 a.m., the Complainant was informed he was charged with break and enter, attempted murder, and discharge firearm with intent.

At 10:07:16 a.m., the rear passenger side door opened, and the Complainant was directed to exit the police vehicle.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the YRP between October 21, 2025, and November 12, 2025:

• Communications recordings
• Voice Technician statement
• General Occurrence Report
• Use of Force recertifications – the SO
• ICC footage
• List of involved officers
• Policy - Search of Persons
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4
• Photographs
• Forensic Report
• Video footage – the residence
• Booking footage
• TPS Person History – the Complainant

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the following other sources between October 16, 2025, and October 22, 2025:

• LECA SIU Notification
• LECA Complainant Form

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

In the morning of September 1, 2025, YRP officers responded to a priority call at an address in Markham. A resident of the home had contacted police to report a break and enter in progress. Officers, including the SO, arrived at the address at about 9:00 a.m. The suspects were still at the property. Two of them were arrested in the rear yard. Two others, including the Complainant, were arrested in the kitchen. Also in the kitchen lying on the floor was an occupant of the home. He had been shot in the abdomen.

Confronted at gunpoint by one of the responding officers, the Complainant had lowered himself to the floor onto his front. WO #1 attempted to handcuff him but had trouble doing so because of the Complainant’s size. The SO arrived to assist WO #1. He struck the Complainant in the face, after which he restrained his arms behind the back using two sets of handcuffs.

The Complainant was lifted to his feet and eventually escorted to a cruiser outside the home where he was searched by the SO. He was subsequently placed in the vehicle and transported to the police station.

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.

271 Everyone who commits a sexual assault is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years or, if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months or, if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.

Section 348, Criminal Code of Canada - Breaking and Entering With Intent, Committing Offence or Breaking Out

348 (1) Every one who

(a) breaks and enters a place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein,

(b) breaks and enters a place and commits an indictable offence therein, or

(c) breaks out of a place after

(i) committing an indictable offence therein, or

(ii) entering the place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein,

is guilty

(d) if the offence is committed in relation to a dwelling-house, of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and

(e) if the offence is committed in relation to a place other than a dwelling-house, of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

On October 16, 2025, LECA contacted the SIU to report that they were in receipt of information in which it was alleged that an officer had sexually assaulted a male – the Complainant – in the course of the Complainant’s arrest on September 1, 2025. The SIU initiated an investigation, naming a YRP officer - 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 complaint of sexual assault.

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.

There is evidence that the Complainant was present in the kitchen wearing a partial mask with another fully-masked individual upon the officers’ arrival. In the circumstances, he was subject to lawful arrest for a variety of offences, including 348(1) of the Criminal Code.

There is an allegation in the evidence in which the officer who arrested the Complainant – the SO – is said to have punched him five to eight times and bashed his head against a wall inside the home. Unfortunately, as the Complainant chose not to interview with the SIU, the investigation does not have the benefit of his evidence regarding the circumstances in which the alleged force occurred. For his part, the SO acknowledges that he struck the Complainant in the face but says that he only did so once in order to overcome the Complainant’s refusal to surrender his arms to be handcuffed. On the officer’s rendition of events, the force used against the Complainant would not appear disproportionate to the task at hand. As there is no reason to believe that the account of excessive force is any closer to the truth than the account of the officer, the evidence does not give rise to a reasonable basis to proceed with charges against the SO in relation to the force he used.

It is also alleged that the SO grabbed the Complainant’s testicles and slapped them three times during the search at the cruiser, raising the issue of a possible sexual assault.

A sexual assault consists of an assault within any of its definitions in the Criminal Code that is sexual in nature and violates the sexual integrity of the victim: R v Chase, [1987] 2 SCR 293.

The SO concedes that he performed a pat-down search of the Complainant and that he used greater force than usual in running his hand up the Complainant’s legs to his crotch area because his thighs were squeezed together. He denies that he grabbed the Complainant’s testicles or slapped them three times. An officer present in the vicinity at the time of the search – WO #3 – says he did not see any inappropriate contact by the SO, albeit his attention was not focused on the search. Video footage of the search was not dispositive as the lower half of the Complainant’s body was obstructed by the cruiser. On this record, with no reason to prefer the allegation of slapping as closer to the truth than the evidence proffered by the SO, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Complainant was sexually assaulted.

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

Date: February 6, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit