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 33-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 1, 2026, at 8:20 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On January 1, 2026, at 12:11 a.m., Civilian Witness (CW) #2 called TPS to report that CW #1 was being harassed by the Complainant, and that he was breaching conditions of a release order. TPS officers arrived at an address in the area of Greenwood Avenue and Gerrard Street East, Toronto, and confirmed that the Complainant was breaching his conditions. At 12:21 a.m., the Complainant was arrested and handcuffed. He became combative, and police officers cautioned him that he would be grounded. The Complainant complained of pain to his leg when the officers subsequently grounded him. The Complainant declined medical attention at the scene and was transported to TPS 55 Division. While the Complainant was being paraded, a staff sergeant noticed he was limping and experiencing discomfort. The Complainant again declined medical attention. The staff sergeant directed officers to transport the Complainant to hospital. He was taken to Michael Garron Hospital (MGH) and, at 6:41 a.m., diagnosed with a broken femur.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/01/02 at 8:44 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/01/02 at 9:20 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on January 2, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between January 2 and 5, 2026.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on January 13, 2026.

Witness Official

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on January 11, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the kitchen of an address in the area of Greenwood Avenue and Gerrard Street East, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Communications Recordings

On January 1, 2026, starting at about 12:10:14 a.m., CW #2 called 911 to request that police attend CW #1’s residence. The Complainant was at the residence and harassing CW #1. The Complainant had mental health challenges and consumed alcohol and cannabis. CW #2 was on the phone with CW #1 and could hear the Complainant in the background. Their three minor children were at the residence as well. CW #2 reported she was en route to the residence.

Starting at about 12:11:28 a.m., the dispatcher alerted a unit (Officer #1 and the SO) of a “hot shot” for an unknown trouble call for service.

Starting at about 12:12:08 a.m., the WO assigned himself and Officer #2 to the call.

Starting at about 12:24:29 a.m., the SO informed the dispatcher they had the Complainant in custody.

Starting at about 12:27:28 a.m., the WO asked for an ambulance for the Complainant because he had twisted his left leg and ankle.

Starting at about 12:41:23 a.m., the SO asked the dispatcher for an estimated time of arrival on the ambulance.

Starting at about 12:47:32 a.m., the SO informed the dispatcher that the Complainant was refusing the ambulance. He asked it to be cancelled.

Starting at about 1:51:54 a.m., Officer #2 informed the dispatcher they were en route from 55 Division to transport the Complainant to MGH.

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On January 1, 2026, starting at about 12:16:49 a.m., the SO exited a police cruiser. He gathered with Officer #1, Officer #2 and the WO, and approached CW #1’s residence. The WO, Officer #1 and Officer #2 entered the unit. The SO subsequently entered as well.

Starting at about 12:17:52 a.m., CW #1 stood in front of a kitchen entrance with a phone to her left ear and said, “He’s not in here, okay? [Complainant’s first name]’s not in here.” She wanted police officers to leave because they were wearing BWCs, and her residence was messy. “Nothing is going on. We are having a little dispute. I am leaving with the kids. There is nothing happening.”

Starting at about 12:18:28 a.m., the WO was heard: “Okay, so we do have to search the home first.” Officer #2 and Officer #1 descended a set of stairs to the right of the foyer, and the SO walked further into the foyer from the front door. The SO followed the WO through the living room and to the left where there was a door to the balcony and an entry to the kitchen.

Starting at about 12:19:31 a.m., the WO said, “Hey, hey, who’s this?” and the SO walked back through the living room to the open balcony door. The WO stood in the open doorway and faced to the left. The Complainant was standing on the balcony. The SO asked, “What’s your name?” The Complainant said, “I’m not giving you my name. I’m just chilling on the balcony.” The SO said, “Okay, you’re going to be detained then, man. Actually, you’re going to be arrested.” The Complainant said, “Cool.” The SO asked the Complainant to identify himself again but the Complainant refused to do so. The WO asked the Complainant if his name was [Complainant’s first name] and the Complainant said, “No.”

Starting at about 12:20:09 a.m., the WO led the Complainant through the kitchen, followed by the SO.

Starting at about 12:21:47 a.m., the Complainant drank from a can of beer. The SO told the Complainant if he did not identify himself, he would be transported to the police station because they did not know if he was wanted or had conditions not to be there. The Complainant emptied a bag of marijuana, a grinder, and other items from the pockets of his winter coat. The SO asked the Complainant if he had any knives or similar items. The Complainant did not respond.

Starting at about 12:22:45 a.m., the WO said, “Okay, your name is [Complainant’s full name], so right now you’re under arrest, okay? You have a warrant for your arrest.” The officer started to walk towards the Complainant. The Complainant grabbed two cans of beer from the top of the fridge and started drinking from one. The SO said, “Alright, my guy,” and used his left hand to grab the Complainant’s left forearm. The SO said, “Leave that there, put that away.” The SO said, “Put that away,” and used his right hand to push the Complainant’s left shoulder up as he held the left wrist with his left hand. The SO tried to push the Complainant’s left arm behind his back. A struggle ensued. The WO said, “Put your hands behind your back.” The SO said, “[Complainant’s first name], [Complainant’s first name], don’t resist buddy, or you’re going to go to the ground.” The WO and the SO both said, “Put your hands behind your back.” The WO was using both hands to hold the Complainant’s right arm behind his back. The Complainant resisted as the SO tried to put the left arm behind his back. The WO said, “…to the ground if you don’t…” The WO held the Complainant’s right arm behind his back and the SO held the Complainant’s left hand behind the back. The SO applied handcuffs to the Complainant’s right wrist. The SO told the Complainant to stop, or he would go to ground. The SO tried to handcuff the left wrist. The SO said, “…put him to the ground.” The SO shouted, “Stop resisting!” The Complainant said, “Watch my leg, watch my leg.” The SO shouted, “Give me your arm!” The Complainant said, “Okay.” The SO shouted to the Complainant to get on his stomach. As he held the Complainant’s left arm, the officer used his right arm to push down on the Complainant’s left upper shoulder and arm. The Complainant rested on his right side.

Starting at about 12:24:03 a.m., the Complainant was moved onto his stomach and his hands were handcuffed behind the back. The Complainant said, “Okay, watch my leg. Okay, Okay, watch my left leg.” The WO stood, and the Complainant shouted, “Ahh!”

Starting at about 12:24:29 a.m., the SO announced that one person was in custody, and all was in order. The Complainant said, “My left leg just got fucked.” The SO said, “Well, you were resisting.”

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between January 2, 2026, and January 5, 2026:

• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• List of involved officers and civilians
• In-car camera footage
• BWC footage
• Footage of the Complainant’s booking
• TPS policies - Incident Response / Use of Force
• General Occurrence Report
• Prosecution Summary Report
• Notes – the SO and the WO
• Annual Requalification – the SO and the WO
• Communications recordings

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from MGH on January 7, 2026.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, the SO and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

TPS officers were dispatched to an address in the area of Greenwood Avenue and Gerrard Street East, Toronto, in the early morning of January 1, 2026. CW #2 had called police following a call with CW #1, during which she heard the Complainant shouting at CW #1 in the background. The Complainant was prohibited from communicating or being with CW #1 as a condition of a release order.

The SO arrived on scene in the company of the WO, Officer #2 and Officer #1. The Complainant was located in the back patio of the residence and asked to identify himself. He refused to do so but entered the residence with the officers. The officers were able to ascertain the Complainant’s identity and moved to take him into custody. A struggle ensued and the Complainant was forced to the kitchen floor by the SO and the WO, after which he was secured in handcuffs. The Complainant fractured his left leg in the takedown.

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

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 TPS officers on January 1, 2026. 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 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 Complainant was present at the address in violation of a term of a release order. In the circumstances, the SO and the WO were within their rights in moving to effect an arrest.

With respect to the force used by the officers, namely, a takedown, I am satisfied that it was legally justified. The officers told the Complainant that he was under arrest and took hold of his arms to bring them around the back to be handcuffed. The Complainant struggled against their efforts and was warned that he would be brought to ground. When the Complainant continued to resist, the SO and the WO pulled him to the floor onto his front. The tactic, which was effective, made sense as it would better position the officers to deal with the Complainant’s struggle and control his arms behind the back. It was also accomplished with minimal to moderate force. While it is regrettable that the Complainant’s leg was fractured in the process, that was more the product of the awkward manner in which he fell in tight quarters than any heavy-handed or excessive force. No strikes were delivered at any time.

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

Date: May 1, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit