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 31-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 5, 2026, at 3:28 p.m. the Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On January 5, 2026, at 11:39 a.m., an open line call was received by the GSPS from an unregistered cellular phone number in the area of Notre Dame Street and King Street in Sudbury. It was ascertained that the Complainant was involved in an incident of intimate partner violence with a woman. As officers responded, the Complainant ran from his vehicle on foot to a home located nearby, where he forced entry and hid in a crawl space. As there was information to believe the Complainant was armed, the Emergency Response Unit (ERU) were dispatched along with a police dog and handler team. At 12:28 p.m., the police dog was directed into the home where contact was made with the Complainant, and an arrest was effected. As a result of a potential injury to the Complainant’s right hand, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called to the scene and he was transported to Health Sciences North (HSN). At 2:22 p.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with a fracture to his right small finger.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/01/05 at 3:47 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/01/05 at 4:36 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

Interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on January 5, 2026

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Not interviewed; declined

CW #3 Not interviewed; declined

CW #1 was interviewed on January 8, 2026.

Subject Official

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

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 between January 8, 2026, and January 15, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in an enclosed porch at the rear of a residence situated in the area of Notre Dame Street East and St. Agnes Street, Sudbury.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

GSPS Communications Recordings - 911

On January 5, 2026, starting at about 11:38:48 a.m., police received a 911 call in which an unknown woman, later identified as CW #2, was heard yelling, “Azilda,” and, “(Complainant’s first name).” When the call-taker asked for her location, CW #2 stated, “Tim Hortons, Azilda.” The call-taker instructed her to separate from the involved man. Throughout the call, CW #2 remained highly distressed and continued screaming for help. A male voice [the Complainant] could be heard yelling. He said, “Fucking insane. This is fucking bullshit,” and, “I am not going to jail over this.” CW #2 was heard asking where her phone was, yelling, “No, no, no, don’t let him in,” and, “Shut the damn door, I’m bleeding,” followed by, “I’m begging you.” Portions of the audio were indecipherable due to the chaotic nature of the call. Despite repeated attempts by the call-taker to confirm CW #2’s location and assess the situation, the call ended abruptly at 11:44:16 a.m.

GSPS Communications Recordings - Radio

On January 5, 2026, starting at about 11:40:21 a.m., an officer was dispatched to the Tim Hortons located at 514 Notre Dame Street East, arriving in the area at 11:41:10 a.m.

By 11:42:46 a.m. the officer reported seeing nothing at the restaurant.

At 11:43:03 a.m. dispatch advised that a phone was pinging near Joliette Street and Notre Dame Street.

At 11:43:41 a.m., the officer reported observing a woman crying and an associated vehicle. He subsequently identified the involved parties as CW #2 and the Complainant.

At 11:47:41 a.m. grounds were said to exist to arrest the Complainant for assault.

At 11:48:58 a.m., the Complainant reportedly fled from the vehicle on foot as the officer advised he was not pursuing. The Complainant was last observed running behind a business on Notre Dame Street East. He was described as wearing a black jacket, black pants, and rubber boots.

At 11:51:00 a.m., it was reported that CW #2 had been choked, and EMS were requested.

At 11:59:06 a.m., information was received that the Complainant might be in possession of a firearm, described as a black Glock-style handgun.

At 12:00:41 p.m., a police dog track was initiated from the front of the business behind which the Complainant had disappeared, and tactical officers and the canine unit were deployed. A photograph of the Complainant was distributed to assisting units.

At 12:25:41 p.m., the canine track commenced, leading to a residence in the area of Notre Dame Street East and St. Agnes Street, Sudbury.

At 12:28:03 p.m., the police dog physically engaged the Complainant.

At 12:28:19 p.m., the Complainant was reported to be in custody.

GSPS BWC Footage – WO #3

On January 5, 2026, WO #3’s BWC captured three minutes and 52 seconds of video at a residence in the area of Notre Dame Street East and St. Agnes Street, Sudbury. The recording began at 12:28 a.m. The footage captured the moments following the arrest of the Complainant.

The SO and his police dog were positioned at the rear entrance of a residence. The Complainant was on the ground, lying prone with his head near a doorway threshold. WO #3 kneeled on the Complainant’s right side and applied handcuffs behind his back, while WO #4 stood to the left. WO #1 was positioned near the Complainant’s legs, with his foot resting on one of the Complainant’s legs. Both WO #4 and WO #1 were holding C8 rifles. A visible laceration with blood could be seen on the Complainant’s right hand. The Complainant was rolled onto his left side and then onto his right side so officers could check his pockets. No weapons were found. He was assisted to a standing position, and his shoes were removed. Additional uniformed officers were visible outside the residence. The Complainant was subsequently transferred into the custody of another officer for further handling and medical assessment.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the GSPS between January 7, 2026, and January 20, 2026:

• Notes – WO # 3, WO #4, SO, WO #2 and WO #1
• Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report
• General, Supplementary and Arrest Reports
• Canine Deployment Policy
• Involved Officer and Civilian List

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on January 20, 2026:

• The Complainant’s medical records from HSN

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and other witnesses (police and non-police), gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

Shortly before noon, January 5, 2026, GSPS officers responded to Notre Dame Street East in Sudbury. A 911 call had been received suggesting a potentially violent disturbance inside a vehicle. The caller did not communicate directly with the call-taker but the police were able to use her cell phone to approximate a location from where she was calling.

An officer found the vehicle in the area of Notre Dame Street East. He spoke to two females and determined that there were grounds to believe that one of them – CW #2 – had been assaulted by the Complainant. Fearing his imminent arrest, the Complainant, inside the rear of the vehicle, exited and fled the scene. He ran a short distance and entered into the rear, enclosed deck of a house in the area of Notre Dame Street East and St. Agnes Street, Sudbury, where he sought to conceal himself in a crawl space under a staircase.

A police dog handler – the SO – and his dog arrived at the site of the vehicle from which the Complainant had fled. Joined by WO #1, WO #3 and WO #4, the SO and his dog initiated a track of the Complainant. He was not hard to find. The officers followed a set of footprints in the snow to the house in the area of Notre Dame Street East and St. Agnes Street, Sudbury, spoke to one of the homeowners briefly, and entered the rear deck.

The Complainant was quickly located inside a crawl space. The SO released his police dog. The dog approached the Complainant and bit his right hand. With the dog still latched onto his hand, the Complainant was removed from the crawl space and positioned on the floor in a prone position. He was handcuffed behind the back and the dog separated from his right hand.

The Complainant was transported to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with a fracture of the small finger on the right hand.

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 GSPS officers on January 5, 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.

With information at their disposal that the Complainant had assaulted CW #2 and had broken into a home to escape police apprehension, the SO and the officers with him were within their rights in seeking to take him into custody.

The force used by the SO, namely, the deployment of his dog to bite and hold the Complainant, was legally justified. The officers had reason to believe that the Complainant had just been violent with CW #2 and could be armed with a gun. They also knew that he was prepared to break into a home to avoid arrest. Concealed as he was in a dark crawl space, the Complainant constituted a real and present danger of harm to the officers. The use of the police dog made sense in the circumstances as it would assist in distracting and controlling the Complainant until such time as he could safely be removed from under the staircase and handcuffed.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s broken finger was the result of the dog bite, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the injury is attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the SO. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: May 4, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit