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 58-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 20, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

The HPS had received a complaint from the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA), relating to an incident on September 7, 2025, at about 1:00 a.m. Police officers had responded to an altercation involving several patrons at the Cadillac Jax Bar & Grill, 532 Main Street East, Hamilton. The Complainant was arrested and charged with one count of assaulting a police officer. The LECA complaint referenced a fractured right wrist sustained by the Complainant.

At 2:45 p.m., October 20, 2025, an SIU Investigative Manager contacted the Complainant, who confirmed her arrest on September 7, 2025. She indicated that she did not seek medical attention for her right wrist until September 8, 2025. On that day, she attended the St. Joseph’sUrgent Care Clinic, where her wrist was placed in a cast. The Complainant did not have medical documents at the time with respect to the nature of her injury (sprain or fracture), but indicated she had a follow-up medical appointment on October 23, 2025.

On December 11, 2025, the Complainant provided the SIU Investigative Manager documentation confirming a fractured right wrist, and an investigation was initiated.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/12/11 at 9:43 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/12/11 at 10:30 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

58-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on December 12, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Not interviewed; declined

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between December 12 and 16, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 was interviewed on March 11, 2026.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

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

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

WO #5 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between January 11 and 24, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the parking lot at the west side of Cadillac Jax Bar & Grill, 532 Main Street East, Hamilton.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

HPS Communications Recordings

On September 7, 2025, at 12:56 a.m., SO #2 advised the dispatcher that he was conducting a traffic stop at the Cadillac Jax Bar & Grill when someone inside the bar came outside and reported an active fight inside the establishment. The dispatcher requested that officers respond to the incident.

At 12:58 a.m., WO #4 and WO #5 indicated they would respond to the call and, by 12:59 a.m., they had arrived on scene. Around this time, WO #1 advised that he was inside the bar dealing with the situation. Yelling was heard in the background.

At 1:01 a.m., WO #1 reported everything was under control, noting the loud environment.

At 1:04 a.m., WO #1 advised that two people were in custody.

At 1:30 a.m., WO #3 advised that the Complainant had been released unconditionally. She then reported she had concluded her involvement with the disturbance call and would remain on scene to stand-by with a vehicle related to another investigation.

HPS BWC Footage – WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, and SO #1

The recordings began at 12:58 a.m., September 7, 2025, as officers responded to a disturbance at the Cadillac Jax Bar & Grill. Inside the bar, a woman was involved in an altercation. She slapped a man inside the bar, resisted police directions and kicked WO #1 as officers attempted to escort her outside. The woman was grounded on the pavement outside and placed under arrest.

When the Complainant first appeared on camera, SO #2 pushed her backwards from the area of the woman’s arrest, causing her to stumble before SO #1 engaged her. The footage captured the Complainant on the ground lying on her stomach in the parking lot. SO #1 was positioned near her, with WO #4 arriving to assist. The Complainant was subsequently brought to a seated and then a standing position. She appeared upset and called out about the woman.

Once standing, the Complainant was escorted to a police cruiser. She stated that she had been trying to protect the woman and complained that the handcuffs were tight. Officers discussed their understanding of the incident, including allegations that the Complainant had pushed or obstructed police during the disturbance. WO #3 searched the Complainant and read her the standard police cautions before placing her in the rear of the cruiser.

The BWC worn by SO #1 was dislodged during the altercation and did not record the interaction that resulted in the Complainant being taken to the ground. It resumed only after she had been handcuffed and placed beside a police vehicle.

HPS In-car Camera (ICC) Footage - Officer #1’s Cruiser

On September 7, 2025, at 1:06 a.m., Officer #1 parked on Main Street East behind a marked police cruiser, which had its emergency lights activated. WO #3 exited the driver’s side of the marked police cruiser and walked towards the bar.

The footage showed a dark, lightly raining environment. To the right of the frame was the bar’s parking lot, containing parked vehicles. Standing beside the cruiser were SO #1, WO #5 and the Complainant, who was handcuffed.

At 1:07 a.m., WO #5 walked away, leaving WO #3 and SO #1 to search the Complainant.

At 1:09 a.m., the two officers escorted the Complainant to the marked police cruiser and placed her in the rear passenger side seat. The officers appeared to speak briefly before SO #1 walked away and WO #3 entered the driver’s seat of the marked police cruiser at 1:10 a.m.

At 1:14 a.m., WO #3 exited her vehicle and walked towards the bar, temporarily moving out of view. She returned at 1:15 a.m. and repositioned her cruiser to allow another cruiser to exit the lot. The Complainant was subsequently removed from the cruiser. The footage ended as the Complainant was seen standing beside the police vehicle with WO #3.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the HPS between December 16, 2025, and March 11, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Event Chronology
• Communications recordings
• BWC footage - WO #3, Officer #2, Officer #1, Officer #3, WO #2, SO #2, WO #1, and SO #1
• ICC footage – Officer #1
• Notes - WO #3, WO #4, WO #2, WO #5 and WO #1, SO #2 and SO #1

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between December 16, 2025, and January 20, 2026:

• The Complainant’s medical records from St. Joseph’s Healthcare
• Cell phone video

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, SO #2 and several police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was her legal right, SO #1 chose not to interview with the SIU. She did authorize the release of her notes.

Shortly before 1:00 a.m., September 7, 2025, HPS officers responded to a disturbance inside the Cadillac Jax Bar & Grill, 532 Main Street East, Hamilton. Certain patrons had become physical with one another. Officers attempted to calm the situation and keep the parties separated while they investigated what had happened. A woman was identified as one of the persons involved in the disturbance. She was arrested and taken outside after she slapped a man in the presence of the officers.

Seeing the woman being escorted outside the bar, the Complainant attempted to intervene, tussling with the officers to get at the woman. Once outside the bar, the Complainant again approached the woman, who had been forced to the ground after kicking one of the arresting officers. The Complainant was physically pushed away from the site of the arrest by SO #2. The Complainant stumbled backwards and fell.

SO #1 engaged the Complainant on the ground and, with the assistance of another officer –WO #4 – handcuffed her behind the back. The Complainant was subsequently lifted to her feet and lodged in a police cruiser for a period of time. She was ultimately released unconditionally at the scene.

On September 8, 2025, the Complainant attended a medical facility and was diagnosed with a fractured right wrist.

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 129, Criminal Code - Offences Relating to Public or Peace Officer

129 Every one who

(a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer,

(b) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or

(c) resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure,

is guilty of

(d) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(e) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was diagnosed with a serious injury following her arrest by HPS officers on September 7, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1 and SO #2 the 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 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 BWC footage captures the Complainant attempting to physically intervene in the officers’ efforts to take a woman into custody. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that she was subject to lawful arrest for obstructing a peace officer contrary to section 129 of the Criminal Code.

As for the force used by police in the Complainant’s arrest, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was unjustified. SO #2 was within his rights in pushing the Complainant away from the site of the other woman’s arrest. The Complainant was physically interfering in the officers’ efforts to take the woman into custody at the time and needed to be removed. The push itself, as the BWC footage makes clear, was not performed with undue force. The Complainant stumbled backwards because of the push and fell to the ground, after which she was handcuffed behind the back by SO #1 and WO #4. There is an account in the evidence which suggests that her injury was the result of unnecessary force applied by the officers to bring her hands behind the back and the handcuffing process. In her notes, SO #1 says that the Complainant did not release her arms to be handcuffed, suggesting a degree of force was used to control them. WO #4, in his account of what occurred, said nothing of any significant force used in the application of the handcuffs. On this record, the evidence of excessive force is insufficiently cogent to warrant being put to the test by a court.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury may have been incurred in the course of her arrest, whether the push to the ground by SO #2 or the application of the handcuffs, there are no reasonable grounds to believe it is attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the subject officials. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: April 13, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit