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 38-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 11, 2025, at 1:22 p.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On December 8, 2025, a female [the Civilian Witness (CW)] attended the London courthouse for the purpose of obtaining a Form 2 (Order of Examination)[2] after the Complainant made utterances of stabbing police with the intention of suicide by cop. The CW was successful in obtaining a Form 2 and provided the appropriate documentation to police on December 9, 2025. Police reviewed the documentation and observed that an incorrect name was listed on the documentation. The CW was directed back to the courthouse where the Form 2 was reissued by a Justice of the Peace. On December 11, 2025, at 6:58 a.m., uniform police officers attended an apartment in the area of Adelaide Street North and Huron Street, London, to contain the unit with the intention of conducting a mental health apprehension of the Complainant. After announcing their presence, the Complainant declined to allow the officers entry and refused to accompany them. Emergency Response Unit (ERU) members were dispatched and arrived in short order. They positioned themselves on the roof of the apartment complex where they planned to lower themselves to the balcony below in order to gain entry. At 9:27 a.m., as ERU officers accessed the unit, the Complainant, who was armed with an aluminum bat, struck an officer on the left hand. A conducted energy weapon (CEW) was deployed, followed by several punches to the Complainant’s face. At 9:36 a.m., the Complainant was apprehended and secured by police. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were summoned to the scene, and the Complainant was transported to Victoria Hospital where he was admitted at 10:27 a.m. At 10:58 a.m., the Complainant was subjected to a CT scan due to obvious facial injuries. He was subsequently diagnosed with a fracture to each of his orbital bones.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/12/11 at 2:05 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/12/11 at 5:25 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on December 12, 2025.

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on December 12, 2025.

Subject Official

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

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

The witness officials were interviewed on December 18, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the balcony of an apartment in the area of Adelaide Street North and Huron Street, London.

Physical Evidence

The apartment was located on the west side of the building. The main entrance to the apartment was located on the east side of the residence and the balcony door was located on the west side.

The apartment balcony was approximately 183 cm by 283 cm. The floor of the balcony was made of concrete. It was covered with snow and bird droppings.

SIU forensic services photographed the scene, including the balcony and a bat reportedly used by the Complainant in the course of the incident under investigation.

Figure 1 – Baseball bat reportedly used by the Complainant

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data[3] – WO #4

Starting at 9:27:32 a.m., December 11, 2025, the trigger was pulled and cartridge 1 was deployed.

Starting at 9:27:33 a.m., the trigger was pulled and cartridge 2 was deployed. Within the same second, the trigger was pulled, cartridge 3 was deployed and a connection was detected.

Starting at 9:27:34 a.m., the trigger was pulled a fourth time, but no cartridges were deployed.

Starting at 9:27:35 a.m., the trigger was pulled a fifth time, but no cartridges were deployed.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[4]

LPS Communications Recordings & Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

On December 10, 2025, at 11:21 a.m., the CW contacted LPS dispatch and advised that she had obtained a Form 2 for the Complainant. She indicated he was suicidal and homicidal and had stated he wanted to take a cop out with him when he goes.

On December 11, 2025, at 6:56 a.m., LPS officers attended the Complainant’s address to apprehend him under the Mental Health Act.

Starting at 7:15 a.m., officers spoke on the phone with the Complainant. He refused to open the door and stated, “You will not get me out of the room alive.” The Complainant proceeded to barricade himself in the apartment.

Starting at 8:13 a.m., an officer provided an update indicating that the Complainant had said he was never coming out and that he wanted to hurt police.

Starting at 8:20 a.m., the Complainant indicated he was going over the railing if he had to go with police.

Starting at 8:21 a.m., members of the LPS ERU were assigned to the call.

Starting at 8:25 a.m., a formal mission statement was shared over the radio, namely, to safely take the Complainant into custody under the strength of the Form 2.

Starting at 8:37 a.m., the Complainant indicated his desire to jump off the balcony.

Starting at 8:49 a.m., the Complainant was observed with his foot over the balcony and a club in his hand. He continued to go in and out of the apartment and at times had both feet over the balcony railing as he screamed at officers below.

Officers on scene discussed the need to take the balcony first in order to prevent the Complainant from jumping before they breached the front door.

Starting at 9:27 a.m., the Complainant was confirmed to be at the front door of his apartment, which provided ERU members the opportunity to rappel onto the balcony and take him into custody with the use of a CEW.

Starting at 9:28 a.m., it was said that the Complainant had come at officers with an aluminum bat and struck an ERU member.

LPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – WO #1, WO #4, WO #2 and the SO[5]

Starting at 8:49 a.m., December 11, 2025, the Complainant threatened to jump off his balcony as ERU members prepared their rappel equipment.

Starting at 9:27 a.m., the rappel team descended from the roof of the building. As they did so, the Complainant made his way to the balcony of his residence with a baseball bat. The Complainant swung the bat at ERU members as they descended to the railing of the balcony, striking WO #1 on the hand. WO #1 grabbed the bat as the SO secured his footing onto the balcony floor. The Complainant swung his clenched fist at the SO’s head. The SO delivered one punch to the face of the Complainant, which caused him to fall to the balcony floor. He delivered a second punch to the Complainant’s face once on the floor. WO #4 deployed his CEW, and the Complainant was handcuffed with blood observed on his face. The SO indicated he knocked the Complainant’s tooth out during the incident.

LPS BWC Footage - Officer #1

Starting at 9:30 a.m., December 11, 2025, Officer #1 escorted the Complainant to the elevator while he was in an agitated state. He threatened to spit on the police officers and was pinned against the elevator wall as a preventive measure. The Complainant did not strike his head or face against the wall and was not struck by any police officer.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials the LPS between December 15, 2025, and December 23, 2025:

• Names, roles, call-signs and badge numbers of involved police officers
• Notes – WO #2, WO #3, WO #4 and WO #1
• General, Supplementary and Arrest Reports
• Copy of Form 2 – Apprehension Order under Mental Health Act
• BWC footage
• CEW deployment data
• CAD Report
• Communications recordings
• LPS policies - Use of Force; Arrest and Detention

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from Victoria Hospital on January 9, 2026.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the events in question, 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 morning of December 11, 2025, acting on the authority of a Form 2 issued under the Mental Health Act, LPS officers attended an apartment in the area of Adelaide Street North and Huron Street, London. The form, authorizing police to compel the Complainant’s attendance at hospital for a psychiatric examination, had been obtained by the CW. The CW had become increasingly concerned for the Complainant’s well-being.

Arriving at about 7:00 a.m. in front of the apartment door, officers attempted to have the Complainant exit the apartment. They explained who they were and why they were there. The Complainant adamantly refused to leave his apartment. Behind a barricaded front door, the Complainant variously threatened police that he would jump from the balcony and harm them or himself if they entered his residence. Officers, including a member of the service’s COAST[6] team, continued to negotiate with the Complainant attempting to dissuade him from harming himself or others. They assured him that he would not face criminal charges, and that they would simply be escorting him to hospital. The Complainant remained unreceptive.

With information that the Complainant might jump from the balcony and was repeatedly threatening his life and those of the officers, the service deployed the ERU to the scene. The plan was to have ERU officers rappel from the roof to the Complainant’s balcony, preventing him from using it to jump from the building. ERU officers arrived at about 8:45 a.m. By about 9:25 a.m., four of them were harnessed and ready to descend from the rooftop – the SO, WO #1, WO #4 and WO #2. At 9:27 a.m., they started their descent. As the officers were reaching the balcony railing in question, they were confronted by the Complainant.

With an aluminum baseball bat in hand, the Complainant began to swing at the officers as they were still hanging from their rappel lines, striking one of them in the left hand. The SO managed to land on the balcony and immediately became engaged in a struggle with the Complainant. The two punched at each other, and the Complainant fell to the ground. WO #4 deployed his CEW and the SO delivered a single right-handed punch to the face of the Complainant as he lay supine on the ground. Following the strike, the Complainant’s hands were handcuffed.

The Complainant was taken to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with multiple facial 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 apprehension by LPS officers on December 11, 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 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.

I am satisfied that the officers involved in the Complainant’s arrest were within their rights in forcibly entering his home to take him into custody. A Form 2 was in effect authorizing the Complainant’s apprehension, and his behaviour giving rise to the form and during the standoff with police created a legitimate concern that entry was necessary to prevent him harming himself.

I am also satisfied that the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing that the Complainant was subjected to unwarranted force. The decision by police to enter when and how they did was a reasonable one. The Complainant had clearly and repeatedly expressed a desire to hurt himself and others, and negotiations to have him exit of his own accord had been given a fair chance. Given his threat to jump from the balcony, it also made sense to foreclose that opportunity by having ERU officers rappel down to occupy that space. That tactic placed the ERU officers, including the SO, in a dangerous position, a danger exacerbated when the Complainant began to attack them with an aluminum bat as they hung from their ropes. The SO was justified in responding with a measure of force to defend himself and the other officers, and did so in a proportionate way when he engaged the Complainant in a physical struggle and punched him in the face. WO #4’s use of the CEW was also justified. Given the precarious positions of the parties, some of the officers still hanging from the side of the building, it was imperative that the Complainant remain subdued until they could handcuff him behind the back. The second punch by the SO, delivered when the Complainant was on the ground, is subject to closer scrutiny. The criminal law, however, recognizes that officers embroiled in dangerous and volatile situations cannot be expected to finely tailor their force; what is required is a reasonable response, not an exacting one: R. v. Nasogaluak, [2010] 1 SCR 206; R. v. Baxter (1975), 27 CCC (2d) 96 (Ont. CA). With this principle in mind, and the fact that the Complainant had not yet been handcuffed and there remained a pressing need to keep him firmly subdued until that happened, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO acted with excess when he delivered a second punch in the heat of the moment.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s facial fractures were the result of his altercation with the SO, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that they are attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the officer. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: April 9, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit