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 34-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On November 27, 2025, at 12:38 p.m., the Chatham-Kent Police Service (CKPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On November 26, 2025, at 2:18 p.m., CKPS Drug Unit officers executed a warrant for drugs at a home in the area of Riverview Drive and Keil Drive South, Chatham. The Complainant was arrested and taken to CKPS headquarters, arriving at 2:33 p.m. He was booked, processed and lodged in a cell. Several hours later, the Complainant started vomiting uncontrollably. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were requested at 7:24 p.m., and paramedics subsequently transported the Complainant to Chatham-Kent Health Alliance (CKHA), Chatham Campus Hospital. The Complainant experienced convulsions in hospital and, by late in the night, he was lethargic and in stable condition. The Complainant was admitted to hospital with a drug overdose.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/11/27 at 12:56 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/11/28 at 11:00 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on December 2, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on February 4, 2026.

Service Employee Witness (SEW)

SEW Interviewed

The service employee witness was interviewed on February 4, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a standard single cell located at CKPS headquarters. The cell contained a single concrete bed with a blue mattress along with a stainless-steel toilet/sink/fountain combination.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

CKPS In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

The ICC recording was reviewed to determine if the Complainant ingested any substances while in the police vehicle en route to the police station following his arrest. The footage indicated he did not.

CKPS Custody Footage

On November 26, 2025, at 2:33 p.m., the Complainant was processed at the CKPS station and appeared to be falling asleep. He was asked about ingesting alcohol or drugs prior to his arrest. His response was unintelligible.

Starting at 2:46 p.m., the Complainant appeared unsteady on his feet as he removed clothing prior to entering a cell.

Starting at 6:02 p.m., while in cells, the Complainant waved at the camera in distress while bent over and shaking.

Starting at 6:50 p.m., the Complainant vomited several times.

Starting at 7:34 p.m., EMS arrived and transported the Complainant to the hospital.

Records – Miscellaneous

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) Search Warrant

On November 26, 2025, at 9:35 a.m., CKPS were granted a CDSA search warrant by a Justice of the Peace. The place to be searched was the residence of the Complainant with the authority to search between November 26, 2025, 9:35 a.m., and November 27, 2025, at 11:59 p.m.

CKPS Arrest Booking Report

On November 26, 2025, at 2:33 p.m., the Complainant was lodged in Cell 6 and checked every 15 - 30 minutes.

Starting at 7:36 p.m.,[3] the Complainant vomited in his cell and was transported to the hospital by paramedics.

On November 27, 2025, at 8:00 p.m., Southwest Detention Centre guards assumed custody of the Complainant while at the hospital.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the CKPS between December 2, 2025, and January 13, 2026.

• Arrest Booking Report
• Booking footage
• Policy – Search of Persons
• Policy – Prisoner Care and Control
• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Notes – SO #1, WO #2, WO #1 and WO #3
• Communications recordings
• CDSA Search Warrant
• ICC footage

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from CKHA on December 23, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and three police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU. SO #1 did authorize the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of November 26, 2025, the Complainant was arrested for drug trafficking following a traffic stop by CKPS officers. A warrant authorizing a search of the Complainant’s residence for evidence of drug trafficking was in effect at the time. WO #1 searched the Complainant at the scene and confiscated a quantity of crack cocaine and fentanyl from his clothes.

The Complainant was transported to the police station and subjected to another search of his clothing, this time with negative results. He was lodged in a cell at about 2:45 p.m. and began to vomit at about 6:50 p.m. Paramedics arrived at the station at about 7:30 p.m.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with opioid withdrawal.

Section 215, Criminal Code - Failure to Provide Necessaries

215 (1) Every one is under a legal duty

(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person

(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and

(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.

(2) Every person commits an offence who, being under a legal duty within the meaning of subsection (1), fails without lawful excuse to perform that duty, if

(b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant became ill while in the custody of the CKPS on November 26, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation in which two officers were identified as subject officials – SO #1 and SO #2. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official committed a criminal offence in connection with the events under investigation.

The offences that arise for consideration are failure to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to sections 215 and 221 of the Criminal Code, respectively. Both require something more than a simple want of care to give rise to liability. The former is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. The latter is premised on even more egregious conduct that demonstrates a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is not made out unless the neglect constitutes a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable standard of care. In the instant case, the question is whether there was any want of care on the part of either or both of SO #1 and SO #2, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that endangered the Complainant’s life or contributed to his condition. In my view, there was not.

With a search warrant in effect at the time, naming the Complainant in connection with drug trafficking offences, I am satisfied that he was lawfully arrested by police and taken into custody.

I am also satisfied that SO #1 and SO #2 – each with overall responsibility for the welfare of prisoners at different times during the Complainant’s stay in cells – comported themselves within the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. SO #1 asked the standard questions during the Complainant’s booking and received answers that presumably satisfied him that the Complainant was fit to be detained in cells. The Complainant appeared sluggish and unsteady, and there was reason to believe he was feeling the effects of illicit substance, but there was nothing in his presentation to suggest he required immediate medical attention. SO #1 might have considered whether a strip search was in order given the Complainant’s appearance and the nature of the crime for which he had been arrested. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that none of the Complainant’s custodians, including SO #1, squarely addressed that issue. The question is of importance as there is evidence that the Complainant might have accessed and ingested drugs in the cell that he had secreted in his briefs. Be that as it may, strip searches are only justified where there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe they are necessary: R. v. Golden, [2001] 3 SCR 679. The Complainant had already been searched twice and drugs removed from his person. He was asked all the appropriate questions at booking and the officer who brought the Complainant to the station gave SO #1 no reason to believe a strip search was required. On this record, it is not clear that the failure to perform a strip search was a mistake. If it was a mistake, it certainly did not rise to the level of a gross error in judgement. Beyond the question of a strip search, the evidence indicates the Complainant was regularly monitored and promptly provided medical attention soon after SO #2 was advised he had vomited in his cell.

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

I note what appears to have been conduct on the part of WO #3 in possible violation of paragraph F2 of the CKPS Policy LE.03.003 – Prisoner Care and Control and section 27 of the Police Code of Conduct. Though required by the paragraph to conduct physical checks of prisoners every 30 minutes, there is evidence to indicate that WO #3 did not comply with the policy in the case of the Complainant. I will be referring this matter to the service for their review. Consistent with section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, I will also be referring the matter to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: March 25, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit