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 man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 15, 2026, at 7:59 a.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On January 14, 2026, police officers attended an Ottawa Community Housing complex in the area of Croydon Avenue and Richmond Road, Ottawa, to do a walkthrough and execute outstanding arrest warrants for theft and breach of probation on the Complainant. When the police officers exited the elevator, they observed two men standing in the hall, one of whom they believed to be the Complainant. When asked for identification, the Complainant refused. He resisted arrest and was grounded. The Complainant was transported to the OPS Custody Unit where he complained of knee pain. Emergency Medical Services transported the Complainant to Montfort Hospital (MH) where he was diagnosed with left knee fractures.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/01/15 at 8:19 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/01/15 at 10:21 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 20, 2026.

Subject Officials

SO #1 Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

SO #1 was interviewed on March 2, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in a corridor of an apartment building in the area of Richmond Road and Croydon Avenue, Ottawa, just outside a set of elevators.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage from Building Hallway

The interaction was only partially captured as the involved parties moved in and out of camera range.

On January 14, 2026, starting at 2:48 p.m., SO #1 and SO #2 exited the elevator and walked out of camera view.

Starting at 2:50 p.m., SO #1 was captured standing at the elevator doors. When the doors opened, the Complainant and an unidentified man exited.

Starting at 2:52 p.m., SO #1 was struggling with the Complainant as the Complainant moved away.

Starting at 2:53 p.m., the Complainant was forced to the floor.

OPS Communications Recordings

On January 14, 2026, starting at 2:57 p.m., SO #2 advised by police radio that the Complainant was in custody.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPS between January 15, 2026, and March 2, 2026:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• General Occurrence Reports
• Arrest Report
• Video footage from Ottawa Community Housing
• Communications recordings
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Notes - SO #2
• OPS policies - Use of Force and Weapons; Arrest; Custody and Courts

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from MH on January 28, 2026.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and SO #1, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, SO #2 did not agree an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of January 14, 2026, SO #1 and SO #2 were on-duty together assigned to the West Neighbourhood Resource Team, a proactive policing initiative by the service. The officers attended an apartment complex in the area of Richmond Road and Croydon Avenue to perform welfare checks, enforce conditions of release and execute outstanding arrest warrants. The Complainant was identified as a person associated with the building who was subject to an arrest warrant on theft charges.

The officers were just outside the elevator when it opened and the Complainant stepped out. Asked to identify himself, the Complainant provided a false name and attempted to walk by the officers. SO #1 and SO #2 took a hold of him and a struggle ensued. The Complainant was forcibly taken to the floor and handcuffed behind the back.

The Complainant was transported to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with a fractured left knee.

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 OPS officers on January 14, 2026. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1 and SO #2 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.

With information at their disposal that the Complainant was the subject of an arrest warrant for theft, and that the male who had exited the elevator looked like the Complainant, I am satisfied that SO #1 and SO #2 were within their rights in seeking to detain him to establish his identity: R. v. Mann, [2004] 3 SCR 59.

I am also satisfied that SO #1 and SO #2 used no more force than was reasonably necessary to effect the Complainant’s detention. The evidence establishes that the Complainant tried to evade detention, first, by providing a false name and attempting to walk away and, then, by resisting the officers when they physically intervened to prevent him leaving the scene. On this record, the officers were entitled to resort to a measure of force to enforce the Complainant’s detention and they did so in a proportionate manner, namely, by taking him to the floor and wrestling control of his arms behind the back so they could be handcuffed. The grounding made sense as it would position the officers to better manage the Complainant’s resistance without the use of weapons. No strikes were delivered.

In the result, while it is regrettable that the Complainant’s knee was broken in the takedown, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the injury is attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the officers. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: May 6, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit