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 24-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 3, 2025, at 1:55 p.m., the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On December 3, 2025, at 5:40 a.m., HPS was contacted about an intimate partner violence incident in progress at an address in the area of Wellington Street North and Barton Street West, Hamilton. At 5:43 a.m., HPS attended and learned the involved male and female had fled the area prior to police arrival but there were reasonable grounds to arrest the male - the Complainant - on three counts of fail to comply, break and enter, and assault. Further investigation revealed the Complainant resided in a trailer at the rear of a residence located in the area of Wellington Street North and Burlington Street East, Hamilton. At 7:04 a.m., HPS responded and could overhear screams inside the trailer. Officers made demands for the Complainant to surrender and subsequently smashed a nearby window, at which point the Complainant opened the front door and exited of his own accord. At 7:07 a.m., the Complainant was arrested. As he was escorted to the police vehicle for transport, he indicated that he had sustained an injury to his eye because of the smashed glass. Paramedic services were called to the scene, and the Complainant was transported to the Hamilton General Hospital (HGH). At the hospital, the Complainant indicated that he suffered pain to the right leg. At 11:34 a.m., he was diagnosed with a fracture to the right ankle.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/12/03 at 2:56 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/12/03 at 4:22 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on December 4, 2025.

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on December 3, 2025.

Subject Officials

SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject officials were interviewed on January 9, 2026.

Witness Official

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on December 11, 2025.

Service Employee Witness

SEW Interviewed

The service employee witness was interviewed on December 11, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a trailer parked on the exterior grounds of an address in the area of Wellington Street North and Burlington Street East, Hamilton.

Physical Evidence

On December 3, 2025, at 4:22 p.m., SIU forensic services attended the scene, which was an address in the area of Wellington Street North and Burlington Street East, Hamilton. Access to the driveway was closed-off with a waist-high chain-link gate.

There was a small camper-style trailer located on the property. The front door of the trailer was on the north side of the trailer. There was broken glass on the paved driveway below the trailer door. The door had a window on the upper half of the door that was broken. A sheet of plastic covered the window. The trailer had fold-out metal steps below the doorway, which were folded up and appeared to be stuck in the stowed position. The distance from the ground to the bottom of the doorway measured 60 centimetres.

The door of the trailer measured 69 centimetres wide and 178 centimetres tall. The interior screen door of the trailer had minor damage with the screen material torn at the same height as the trailer door window. There was a small red stain on the interior of the door near the handle. There was a small pocketknife on the counter beside a sink with the blade in the folded position.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On December 3, 2025, starting at about 6:08 a.m., SO #2, SO #1, the WO and the SEW arrived at an address in the area of Wellington Street North and Barton Street West, Hamilton. The officers spoke and took statements from civilians [now known to be Civilian #1, Civilian #2 and Civilian #3]. The HPS officers learned the Complainant had shown up at the address and yelled at the back door for the CW to come outside. They argued and the CW was struck in the face with an open hand by the Complainant. He pulled her outside and they fell to the ground on some ice. They left the property together.

Starting at about 7:01 a.m., the HPS officers arrived at an address in the area of Wellington Street North and Burlington Street East, Hamilton. SO #2 and the WO knocked on the front door of the residence but there was no answer. SO #1 stood to the side of the residence on the sidewalk.

Starting at about 7:03 a.m., the SEW advised SO #1 that he had heard a female [the CW] scream from inside a trailer.

Starting at about 7:04 a.m., the HPS officers arrived outside the trailer. SO #1 identified themselves as HPS officers and directed whoever was inside [the Complainant and the CW] to come out and show their hands. A male’s voice [the Complainant] was heard indiscernibly inside the trailer. SO #2 reported he saw movement inside the trailer. He drew his conducted energy weapon and continued to demand the door be opened. The Complainant’s voice was heard indiscernibly again. SO #2 told the Complainant the window of the door would be smashed if the door was not opened. The Complainant advised he could not open it. SO #1 advised that a female [the CW] had screamed inside the trailer and the HPS officers would enter anyway. The Complainant said the trailer was his residence and he did not have to open the door. SO #2 told the HPS officers that he had initially observed the Complainant bent down inside the trailer but he was now standing with a silver object in his hand. The Complainant continued to not comply with demands to open the door.

Starting at about 7:06 a.m., SO #2 smashed the window on the trailer door with his baton. The Complainant was on the other side of the window and was told to back up. He advised there was glass in his eyes. He unlocked the door and SO #2 opened it. SO #2 grabbed the Complainant’s right side and SO #1 grabbed the left side, and they pulled him from the trailer.[3] As the Complainant was pulled out of the trailer, he landed on his feet on ground level. He immediately lifted his right foot off the ground and hopped on his left as he was pulled forward to a prone position. He cried out in pain as his feet landed on the ground. Once prone, SO #2 and SO #1 handcuffed the Complainant behind his back. The Complainant again complained there was glass in his eyes. Paramedic services were requested to attend the scene. SO #2 told the Complainant he was under arrest on three counts of fail to comply with a release order and one count of break and enter to commit assault. The WO entered the trailer and found the CW inside. There was blood on her face.

Communications Recordings

On December 3, 2025, at 5:41 a.m.,[4] Civilian #2 called 911. He reported that the Complainant was at Civilian #2’s house in the area of Wellington Street North and Barton Street West because the Complainant’s ex-girlfriend was there. The Complainant had entered the house and struck the CW. The Complainant left the property with the CW while Civilian #2 was on the phone with the dispatcher.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from HPS between December 4, 2025, and January 9, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• CAD Report
• Arrest Report
• Notes and written statements – SO #2, SO #1 and the WO
• Policies - Use of Force and Equipment; Prisoner Care and Control; Arrest Procedures and Equipment
• BWC footage
• In-car camera footage
• Communications recordings

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from HGH on December 8, 2025.

The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.

In the morning of December 3, 2025, HPS officers, including SO #1 and SO #2, were dispatched to an address in the area of Wellington Street North and Barton Street West, Hamilton, following a call to police about a violent incident. The Complainant, in violation of a no-contact order, had visited the CW at the address and struck her in the face. The Complainant and the CW had left by the time of the officers’ arrival. The officers interviewed witnesses and determined there were grounds to arrest the Complainant for assault.

The Complainant and the CW had traveled to the Complainant’s residence – a trailer parked at the rear of a property in the area of Wellington Street North and Burlington Street East – and were there when SO #1 and SO #2 arrived on scene shortly after 7:00 a.m. The WO and the SEW were also present. The SEW heard a female screaming from inside the trailer and alerted the other officers.

Led by SO #2, the officers knocked on the trailer door and directed the Complainant to come out. The Complainant refused to allow them entry into the trailer, asserting it was his home and they needed a warrant. The officers explained that they had exigent circumstances and demanded that he open the door or they would force their way inside. When the Complainant continued to refuse, SO #2 used his baton to smash the door’s glass window.

Shortly after the window was broken, the Complainant opened the door. SO #2 quickly grabbed him by the right side and SO #1 took hold of his left side, and the officers pulled him forward. The Complainant stepped from the trailer floor to ground level, landing awkwardly on his right foot and fracturing it in the process. He was placed in a prone position on the ground and handcuffed without incident.

The Complainant was transported to hospital after his arrest and treated for his foot fractures.

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 his arrest by HPS officers on December 3, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1 and SO #2 subject officials. 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 Complainant’s arrest and injuries.

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.

With information at their disposal that the Complainant had assaulted the CW, I am satisfied that SO #1 and SO #2 were within their rights in seeking to arrest him for assault. There was also evidence that the CW was present in the trailer and potentially in harm’s away because of the scream the SEW had heard, justifying the officers’ forced entry into the Complainant’s residence based on exigent circumstances.

I am also satisfied that SO #1 and SO #2 used no more force than was necessary to secure the Complainant in custody. Taking the Complainant by the arms and pulling him forward was a legitimate tactic. Given the violence the Complainant had reportedly visited on the CW, the officers would have wanted to quickly control his arms and remove him from the trailer to prevent the possibility of further violence. The maneuver was also performed with minimal force. In fact, the injury the Complainant suffered was more a product of the manner in which he landed on his right foot than anything reckless or dangerous done by the officers. The same can be said of the Complainant’s placement in a prone position on the ground.

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

Date: April 1, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit