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 44-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 2, 2025, at 9:32 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On December 2, 2025, at about 6:30 p.m., OPP officers were called to an address in Pembroke for a mental health wellness check. Upon arrival, they apprehended a resident of the apartment, the Complainant, on a charge of fail to comply with probation. The Complainant’s hands were handcuffed behind his back, and he was placed in Witness Official (WO) #1’s marked cruiser. Officers seized several firearms, which were placed in the trunk of WO #1’s cruiser. While transporting the Complainant to the Pembroke OPP Detachment, he shifted his handcuffs to the front of his body and reached into his pants to remove an unknown item. He ingested the item and fell unconscious upon arrival at the detachment. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called and the Subject Official (SO) administered two doses of Narcan. EMS transported the Complainant to the Pembroke Regional Hospital (PRH), where he was stabilized, then transported via ambulance to the Ottawa Hospital Civic Campus (OHCC). At the time of intake, the Complainant had not regained consciousness.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/12/03 at 7:06 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/12/03 at 8:58 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

44-year-old male; not interviewed (declined)

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on December 5, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

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

The subject official was interviewed on March 13, 2026.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness official was interviewed on March 4, 2026.

.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around an OPP cruiser stopped on the exterior grounds of an address in Pembroke.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPP Communications Recordings

On December 2, 2025, at 5:43 p.m., a man called 911 from a downstairs unit of an address in Pembroke. He reported that a man [the Complainant] staying upstairs in another unit was walking around, talking to himself, and threatening to kill someone. The 911 caller was worried for the man’s safety and confirmed it was not the man’s residence.

On December 2, 2025, starting at about 5:50 p.m., the dispatch audio recorded interactions between the OPP Communications Centre and police officers. WO #1 was assigned a mental health-related call at an address in Pembroke. WO #1 advised that he was en route and requested a backup unit. WO #2 advised she would attend. WO #1 reported that all units had arrived on scene.

WO #2 subsequently reported they had one individual in custody [the Complainant]. Shortly after, WO #1 requested EMS for a possible overdose. The SO broadcast that one dose of Narcan had been administered. A sergeant radioed that he would proceed to the scene.

The SO requested an ETA for the arrival of EMS. The Communications Centre advised WO #1 and the SO that the ETA was five minutes or less. The SO radioed that a second dose of Narcan had been administered. The SO then reported that EMS were on scene.

The sergeant advised that the SO would drive the ambulance to PRH. He further advised that the Complainant had ingested an unknown substance prior to police arrival.

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

On December 2, 2025, starting at about 6:18 p.m., WO #1’s ICC was activated. The Complainant was captured being placed in the back compartment of the officer’s cruiser. He appeared lucid, communicated normally, and requested additional heat. He had a winter coat over his shoulders.

Starting at about 6:22 p.m., WO #1 advised the Complainant of the outstanding warrants for his arrest, noting that they were unendorsed. WO #1 read the Complainant his rights to counsel and a caution, which the Complainant acknowledged understanding.

Starting at about 6:24 p.m., WO #1 exited the cruiser. Immediately thereafter, the Complainant attempted to reposition his handcuffs to the front of his body.

Starting at about 6:27 p.m., the Complainant maneuvered his hands beneath his lower body and legs, bringing them forward in front of his body. Once his hands were positioned in front, he began reaching into the crotch area of his pants. He removed an item that produced a sound consistent with a plastic bag and appeared to attempt to open it. He placed the item to his side before reaching into his crotch area again. A second item was removed with his right hand, accompanied by a crinkling sound. Using both hands, he attempted to open the bag.

Starting at about 6:28 p.m., the Complainant raised a white object to his mouth and ingested it, chewing for several seconds.

Starting at about 6:30 p.m., the Complainant raised the bag to his mouth again and appeared to ingest a white substance. He placed the bag in his mouth and continued chewing.

Starting at about 6:31:05 p.m., a figure [the SO] with a light was observed walking around the back of the cruiser.

Starting at about 6:31:15 p.m., a police cruiser was observed being moved in the background behind the Complainant. The Complainant blew and wiped what was believed to be powder off the forearm and chest of his sweater.

Starting at about 6:31:52 p.m., a bright light was directed into the rear compartment of the cruiser. This light came from directly behind the police cruiser holding the Complainant.

Starting at about 6:32:05 p.m., the Complainant accessed his crotch area again with his right hand.

Starting at about 6:32:37 p.m., a light was observed moving to the Complainant’s left side.

Starting at about 6:32:51 p.m., the SO approached the rear prisoner compartment from the front passenger side of the cruiser and directed her flashlight towards the Complainant. The flashlight beam was visible through the rear passenger side window and illuminated the Complainant’s hands. The Complainant had his hands in front of his body resting in his lap.

Starting at about 6:33:24 p.m., the Complainant wiped something off the seat with his hands.

Starting at about 6:33:34 p.m., the Complainant raised his hands to his mouth and stuck his thumb in his mouth.

Starting at about 6:33:43 p.m., the Complainant reached with both hands down on the seat and accessed what was believed to be coins. The flashlight followed his movement shining on his hands as they moved.

Starting at about 6:35:29 p.m., the Complainant wiped his mouth with his right hand twice over the next five seconds.

Starting at about 6:37 p.m., the Complainant brought his left wrist up to his mouth. The light from the SO’s flashlight was still pointed at the Complainant.

Starting at about 6:40 p.m., the Complainant wiped the side of his nose with his right index finger.

Starting at about 6:42 p.m., the Complainant wiped his mouth with his right hand.

Starting at about 6:43 p.m., the Complainant reached up and scratched his head with his right hand. The light from the flashlight continued to shine into the prisoner compartment.

Starting at about 6:45:17 p.m., the trunk of the police cruiser was accessed. The Complainant’s head was observed shaking back and forth in a trembling manner.

Starting at about 6:45:47 p.m., WO #1 opened the rear passenger door and immediately noticed the Complainant’s handcuffs were positioned in front of his body. He asked him how he had moved them to the front.

BWC Footage - The SO

On December 2, 2025, starting at about 6:17 p.m., WO #1 and WO #2 searched the Complainant outside of a cruiser. The Complainant was handcuffed with his hands behind the back.[3]

Starting at about 6:32 p.m., the SO’s camera pointed at the Complainant in the backseat of the cruiser. His hands were clearly visible in front of the body.

Starting at about 6:33:34 p.m., the Complainant brought his hands to his mouth.

Starting at about 6:33:39 p.m., the Complainant bent his head down towards his handcuffs in the front.

Starting at about 6:35:29 p.m., the Complainant raised his cuffed hands to his mouth while they were positioned in front of his body

Starting at about 6:35:33 p.m., the Complainant again brought his cuffed hands up to his mouth from in front of his body. The SO’s flashlight remained pointed at the Complainant throughout.

At 6:36:57 p.m., the Complainant moved his hands in front of his stomach for several seconds.

At 6:37:59 p.m., the SO looked at her cellular phone held in her right hand while the flashlight remained pointed at the rear prisoner compartment.

At 6:40 p.m., the Complainant moved his hands.

At 6:41 p.m., the SO turned away from the rear of the cruiser and walked back to another cruiser. She did not have a view of the Complainant at this time.

At 6:43 p.m., the Complainant brought his hands from in front of his body to his mouth.[4]

At 6:45 p.m., WO #1 opened the rear passenger door and observed that the Complainant had repositioned his handcuffs to the front of his body. A clear bag was at the Complainant’s right foot. There appeared to be a white substance on the back seat. WO #1 quickly recognized that the Complainant was in medical distress consistent with a potential overdose. EMS were contacted, and WO #1 administered two doses of Narcan at 6:51 and 6:59 p.m., while EMS were en route. At that time, the officers believed that the Complainant had ingested medication belonging to another individual.

At 7:00 p.m., EMS arrived at the scene. The SO subsequently drove the ambulance to PRH to allow the paramedics to focus on providing care to the Complainant. They arrived at PRH 16 minutes later.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between December 4, 2025, and March 16, 2026:

• Pembroke Probation and Parole Arrest Warrant – the Complainant
• Occurrence Details Report
• General Occurrence Report
• ICC and BWC footage
• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Notes – WO #2 and WO #1
• Pembroke Detachment sally port footage
• Day and Night Shifts Log-on Sheets – December 2, 2025
• Photographs
• Police Orders – Search of Persons; Detainee Transportation
• Exhibit List Report

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the SO and another police eyewitness, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the evening of December 2, 2025, OPP officers, including the SO, were dispatched to an address in Pembroke. A resident of the multi-unit address had contacted police to report concern with the wellbeing of a male – the Complainant – causing a disturbance at the property. He had been talking to himself and threatening to kill someone.

The SO arrived on scene at about 5:50 p.m., joined by WO #1 and WO #2. WO #1 and WO #2 attended at a unit of the building and arrested the Complainant on a warrant in effect for his arrest for breach of a probation order. He was handcuffed behind the back, escorted outside and searched by the officers beside WO #2’s cruiser. A number of items were seized, including a vape, a needle containing liquid, a .22-calibre round and some money. The Complainant was subsequently placed in the backseat of WO #1’s cruiser and read his rights by the officer. WO #1 exited the cruiser at about 6:25 p.m., leaving the Complainant alone. He and WO #2 returned to the unit to search the residence for firearms.[5]

Left alone in the cruiser, the Complainant slipped his handcuffed arms below his legs and repositioned them to the front. He subsequently reached towards the crotch area of his pants, retrieved a bag and ingested a white substance it contained.

Shortly after the Complainant’s consumption of the substance, at about 6:31 p.m., the SO began to monitor the Complainant from outside the cruiser using the lights from her cruiser and a flashlight. The Complainant brought his hands up to his mouth area on several occasions.

At about 6:45 p.m., having concluded the search of the unit, WO #1 returned to his cruiser and checked on the Complainant in the rear. The Complainant was shaking and pale. Noting that the handcuffs were now to the front, and suspecting a drug overdose, WO #1 requested EMS.

The Complainant was removed from the cruiser, administered two doses of Narcan and placed in the recovery position pending the arrival of paramedics.

EMS arrived at about 7:00 p.m. The Complainant was taken to hospital and treated for drug overdose.

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 suffered serious injury in the custody of the OPP on December 2, 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.

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 the SO, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that endangered the Complainant’s life or contributed to his condition. In my view, there was not.

A warrant was in effect authorizing the Complainant’s arrest, and WO #1 and WO #2 were within their rights in taking him into custody.

The evidence also indicates that the SO, WO #1 and WO #2 comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s health and wellbeing throughout his period of custody. It is regrettable that the bag of drugs was not detected and confiscated prior to the Complainant’s ingestion of the drugs in the cruiser, but it seems unlikely that anything short of a strip search would have revealed the item given its location beneath the Complainant’s clothing in his crotch area. A strip search, however, is not typically performed outside of a police station, where the detainee is afforded some privacy, nor is it apparent that there were grounds to justify such an invasive search in the circumstances of the case; the Complainant had not been arrested on drug charges and he had seemed lucid: R v Golden, [2001] 3 SCR 679. It also seems unlikely that anything short of continuous monitoring by police of the Complainant from the moment of his arrest could have prevented his retrieval and ingestion of drugs. Here too, however, it not clear that the situation warranted that level of supervision. The Complainant had been arrested without incident, subjected to a thorough pat-down search, and appeared coherent in his dealings with police. Lastly, it bears noting that the Complainant was monitored for most of his time in custody, but for the five minutes or so before the SO took up her active watch, and that officers responded with alacrity in administering emergency care prior to the arrival of paramedics.

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