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

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 1, 2025, at 6:00 p.m., Witness Official (WO) #1 of the Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 31, 2025, at 12:15 p.m., Officer #1 arrested the Complainant in the downtown area of Sudbury on the strength of an existing warrant for failing to attend a court appearance. Officer #1 transported the Complainant to the GSPS station, arriving at 12:53 p.m. The Complainant was searched at the station and placed in a cell. The arrest and intake processes were without incident and there was no cause for concern. At about 4:30 p.m., Service Employee Witness (SEW) #1, a custody officer in the cell area, checked the Complainant. She told him that she had ingested fentanyl. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called, and the Complainant was transported to Health Sciences North (HSN). At 5:00 p.m., WO #1 was relieved by the nightshift supervisor, Subject Official (SO) #2. At 7:15 p.m., the Complainant was discharged from HSN and returned to the custody of the GSPS. Prior to being placed back in the cell, the Complainant was strip searched by WO #5 and WO #4. No drugs were located. Although the Complainant was aggressive, she complied with the search, and was subsequently placed back in the cell, pending a bail hearing in the morning. During this time, WO #3 was the custody officer and checked on the Complainant every 30 minutes, per GSPS policy. On June 1, 2025, at 12:50 a.m., WO #3 checked on the Complainant, who appeared normal. She was laying on the cell floor and moving. At 5:00 a.m., SO #2 briefed the incoming supervisor, SO #1, regarding the circumstances involving the Complainant. At 8:00 a.m., WO #1 returned to duty and SO #1 updated him on the circumstances involving the Complainant. At 9:00 a.m., SEW #1 was preparing prisoners for bail hearings when he noticed vomit and feces on the floor of the Complainant’ s cell. At 9:31 a.m., Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called, and the Complainant was returned to HSN. Throughout the day, the Complainant was guarded by GSPS officers at hospital. Sometime later that morning, the Complainant was alert and remanded to the custody of the Sudbury Jail. Arrangements were made for correctional officers to assume guard responsibilities. At 3:00 p.m., correctional officers arrived and were told by hospital staff that the Complainant had been transferred to the ICU and was in critical condition. At 4:59 p.m., a sergeant attended HSN to gather information related to the Complainant.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/06/01 at 6:45 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/06/02 at 9:57 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on June 19, 2025.

Civilian Witness / Witnesses

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on October 8, 2025.

Subject Officials

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed not necessary

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed not necessary

The witness officials were interviewed on June 19, 2025.

Service Employee Witnesses

SEW #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

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

SEW #1 was interviewed on June 19, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a cell of the GSPS station, 190 Brady Street, Sudbury.

Physical Evidence

The scene was photographed and documented by SIU forensic services.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

GSPS Booking and Cell Footage

On May 31, 2025, starting at about 12:48 p.m., the Complainant was escorted into the custody area and lodged in a cell by SEW #2.

Between 2:08 p.m. and 3:08 p.m., no physical checks were conducted of the Complainant.

Starting at about 3:44 p.m., the Complainant sat on the cell bed and held a light-coloured object in her right hand. She manipulated the object with both hands; the item was paper or foil. SEW #2 stood at the cell door and spoke with the Complainant. The Complainant reached towards the cell door with the object in her right hand. SEW #2 took the object from the Complainant.

Starting at about 4:23 p.m., the Complainant stood up, reached into the front of her pants, and then kneeled in front of the bed. She sat up and raised her left hand to her mouth or nose.

Starting at about 4:41 p.m., SEW #1 opened the door to the cell and stood in the open doorway. Officer #2 and two paramedics entered the hallway outside of the cell. The two paramedics entered the cell.

Starting at about 4:45 p.m., the Complainant was assisted into a seated position in the hallway outside the cell door. She was unable to maintain the seated position without assistance. The Complainant was placed on an EMS stretcher and escorted to hospital.

Starting at about 7:06 p.m., the Complainant returned to GSPS and walked into the custody area under her own power.

Starting at about 7:12 p.m., the Complainant was placed in the room beside the booking desk accompanied by WO #4 and WO #5 [for the purpose of a strip search].

Starting at about 7:17 p.m., WO #4 and WO #5 exited the room with the Complainant and lodged her in the cell.

Between 8:07 p.m. and 10:07 p.m., no physical checks were conducted of the Complainant. During this time, she changed positions often. She sat up and fell from the bed landing on her back and buttocks, striking her head on the wall. She kicked the cell door several times and lay back on the floor under the blanket.

Starting at about 10:23 p.m., WO #3 opened the hallway door and looked at the cell from the doorway.

Between 11:07 p.m. and 12:07 a.m. (June 1, 2025), no physical checks were conducted of the Complainant.

Starting at about 12:52 a.m., WO #2 spoke a the female in another cell. As he left, he looked into the Complainant’s cell.

Starting at about 12:56 a.m., the female in the other cell passed a blanket under her cell door and pushed it towards the Complainant’s cell. The Complainant reached out and brought the blanket into her cell.

Starting at about 1:45 a.m., the Complainant, on her hands and knees, vomited to the side of the toilet. A yellow liquid stain on the floor grew.

Starting at about 2:42 a.m., the Complainant leaned forward towards the cell door and vomited a yellow liquid through the door. A stream of yellow liquid could be seen running from the Complainant’s cell.

Starting at about 2:51 a.m., WO #3 entered the camera range, walked past the yellow liquid, and spoke with the female in the other cell and left.

Starting at about 3:07 a.m., the Complainant was lying on the floor on top of a blue blanket with a blue shirt on. A yellow stain was visible on the floor between the bed and toilet.

Starting at about 3:34 a.m., WO #3 looked into the cell at the Complainant.

Starting at about 3:48 a.m., the Complainant defecated on the blanket while lying on the floor.

Starting at about 3:51 a.m., WO #3 looked in the door at the Complainant for ten seconds. She was moving constantly during this time.

Starting at about 4:56 a.m., SEW #1 entered the camera range, spoke with the female in the other cell and looked in the direction of the clothing items on the floor in front of the Complainant’s cell and the yellow stain. He did not appear to converse with the Complainant.

Starting at about 8:59 a.m., SEW #1 and SEW #2 were seen looking into the Complainant’s cell. The Complainant was covered by a blanket as she lay on the floor with feces and vomit surrounding her.

Starting at about 9:39 a.m., SEW #1 arrived at the cell door with EMS personnel. The Complainant was removed from the cell with the assistance of paramedics. She was placed on a stretcher and transported to hospital.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the GSPS between June 9, 2025, and July 30, 2025.

• Communications recordings
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from HSN on July 11, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant’s police custodians and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed interviews with the SIU or authorized the release of their notes.

In the afternoon of May 31, 2025, the Complainant was lodged in a police cell following her arrest earlier that day on a bench warrant. Asked whether she had consumed any alcohol or drugs, the Complainant answered in the negative. A search prior to her placement in cells did not reveal any drugs.

At about 4:45 p.m., the Complainant was assisted out of the cell by paramedics. They had been called to transport the Complainant to hospital after she told a guard that she had consumed fentanyl in the cell. The Complainant was seen at hospital and medically cleared. She was returned to the police station, strip searched by two female officers and returned to her cell at about 7:20 p.m.

In the early hours of the following day, the Complainant began to vomit. At one point, at about 3:50 a.m., she defecated on a blanket while lying on the floor.

At about 9:00 a.m., SEW #1 attempted to speak to the Complainant about her upcoming video bail hearing. The officer noticed that the Complainant’s breathing was somewhat laboured, and advised WO #1 and SO #1 of his concerns. It was agreed that EMS should reattend.

Paramedics arrived on scene at about 9:40 a.m. The Complainant was placed on a stretcher and taken to hospital. She would remain in hospital for several days for treatment of drug overdose and withdrawal.

Section 215, Criminal Code - Failure to Provide Necessaries

215 (1) Every one is under a legal duty

(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person

(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and

(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.

(2) Every person commits an offence who, being under a legal duty within the meaning of subsection (1), fails without lawful excuse to perform that duty, if

(b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant became ill while lodged in a cell of the GSPS on June 1, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. SO #1 and SO #2 – the officers with overall responsibility for the care of prisoners in the hours leading to the Complainant’s medical event – were identified as subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable ground to believe that either subject official committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s condition.

The offences that arise for consideration are failure to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to sections 215 and 221 of the Criminal Code, respectively. Both require something more than a simple want of care to give rise to liability. The former is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. The latter is premised on even more egregious conduct that demonstrates a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is not made out unless the neglect constitutes a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable standard of care. In the instant case, the question is whether there was any want of care on the part of SO #1 and/or SO #2, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that endangered the Complainant’s life or contributed to her illness. In my view, there was not.

The Complainant was lawfully in the custody of the police through the series of events culminating in her hospital admission on June 1, 2025. She was under arrest pursuant to a bench warrant issued after she had failed to attend a court hearing.

I am satisfied that the Complainant’s police custodians comported themselves with due care and regard for her wellbeing during her period in custody. It is not entirely clear on the evidence whether the Complainant ingested drugs in the cell or before her arrest by police. If the former, the failure by the police to detect and confiscate the drugs prior to her placement in cells did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. The Complainant had been searched at the outset with negative results. It might be that the drugs were secreted on her person in a way that could only have been discovered with a strip search. However, at that point in time, it is doubtful the officers had the lawful authority to conduct such an invasive search: see R v Golden, [2001] 3 SCR 679. The Complainant had not been arrested for a drug offence, did not appear under the influence of drugs, and had denied drug use at her booking. At the first sign that she had ingested fentanyl, when she said as much to SEW #1, the police acted quickly to take her to hospital. On her return, the Complainant was subjected to a strip search, this time rightfully so given the change in circumstances. Again, no drugs were located, and she was returned to her cell. Thereafter, there is evidence that the Complainant was regularly checked in-person and via video feed. Perhaps the officers assigned to monitor her should have taken her vomiting more seriously and alerted supervisory personnel sooner of a health concern. That said, the evidence indicates that vomiting by prisoners on drugs was not an unusual occurrence and would not necessarily have prompted a call for medical attention. Moreover, the Complainant had already been medically cleared at hospital. Lastly, when the Complainant’s condition began to materially deteriorate with laboured breathing, her custodians again acted with dispatch to secure medical attention.

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

Before closing the file, I note for the record evidence of potential misconduct on the part of WO #3 in possible contravention of sections 19 and 27 of the Police Code of Conduct. Though required by the GSPS policy – Prisoner Care and Control – to physically check the Complainant every thirty minutes, the cell footage suggests WO #3 did not do so over extended periods of time. I will be referring this matter to the GSPS Chief of Police. Further to section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, I will also be referring the matter to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: May 7, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit