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 27-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 4, 2025, at 10:51 p.m., the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On December 4, 2025, at 5:41 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) and Witness Official (WO) #4 responded to an Intimate Partner Violence call at an address in the area of Wentworth Street and Main Street East, Hamilton. The Complainant, the subject of two arrest warrants, was located in the rear yard. A struggle ensued as the SO attempted to take the Complainant into custody. The Complainant’s hands were eventually handcuffed behind the back. He was observed to have an injury to his right eye and was transported via Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hospital (SJHH). The Complainant arrived at the hospital and became combative with medical staff, who sedated him. He was diagnosed with a fractured right orbital bone.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/12/05 at 8:35 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/12/05 at 8:42 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on December 9, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between December 5 and 8, 2025.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on February 27, 2026.

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between January 24 and 29, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the rear yard of an address in the area of Wentworth Street and Main Street East, Hamilton. The ground was a combination of dirt and concrete.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

HPS Communications Recordings

On December 4, 2025, starting at about 5:41 p.m., CW #1 phoned 911 and requested that officers attend her apartment. The Complainant had reportedly destroyed the interior and thrown things over the balcony. He had threatened to kill CW #1 earlier in the day. CW #1 was concerned about CW #2, who was unreachable by phone and might be in trouble.

The SO and WO #4 were dispatched at 5:43 p.m. They were informed that the Complainant was wanted on a warrant for unauthorized possession of a prohibited weapon and a prohibited firearm.

EMS were requested at 5:50 p.m. for an injury to the Complainant’s right eye.

EMS arrived on scene and, 30 minutes later, transported the Complainant to SJHH.

HPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

The SO and WO #4 arrived at an address in the area of Wentworth Street and Main Street East at about 5:46 p.m., December 4, 2025. The SO told WO #4 to wait at the front with CW #2. The SO located the Complainant sitting on a chair in the backyard. There were no obvious injuries to his face. The officer ordered the Complainant to show his hands and told him not to move. He grabbed the Complainant’s right arm, prompting an immediate struggle. The SO told the Complainant to stop, and the Complainant asked what was wrong. The SO attempted to put the Complainant’s hands behind the back. Both the SO and the Complainant swung their fists though it was difficult to determine whether the punches connected due to the close proximity of the Complainant to the BWC.

The Complainant fell to the ground and the SO yelled out for WO #4. A few seconds later, WO #4 arrived and both officers struggled with the Complainant on the ground. The SO told the Complainant repeatedly to give him his hands. The view from the BWC was extremely limited due to the close-quarters struggle, but the apparent sounds of strikes were heard. There were other sounds and movements consistent with several punches. The Complainant continued to resist vigorously, and the SO and WO #4 struggled to gain control of him. WO #4 appeared to possibly strike the Complainant in the head with a right-handed punch.

Starting at about 5:50 p.m., WO #1 arrived on scene and assisted the SO and WO #4. The Complainant continued to struggle against the officers. WO #1 eventually handcuffed the Complainant, and the officers walked him down the driveway to the road with difficulty.

WO #5 and WO #2 arrived on scene. The Complainant was seen with obvious injuries to his face around his right eye. The SO requested an ambulance and told the Complainant he was under arrest for warrants.

EMS arrived at 6:26 p.m. The SO informed the paramedics that the Complainant’s eye injury occurred during his arrest. The Complainant was transported to SJHH in an ambulance with WO #5 and WO #2.

Starting at about 7:55 p.m., there was a struggle at SJHH between the Complainant and police officers and security officers. The Complainant was sedated.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the HPS between December 4, 2025, and March 1, 2026:

• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report

• General Occurrence Report
• Arrest Warrants – the Complainant
• List of involved officers
• BWC footage –the SO, WO #1, WO #2 and WO #5
• In-car camera footage - WO #3, WO #5 and Officer #1
• Notes – the SO, WO #1, WO #5, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4
• HPS Policy – Use of Force

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from SJHH on December 10, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the late afternoon of December 4, 2025, HPS officers were dispatched to an address in the area of Wentworth Street and Main Street East, Hamilton, following a call to police about domestic abuse. CW #1 reported that the Complainant had threatened her earlier in the day and attended at her apartment where he caused a domestic disturbance.

The SO, in the company of WO #4, arrived at the address. They were aware that there were warrants in effect for the Complainant’s arrest on firearm-related charges. A friend of CW #1’s – CW #2 – spoke with the officers and indicated that the Complainant was possibly at the rear of the residence. The SO walked to the east side of the house and located the Complainant sitting in a chair. He directed the Complainant not to move, told him to stand up and then grabbed his right arm, lifting him from the chair. The Complainant immediately began to resist the officer. The two exchanged punches to the head before falling to the ground where the struggle continued. The SO yelled out for WO #4’s help, and he appeared quickly and joined in the struggle. The Complainant flailed his legs and refused to release his arms to be handcuffed. The SO and WO #4 punched the Complainant multiple times but could not sufficiently subdue him to take control of his arms behind the back. WO #1 arrived on scene about two minutes after the altercation started and assisted in eventually handcuffing the Complainant.

The Complainant was transported to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with a broken nose and a fractured right orbital bone.

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 4, 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 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 warrants in effect for his arrest, I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights in moving to take the Complainant into custody.

I am also satisfied that the force used against the Complainant was no more than was necessary to effect his arrest. It is clear that the Complainant was subjected to multiple punches, some of which struck him in the head. However, it is also clear that the Complainant’s resistance to arrest was strenuous and protracted. There is evidence that he was the first to punch the SO as the two initially tussled on their feet, and he continued to struggle on the ground against the officers’ efforts to control his arms behind the back even after the last of the officers’ punches. It was only with the intervention of a third officer – WO #1 – that the Complainant was finally taken into custody.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s fractures were incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, the likely result of one or more of the SO’s punches, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injuries are attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the officer.

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

Date: April 2, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit