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 29-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 29, 2025, at 4:07 a.m., the Complainant submitted the following information through the inquiry form on the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) website.

On October 9, 2025, the Complainant spray-painted a business then attempted to run away from an unknown Thunder Bay Police Service (TBPS) officer and two men. The Complainant fell on the ground and the officer punched and kicked him while he was on the ground. The officer assaulted the Complainant with a “change purse weapon” or a closed fist which fractured his nose. The officer directed Civilian Witness (CW) #3 to restrain the Complainant. The Complainant was arrested, refused medical aid, and was placed in a cell.

On November 18, 2025, the SIU Investigative Manager received the online inquiry from the SIU Media Liaison.

On November 19, 2025, at 11:21 a.m., the Investigative Manager called the Complainant who advised he went to the hospital the day after the incident. He was diagnosed with a nasal fracture and herniated discs in his back. He advised he had a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scheduled on December 6, 2025, to confirm his injuries. The Investigative Manager requested the Complainant email copies of his medical records.

On December 2, 2025, the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) forwarded a complaint to the SIU which was made by the Complainant. The LECA complaint was similar to the information provided to the SIU.

On December 10, 2025, at 1:04 p.m., the Investigative Manager called TBPS. The Liaison Officer (LO) advised that on October 9, 2025, at 1:40 p.m., CW #3 and an off-duty officer, the Subject Official (SO), saw the Complainant spray paint a building on Bay Street, in Thunder Bay. The Complainant tried to run away, tripped and fell on the pavement. The SO and CW #3 held the Complainant until Witness Official (WO) #1 arrived. The Complainant was arrested for mischief and transported to the TBPS station. At the booking desk, the Complainant told the staff sergeant [now known to be WO #2] that his nose was broken but WO #2 did not notice redness, or an injury, and the Complainant was lodged in a cell.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/12/11 at 1:10 p.m.

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

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on December 12, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between January 20, 2026, and February 2, 2026.

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

The witness officials were interviewed on January 5, 2026.

Investigative Delay

On October 29, 2025, the Complainant notified the SIU of a serious injury via the SIU online inquiry form which was received by the SIU media liaison. The media liaison requested the Complainant provide medical records to confirm injury. It is now known that the Complainant was under medical care from November 3, 2025, to November 18, 2025. On November 18, 2025, he provided a photograph of a single page which did not show he had a serious injury. On November 18, 2025, the media liaison passed the Complainant’s information on to the Investigative Manager. On November 22, 2025, the Complainant sent the Investigative Manager a page of his radiology results which confirmed he had bilateral nose fractures of indeterminate age. He continued to submit isolated pages of his medical documentation instead of a full, comprehensive set of records. Eventually, the case was assigned to a Lead Investigator on December 10, 2025.

On December 12, 2025, designation letters and a request letter were sent to TBPS to obtain evidence. Interviews with the witness officials were requested immediately. TBPS did not provide interviews until January 5, 2026, despite numerous requests between December 12, 2025, and January 5, 2026. The LO said he could not retain counsel for the witness officials because of holiday availability of counsel.

The disclosure of evidence from TBPS pursuant to the request letter was also delayed. Disclosure was not received until December 24, 2025, with the General Occurrence Report received last on February 13, 2026. Disclosure was also not shared correctly via the Axon Digital Evidence Management System with the correct permissions to view and download evidence not provided to the SIU, which resulted in delays. Numerous phone calls were made to the LO to obtain the evidence and fix the Axon permissions.

On December 23, 2025, counsel for the SO provided the phone number for the owner of a business in the same strip mall where the incident occurred. The business was closed over the holidays, but a voicemail was left at the business. On January 9, 2026, CW #1 called the SIU Investigator who left the voicemail and advised that the business owner was not a witness and was inside the business the entire time. CW #1 advised that she and CW #2 were witnesses and also worked at the business. They provided interviews to the SIU on January 30, 2026.

The cell phone number provided for CW #3 contained a single digit error which resulted in no contact with CW #3 after multiple phone calls and voicemails until a final attempt was made via a phone call to his business on January 28, 2026. CW #3 provided an interview on February 2, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a strip mall on Bay Street, in Thunder Bay.

The ground surface was paved asphalt in the parking area and there was a concrete sidewalk which ran around the strip mall in front of the entrances to the assorted businesses. The scene was not held for the SIU, nor was it forensically examined or photographed prior to its release which was well before the notification to the SIU.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage - Bay Street Strip Mall

The video was from a camera located at the strip mall on Bay Street.

On October 9, 2025, at 1:35:45 p.m., a man [the Complainant] walked through the parking lot towards the front door of a business with the business name displayed above the door. He spray-painted orange paint across the front door.

At 1:35:53 p.m., the Complainant turned to his right and walked away then after a few steps he started to run. As he started to run, there was a step downwards on the sidewalk. He had his hands in the front pocket of his hooded sweatshirt. Two men [CW #3 and the SO] exited the business and ran after the Complainant.

At 1:35:55 p.m., the Complainant tripped and fell on his own as he ran away. He landed face first on the sidewalk. His hands were still in the pockets of his sweater as he fell. He rolled and flipped over, as he landed in an almost seated position.

At 1:35:57 p.m., CW #3 and the SO arrived at where the Complainant had fallen. CW #3 reached down for the Complainant’s legs as the Complainant kicked at him. The SO reached down towards the Complainant’s upper body and appeared to swing his right arm at the Complainant. The Complainant continued to kick. The SO placed the Complainant onto his right side and attempted to control him. CW #3 stepped back.

At 1:36:04 p.m., CW #3 bent down and controlled the Complainant’s right arm as the SO placed his weight on the Complainant. The Complainant was placed in a prone position with his arms out in front of him. The SO laid across the Complainant’s upper back while CW #3 controlled the Complainant’s legs. Multiple civilians [two of which were CW #2 and CW #1] gathered around. The SO and CW #3 brought the Complainant’s hands behind his back and held him in this position until the video ended at 1:40:03 p.m.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On October 9, 2025, at 1:46:45 p.m., WO #1 arrived at an address on Bay Street, in Thunder Bay. He exited his police vehicle. There was a man [the Complainant] who was face down on the sidewalk with two men [CW #3 and the SO]. WO #1 asked if the Complainant was alright. The Complainant advised his nose was broken and requested an ambulance. He also advised he was “a patient…. at the hospital, I’ve got two herniated discs”.

At 1:47:07 p.m., WO #1 told the Complainant he was under arrest for mischief. WO #1 handcuffed the Complainant with his hands behind his back. The Complainant was stood upright then escorted to WO #1’s police vehicle. The Complainant was placed up against the police vehicle. He said, “that guy in the brown boots broke my fucking nose”. He was placed in the back seat of WO #1’s vehicle.

At 1:48:18 p.m., WO #1 spoke with CW #3. CW #3 advised he was doing business with the SO, when the SO pointed at the Complainant as he spray-painted the door of CW #3’s business. CW #3 said he chased the Complainant “who wiped out then we grabbed him”. A woman [CW #1] said, “when he wiped out, his head hit the sidewalk, these guys weren’t even close to him.” CW #3 said, “he lost his footing on the stairs there, the two steps and then…catch up, he just tumbled and rolled and we just got on top of him”. There were orange spray paint marks on the front door of the business.

At 1:54:06 p.m., WO #1 asked the Complainant how his nose got broken. The Complainant said, “the guy in the brown boots, when I fell… he just ran up and clobbered me in the face.”

At 1:54:58 p.m., WO #1 spoke with a nearby woman [CW #2]. CW #2 advised she was outside for a cigarette, when she saw the Complainant arrive at the business and spray paint it. The Complainant ran and “he tripped in our little divot here”. She pointed to an area of the sidewalk. She said when the Complainant sat up, he tried to kick CW #3 and the SO. The SO said, “bad day to hit” the business “you’re under arrest.” WO #1 asked if anyone threw any punches and CW #2 said no.

At 1:59:58 p.m., WO #1 asked the Complainant why he lied about his nose. WO #1 said there were witnesses who confirmed the Complainant was never punched in the nose.

Custody Footage

On October 9, 2025, at 2:13 p.m., the Complainant arrived at the TBPS station and was escorted into the booking area. He advised he was on medications for herniated discs and for his mental health. He complained of a broken nose and shoulder pain. He requested to go to the hospital twice for his broken nose and for back pain. His face appeared uninjured.

Throughout his stay at the TBPS, his face appeared uninjured and he did not appear to tend to any injury. He slept for the remainder of his time in custody.

Communications Recordings

The radio communications were not time and date stamped but the 911 call was.

On October 9, 2025, at 1:36:36 p.m., TBPS received a 911 call from CW #2. She advised police officers were required at an address on Bay Street for a man [the Complainant] who had just spray painted a business. She advised there was an off-duty officer named “[the SO’s surname]” who restrained the Complainant. She said, “they’ve got him on the ground, he’s not fighting anymore”. She said the owner of the shop [CW #3] assisted the SO. She said an ambulance was not required.

A dispatcher advised the SO had the Complainant detained on the ground at the address on Bay Street because the Complainant had sprayed graffiti on a shop. A police officer [WO #1] advised he had the Complainant in custody. WO #1 advised the Complainant was under arrest for mischief under $5000.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from TBPS between December 24, 2025, and February 13, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Arrest Report
• Notes – WO #1 and WO #2
• Use of Force Policy
• Use of Force Training Records – the SO
• BWC videos
• In-car Camera System videos
• Custody videos
• Communications recordings

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between December 2, 2025, and December 24, 2025:

• The Complainant’s medical records from Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre
• Video recording from the SO’s counsel for the strip mall on Bay Street
• LECA Complaint and Notification

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident, 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 afternoon of October 9, 2025, the SO was off-duty and attending an appointment at a business, located in a strip mall on Bay Street, in Thunder Bay. While there, he observed a man – the Complainant applying orange spray paint to the front door of the business. He alerted the owner – CW #3. CW #3 ran after the Complainant, and the SO followed. As he fled along the sidewalk towards Bay Street, the Complainant lost his footing and fell forward onto the sidewalk, striking his face. CW #3 and the SO reached him within moments where he had fallen. CW #3 attempted to secure the Complainant’s legs, during which the Complainant kicked at him. The SO reached towards the Complainant’s upper body as he attempted to gain control of him, the Complainant continued to kick. The SO positioned the Complainant onto his right side, and as he applied physical control, including the use of his bodyweight, the Complainant came to rest in a prone position. The SO maintained control over the Complainant’s upper back. The SO and CW #3 then brought the Complainant’s hands behind him and continued to restrain him until police arrived.

Several bystanders had gathered, and one contacted police. WO #1 responded, arrested the Complainant for mischief, assisted him to his feet, and transported him to the TBPS police station.

The following day, the Complainant attended hospital and was diagnosed with bilateral nasal bone fractures of indeterminate age.

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 an interaction with TBPS officers on October 9, 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.

The SO had observed the Complainant applying spray-paint to the front door of a business and was within his legal authority in seeking to arrest him on that basis.

I am satisfied that the force used by the SO did not exceed the range of what was reasonably necessary in the circumstances to maintain safe custody over the Complainant. The Complainant was on the ground after attempting to run and was exhibiting resistance. In the circumstances, it was reasonable for the SO to keep him secured on the ground to prevent him from regaining his feet and attempting to flee again, and to manage any continuing resistance. During the restraint, there is no clear evidence of the Complainant having been struck by the SO. The Bay Street Plaza video footage was equivocal in this regard. While it captured what appeared to be a swinging motion by the SO in the direction of what may have been the Complainant’s face, the action was consistent with an altercation of the nature described by CW #3 and the other witnesses, namely, the SO attempting to gain physical control of the Complainant as the Complainant struggled.

While there is some evidence suggesting that the Complainant was punched once in the face when the SO initially attempted to gain control of him, the allegation cannot be reliably established. The force described is not substantiated by the video evidence. There was also an allegation that the SO delivered several punches while holding an object concealed in the palm of his hand. The same footage depicts only a single possible strike, not the multiple blows described by the source, and reveals no object in the SO’s hand at any point during the incident. Further, the video evidence establishes that only two other men were involved in the encounter besides the Complainant, contrary to the source’s assertion that he was assaulted by four men. For these and other reasons, this account of what occurred is insufficiently reliable to warrant consideration by a court.

On the totality of the evidence, I am unable to conclude that a strike occurred. However, given the Complainant’s attempted flight and assaultive kicking, a single closed-fist strike, if it did occur, would have been within the range of reasonable force. No other force was used by the officer.

As for the fracture that the Complainant is said to have suffered during the incident, I am unable to reasonably conclude with any confidence that it is evidence of force applied by the SO. The injuries are as likely to have resulted from the Complainant’s fall forward onto the pavement, as from a punch, assuming a punch occurred, and assuming the injury occurred during the incident at all. In any event, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the SO comported himself other than within the limits of the criminal law in his dealings with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: March 18, 2026

Electronically approved by

Stacey O’Brien

Deputy Director

Special Investigations Unit