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 39-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 1, 2025, at 9:16 a.m., the Complainant left a voice message at SIU reception, requesting a callback. At 10:40 a.m., a SIU Investigative Manager spoke with the Complainant, who provided the following information.

On November 28, 2025, at 11:00 p.m., the Complainant was leaving work in his assigned work vehicle [a 2020 Chevrolet Silverado]. He came upon a RIDE [Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere] program situated at the intersection of Highway 410 and Queen Street East, Brampton. The Complainant’s next recollection was being dragged from his vehicle for no reason, thrown to the ground and arrested. His vehicle was subsequently towed, and he was charged with impaired driving. On November 29, 2025, the Complainant attended the Mississauga Hospital – Trillium Health and was diagnosed with bruising, cuts, back pain and a concussion.

On December 1, 2025, at 10:57 a.m., the Complainant provided the SIU his medical records, confirming his concussion diagnosis.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/12/01 at 11:02 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/12/01 at 6:44 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on December 7, 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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

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

The witness officials were interviewed on December 19, 2025.

Service Employee Witness (SEW)

SEW Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The service employee witness was interviewed on December 19, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the on-ramp to southbound Highway 410 from eastbound Queen Street East, Brampton.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - WO #1

Starting at about 10:50 p.m., November 28, 2025, the footage began with police officers conducting vehicle checks.

Starting at about 11:36 p.m., a red pick-up truck with a business identifier stopped and pulled to the right shoulder. WO #1 was captured speaking to the driver - the Complainant – and directing him to pull his truck to the front of the stopped vehicles on the shoulder. The Complainant asked how he was supposed to move. WO #1 told the Complainant to reverse, and the Complainant replied, “Why you being an asshole, don’t shine the light in my eyes.” WO #1 told the Complainant to park in front of the police cruiser ahead. The Complainant accelerated forward, prompting WO #1 to yell, “Slow down.”

Starting at about 11:37 p.m., WO #1 told the Complainant to put his vehicle in park and to step outside. The Complainant stepped out of his pick-up truck. WO #1 said, “Slow down, calm down.” The Complainant walked to the back of his pick-up truck and spoke to a second police officer - the SO. The Complainant asked what he wanted, and then directed his conversation to WO #1. WO #1 told the Complainant he was going to read him something and that they were going to conduct a breath test. A breath demand was read. The Complainant said, “Well I say fuck you man, fuck you.” WO #1 explained that a refusal would result in a criminal charge. The Complainant replied, “A criminal charge for refusing, fuck you.” WO #1 told the Complainant he would read it again and then proceeded to read the breath demand again. The Complainant said, “I don’t want to hear it, you’re being a prick, what am I being stopped for, you guys are causing traffic, why you stopping me, I’m trying to head home from work.” The SO asked the Complainant why he was like this. The Complainant said, “Because I’m trying to head home from work.” The SO told the Complainant that they may have gotten off on the wrong foot and tried to introduce himself. The Complainant said, “I don’t want to hear your name man.” The Complainant spoke to WO #1 and said, “Give me the breathalyzer test.” WO #1 wanted the Complainant to first understand, and the officer read the demand again. The Complainant said, “I understand, I don’t need to hear it, fuck you.” WO #1 told the Complainant that he needed to read the whole thing. The Complainant said, “Yeah, cause, you’re going to charge me if I refuse, fuck you man.”

Starting at about 11:39 p.m., the Complainant turned away from the police officers and walked towards the driver’s side of his pick-up truck. The SO grabbed the Complainant’s left arm, and the Complainant said, “Hey don’t.” There was a third police officer in the area. The SO physically directed the Complainant to a snow-covered grassy area on the passenger side of the pick-up truck and the Complainant fell down, landing on his right-side hip. The Complainant tried to get up and the SO physically engaged him, going to the ground with the Complainant. The Complainant was on his back. He yelled, “Get off of me, what the fuck is wrong with you guys, trying to get home after work, you fucking pricks.” A police officer told the Complainant to calm down. The Complainant said, “So it takes four of you guys to hold me down, get off, get off of me, what the fuck is wrong with you guys, I was trying to get home.”

Starting at about 11:40 p.m., the Complainant was handcuffed. He yelled, “Get off my head, get off my fucking head.”

Starting at about 11:41 p.m., the Complainant was lifted from the ground and escorted to the back of a police cruiser.

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage - WO #1

The footage captured the Complainant seated in the rear of the vehicle. The Complainant was observed kicking and kneeing the rear door. He did not strike his head while in the police vehicle.

Photographs – The Complainant

The Complainant provided SIU investigators ten photographs taken after his interaction with police officers. The photographs captured abrasions to his wrists and lower back, and slight swelling to the left side of his face around the eyebrow.

Communications Recordings

An officer from the RIDE program requested that dispatch generate a call for a male in custody for “obstruct” and “impaired”.

Custody Footage

Starting at about 12:20 a.m., November 29, 2025, the Complainant was escorted to a fixed bench in front of the custody desk by WO #1 and the SEW.

Starting at about 12:22 a.m., an officer escorted the Complainant from the bench to a wall area. The officer removed the Complainant’s handcuffs and the Complainant placed both hands on the wall in front of him. The Complainant returned to the custody desk and removed his hoodie and his belt. A police officer spoke with the Complainant.

Starting at about 12:51 a.m., officers escorted the Complainant out of the camera’s view. He was lodged in a cell, and the door was secured. The Complainant alternated between standing and sitting while in the cell.

Starting at about 2:15 a.m., a police officer removed the Complainant from the cell.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the PRP between December 1, 2025, and February 17, 2026:

• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• General, Supplementary and Arrest Reports
• Communications recordings
• ICC footage
• BWC footage
• Custody footage
• Prisoner Log
• Breath Technician Report - WO #3
• Notes - WO #2, WO #1 and the SEW.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between December 8, 2025, and December 19, 2025:

• Photographs provided by the Complainant
• The Complainant’s medical records from Mississauga Hospital – Trillium Health

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, 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 evening of November 28, 2025, the Complainant was on his way home from work travelling east on Queen Street East in Brampton. He had just taken the on-ramp to southbound Highway 410 when he was pulled over by a RIDE program set up on the ramp. The Complainant was approached by an officer who asked him to pull ahead for further questioning. Another officer – WO #1 – approached and asked the Complainant to continue forward and stop his pick-up truck on the ramp shoulder in front of a police vehicle. He did so.

WO #1 asked the Complainant to step out of his vehicle and escorted him to the back of the pick-up truck. They were joined at this time by the SO. The Complainant was angry about being pulled over. He would not allow WO #1 to fully read him a breath test demand and insisted the officer simply administer the test. WO #1 explained that he needed to read the demand in full and ensure he understood it. He told the Complainant that refusing to take the test would constitute a criminal offence.

The SO tried to calm the Complainant but to no avail. When the Complainant began to walk to the driver’s door of his vehicle, the officer grabbed and pushed him back towards the rear of the truck and a snow-covered grassy area past the ramp shoulder. The Complainant fell backwards over the ramp curb. He attempted to stand back up but was forced to the ground by the SO. There followed a struggle between the Complainant and several police officers. The Complainant was eventually handcuffed and placed in the rear seat of a police cruiser.

The Complainant attended hospital the next day and was diagnosed with a possible concussion.

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 320.15 (1), Criminal Code - Failure or Refusal to Comply with Demand

320.15 (1) Everyone commits an offence who, knowing that a demand has been made, fails or refuses to comply, without reasonable excuse, with a demand made under section 320.27 or 320.28.

Section 320.27, Criminal Code - Testing for Presence of Alcohol or Drug

320.27 (1) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol or a drug in their body and that the person has, within the preceding three hours, operated a conveyance, the peace officer may, by demand, require the person to comply with the requirements of either or both of paragraphs (a) and (b) in the case of alcohol or with the requirements of either or both of paragraphs (a) and (c) in the case of a drug:

(a) to immediately perform the physical coordination tests prescribed by regulation and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose;

(b) to immediately provide the samples of breath that, in the peace officer’s opinion, are necessary to enable a proper analysis to be made by means of an approved screening device and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose;

(c) to immediately provide the samples of a bodily substance that, in the peace officer’s opinion, are necessary to enable a proper analysis to be made by means of approved drug screening equipment and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose.

(2) If a peace officer has in his or her possession an approved screening device, the peace officer may, in the course of the lawful exercise of powers under an Act of Parliament or an Act of a provincial legislature or arising at common law, by demand, require the person who is operating a motor vehicle to immediately provide the samples of breath that, in the peace officer’s opinion, are necessary to enable a proper analysis to be made by means of that device and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose.

The Complainant was seriously injured during his arrest by PRP officers on November 28, 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 arrest and 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 Complainant’s obstinance gave the officers reasonable grounds to believe he was refusing to take a roadside breath test. In the circumstances, he was subject to arrest under section 320.15(1) of the Criminal Code.

As for the force brought to bear against the Complainant, I am unable to reasonably conclude it was more than was necessary to effect his arrest. The SO acted sensibly when he first took hold of the Complainant and directed him to the back of the pick-up truck. The Complainant had positioned himself in proximity to a live lane of traffic and it was important for all concerned that he be quickly redirected to a location of safety. Given the extent to which the situation had escalated and the Complainant’s recalcitrance, I am also unable to fault the officers for maintaining the Complainant on the ground as they worked to handcuff his arms behind the back. In that position, the officers would be able to better manage any physical resistance on his part. In fact, the Complainant did resist the officers’ efforts, attempting to get up at one point and refusing to release his arms to be handcuffed. There is a version of events proffered in the evidence that the officers went overboard when one of them kneed the Complainant in the lower back at least ten times and another kneed him in the head five or six times. That evidence, however, is contested by the officers, one of whom – WO #2 – conceded that he kneed the Complainant twice in the torso but says that he did so in an effort to subdue his resistance. The BWC footage of the struggle also did not capture force of the nature described in this evidence, albeit it did depict a struggle on the part of the Complainant and officers on and around his body attempting to wrestle control of his arms behind the back. On this record, while I accept that the Complainant would have felt at least a couple of strikes and pressure on his body by the officers involved in his arrest, I am not reasonably satisfied that the evidence of excessive force is sufficiently cogent to warrant being put to the test by a court.

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

Date: March 31, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit