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 34-year-old male (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 12, 2026, at 6:09 a.m., Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On January 11, 2026, at 8:58 p.m., police officers were requested to attend a residence in the area of Ontario Street and Welland Avenue, St. Catharines, regarding an incident of intimate partner violence. Police officers responded and determined that reasonable grounds existed to arrest the Complainant for assault and failing to comply with probation. The Complainant was reported to have fled the residence in a vehicle and said to be armed with a knife. Prior to fleeing, he had made statements that caused concern for his mental wellbeing and safety. Police conducted a cellular phone “ping” in an effort to ascertain the Complainant’s whereabouts. The Complainant was subsequently located inside a shed on a residential property located in the area of Victoria Avenue North and North Service Road, Lincoln. The Complainant was taken to the ground and arrested at 11:17 p.m. As the Complainant was escorted away from the property, it was apparent that he had sustained a laceration to his head. The Complainant was taken to Niagara Health System - St. Catharines (NHSC) and, at 5:21 a.m., diagnosed with a fractured orbital bone.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/01/12 at 6:40 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/01/13 at 11:12 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on January 13, 2026.

Subject Official

SO 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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on January 16, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the area in front of doorway of a shed on a residential property located in the area of Victoria Avenue North and North Service Road, Lincoln.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Communications Recordings & Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report

On January 11, 2026, at 8:58 p.m., the NRPS received a 911 call to a residence in the area of Ontario Street and Welland Avenue, St. Catharines, regarding an intimate partner assault. The caller reported that the Complainant had punched a woman and fled the scene 15 minutes prior. The Complainant was reportedly driving a grey Nissan Altima with a certain licence plate number. The woman indicated that the Complainant had taken her cellular telephone and expressed suicidal ideations.

At 9:59 p.m., a cell phone “ping” returned a location in the area of Victoria Avenue North and North Service Road, Lincoln.

At 10:01 p.m., a decision was made to have NRPS 8 District (Grimsby) police officers check the area of Victoria Avenue North and North Service Road, Lincoln.

At 10:03 p.m., WO #2, WO #1 and the SO were dispatched to check the area of Victoria Avenue North and North Service Road. The responding officers were advised by dispatch that there were no grounds to arrest the Complainant, and that they were to conduct a welfare check.

At 10:10 p.m., WO #1 drove down the driveway to a residential property located in the area of Victoria Avenue North and North Service Road. The Nissan was not seen.

At 10:43 p.m., WO #2 advised that WO #1 had attended a residential property located in the area of Victoria Avenue North and North Service Road and spoken to a person, who identified himself using a particular first name. This person had said his surname was not “(a last name different from the Complainant’s)”. WO #1 had confused (a last name different from the Complainant’s) for that of the Complainant’s last name.

At 11:05 p.m., WO #2 advised dispatch that the police officers were going to return to the residential property located in the area of Victoria Avenue North and North Service Road, and that the person who had identified himself to WO #1 using a particular first name was, in fact, the Complainant.

At 11:09 p.m., WO #2 advised there was no answer at the door.

At 11:15 p.m., officers found the Complainant in a garden shed with something in his hand. WO #2 subsequently broadcast that they had one person in custody.

At 11:17 p.m., the SO broadcast that the Complainant was in the shed when they found him and that he had come out with a knife in his hand. He had thrown the knife, and the officers were presently looking for it. He asked for an ambulance. WO #2 asked for dispatch to notify 12 District that they had the Complainant, and that they had also found the cell phone.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from NRPS between January 12, 2026, and January 16, 2026:

• In-car camera footage
• Communications recordings
• CAD Report
• General Occurrences Reports
• Police History – the Complainant
• Notes - WO #3, WO #4, WO #1, WO #2 and the SO
• NRPS policies - Mentally Ill Persons; Powers of Arrest; Use of Force
• Training records – the SO
• Witness List

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from NHSC on January 14, 2026.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses, 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.

In the evening of January 11, 2026, NRPS officers were looking for the Complainant. He had left the scene of a domestic disturbance threatening suicide and the police were concerned for his wellbeing. A “ping” of the cell phone in the Complainant’s possession returned a location in the area of Victoria Avenue North and North Service Road, Lincoln.

The SO, in the company of WO #1 and WO #2, arrived in the area. There was no answer at the first house they approached but WO #1 had noticed a light on at the house next door.

The Complainant had fled the scene of the disturbance and taken refuge in an empty house in the area of Victoria Avenue North and North Service Road. When WO #1 initially approached the house and asked him to identify himself, the Complainant provided a false name. With the officer now off the property, the Complainant made his way outside to the rear of the property and inside a steel shed. He had a knife in his possession.

Not long after WO #1 had left the residence where he encountered the Complainant, the officer learned that, in fact, he had been dealing with the Complainant. He, the SO and WO #2 returned to the residence and eventually located the Complainant in the rear shed. The Complainant displayed a knife and began to walk with purpose towards the officers, repeatedly telling them to shoot him. The SO and WO #1 walked away from the shed and ordered the Complainant to drop the knife. He did so, throwing it away, and continued his advance. When he was within striking range of the SO, the officer punched him in the face.

The Complainant was felled by the blow but continued to resist on the ground by refusing to surrender his arms. WO #1 and WO #2 delivered several more strikes to the torso and legs, after which the Complainant was handcuffed behind the back.

The Complainant was diagnosed at hospital after his arrest with a fractured left 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 NRPS officers on January 11, 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.

By the time the SO punched the Complainant, the Complainant had threatened the officers with a knife and was subject to lawful arrest.

The punch the SO delivered, in my view, was legally justified. The Complainant, who had reportedly been violent with a partner a short time before, had brandished a knife and was now approaching the officer intending to provoke a physical confrontation. He gave every indication that he was about to assault the SO. In the circumstances, the SO was within his rights in repelling the attack and he did so with a sharp and discrete use of force that was commensurate with the exigencies of the moment. There is an alternate version of the event that suggests the SO proceeded to strike the Complainant in the face when he was on the ground, this time with a blunt object. That version finds no support in the accounts of the officers, none of whom mention more than one strike by the SO. The alternate version must also be approached with caution as it fails to describe the strikes delivered by WO #1 and WO #2 when the Complainant was on the ground.[3] On this record, there being no reason to believe that the alternate rendition of events is any likelier to be closer to the truth than that proffered by the officers, and some reason to doubt it, the evidence is insufficiently cogent to warrant being tested by a court.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s fracture was the likely result of the SO’s punch, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury is 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: May 5, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit