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 50-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 20, 2026, at 1:03 p.m., Waterloo Regional Police Service (WRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On January 20, 2026, at 10:50 a.m., WRPS received information about a suspect in an intimate partner violence investigation, the Complainant, who was at his sister-in-law’s residence located in the area of Concession Road and Eagle Street North, Cambridge. WRPS officers saw the Complainant inside the home through a window. They spoke briefly through the front door, but the Complainant would not open the door or let the officers inside. The Complainant left the area of the front door. The officers remained outside the residence and attempted to contact him. At 11:40 a.m., the Complainant’s sister-in-law arrived home and allowed the officers to enter the house. She directed them up to the second-floor bathroom where they spoke with the Complainant through the bathroom door. They tried to convince him to open the door. After a while, the Complainant became quiet. His wife then texted his sister and said the Complainant had texted her (the wife) and she believed he had harmed himself. The officers forced the bathroom door open and found the Complainant had cut his wrists and was bleeding profusely. The officers applied a tourniquet and called Emergency Medical Services. He was transported to Cambridge Memorial Hospital (CMH).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/01/20 at 2:03 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/01/20 at 3:07 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on February 23, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on January 20, 2026.

Subject Officials

SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

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

SO #3 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #1 was interviewed on February 9, 2026.

Witness Official

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on January 28, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a residence located in the area of Concession Road and Eagle Street North, Cambridge.

Physical Evidence

SIU forensic services located a large knife with a 14.5-centimetre blade on the second-floor bathroom vanity. There were blood stains on the edge of the blade, on a towel and clothing on the bathroom floor, and in the shower and tub.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

WRPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On January 20, 2026, starting at about 10:49:48 a.m., SO #3, SO #2 and the WO walked up the driveway to the front door of a home and knocked on the door. The WO peered through a window at the front of the house. He turned to the officers and said the Complainant was on a couch and looking at the officers. The WO knocked on the window repeatedly and rang the doorbell. SO #2 looked through the window and said the Complainant had raised a finger in a gesture, suggesting the WRPS wait one minute.

At 10:52:51 a.m., the Complainant opened the front door. The WO advised the Complainant there were grounds for his arrest because he had gone to his residence when he was not supposed to be there. The Complainant did not respond and closed the door immediately. The WO walked over to a police vehicle on the roadway and briefed another police officer [SO #1] about the interaction.

At 10:56:40 a.m., SO #2 knocked on the window again and asked the Complainant to come back to the door. The Complainant approached the window and SO #2 spoke with him through the closed window. SO #2 explained that if the Complainant did not exit on his own, the WRPS officers would obtain a Feeney warrant[3] to enter and arrest him. The Complainant told the officers to obtain a warrant.

At 11:20:07 a.m., the Complainant was on the phone. When the officers asked who he was calling, the Complainant said he had called his wife. The officers told him he was not supposed to have any contact with his wife.

At 11:22:36 a.m., CW #2 arrived. She explained that the Complainant had returned to his residence to obtain his eyeglasses because he needed them to go to work. The WRPS officers explained the terms of his release order and how the Complainant had contravened the order. The WO said CW #1 was on her way to allow the WRPS officers to enter the residence.

At 11:40:05 a.m., CW #1 arrived. SO #2 requested entry into her residence to arrest the Complainant.

At 11:43:05 a.m., the exterior garage door was opened and SO #2, the WO and SO #3 entered the garage. They subsequently entered an interior garage door into the main residence with CW #1. CW #1 noted the shower was on. The WO unlocked the front door and SO #1 entered the residence. The Complainant was upstairs and said he was in the bathroom. He asked the WRPS to leave. The WRPS said they would not leave. SO #2 told the Complainant to “make it quick please”, which was in reference to his shower.

At 11:44:33 a.m., the WO said to the other WRPS officers, “Now the question that arises is…is he going to hurt himself while he’s in the bathroom?” SO #2 replied, “Well, I know, so that’s why I’m going to wait upstairs,” then immediately turned to walk upstairs. The WO went after him, followed by SO #3 and SO #1. The WRPS officers assembled outside the upstairs bathroom door, which was closed. SO #2 called out to the Complainant and asked if he was dressed. The Complainant replied he was not dressed. SO #2 said to the Complainant, “I just want to make sure you’re in there safely.” The Complainant said he needed five to ten minutes. SO #1 said he had spoken with CW #1, who confirmed there were no firearms in the residence and only knives in the kitchen. The WO questioned whether the Complainant was even in the shower, or he was simply stalling for time.

At 11:46:47 a.m., the WO said he would go see if CW #1 would provide a statement. He went downstairs. The WO gathered contact information from CW #1 and spoke about the process for the Complainant’s arrest and possible release.

SO #2, SO #3 and SO #1 remained outside the bathroom door and questioned whether it was the shower or the faucet that was on. They also questioned whether the Complainant was using his phone while inside the bathroom because they heard a dial sound.

At 11:51:04 a.m., there was a loud scream from a woman [CW #2] from outside the interior garage door. CW #1 opened the door. CW #2 said, “Something is wrong.” The WO ran upstairs and warned the other WRPS officers.

At 11:51:11 a.m., SO #2 tried the handle of the bathroom door, but it did not open. SO #1 kicked the door open. There was blood on the toilet and the sink countertop. There was a knife on the countertop. There was a cell phone on top of the closed toilet lid. The shower curtain fell to the ground. The shower was on. The Complainant stood in the shower with a laceration to his right wrist. The officers exited the bathroom and put on gloves before they approached the Complainant. When they re-entered the bathroom, the Complainant was on the floor of the shower hunched over the edge of the tub. There was blood from arterial spurts on the shower wall. SO #1 applied a tourniquet to the Complainant’s right arm. SO #3 and SO #1 removed the shower curtain and rod from the bathroom. SO #1 and SO #2 provided first aid to the Complainant’s laceration.

At 12:07:54 p.m., paramedic services arrived.

WRPS Communications Recordings

On January 19, 2026, at 7:14:37 a.m., a female called 911. She reported that the Complainant and CW #2 were fighting at a residence in Cambridge. The Complainant was intoxicated, had mental health issues, and had made utterances of suicidal ideation earlier in the day.

On January 20, 2026, at 8:55:35 a.m., a male called 911. He reported the Complainant was at the home but was not to be there, due to his arrest the day before.

At 10:51:41 a.m., a police officer [SO #3] reported that the Complainant was seen inside a residence in the area of Concession Road and Eagle Street North, Cambridge, but was not approaching the front door.

At 10:59:16 a.m., SO #3 advised a warrant was required to arrest the Complainant because he was denying the police officers entry to the residence.

At 11:25:23 a.m., SO #3 spoke with CW #1, who could provide entry to the residence.

At 11:43:34 a.m., a police officer [the WO] advised that officers had entered the home. SO #3 advised that the Complainant was in the shower and the officers were waiting for him to finish.

At 11:51:30 a.m., a police officer [SO #1] requested that paramedic services attend the scene. SO #3 advised that the Complainant had cut his right wrist with a knife.

At 12:07:17 p.m., paramedic services arrived.

At 12:35:36 p.m., the Complainant was transported to CMH.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from WRPS between January 22, 2026, and February 3, 2026:

• Crown Brief Synopsis
• Undertaking issued January 19, 2026
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• Notes – the WO and SO #2
• Policies – Arrest and Release; Mental Health Response
• BWC footage

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between January 20, 2026, and March 16, 2026:

• Screenshot of text message conversation from CW #2
• Medical records from Guelph General Hospital

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, SO #1 and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, SO #3 chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes. SO #2 did not interview, but did consent to the release of his notes.

In the morning of January 20, 2026, SO #1, SO #3 and SO #2, joined by the WO, attended at a residence in the area of Concession Road and Eagle Street North, Cambridge. They were there to arrest the Complainant for having earlier that day breached a term of a release order when he entered his home address to retrieve a pair of glasses. He had been arrested the day before following a domestic disturbance and was released on condition that he not return to his residence.

The Complainant was at the residence in the area of Concession Road and Eagle Street North, Cambridge, when the officers knocked on the door. The officers explained that they were there to arrest him and would obtain a Feeney warrant if he did not let them in. The Complainant refused to allow them in and told them to get a warrant. When the officers entered the house at about 11:45 a.m., having been allowed in by one of the homeowners, CW #1, the Complainant fled upstairs into a second-floor bathroom. He had with him a knife from the kitchen.

The officers spoke with the Complainant through the bathroom door and were led to believe that he was taking a shower, after which he would surrender to police. Within minutes of their entry, however, they learned from CW #2, with whom he had been communicating via cell phone, that something was wrong with the Complainant. SO #1 kicked open the locked bathroom door and discovered the Complainant inside with a serious wound to the right forearm. The Complainant had cut himself. SO #1 applied a tourniquet and the officers administered first aid.

Paramedics arrived on scene and transported the Complainant to hospital.

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 suffered a serious injury from a self-inflicted wound on January 20, 2026, in Cambridge. As WRPS officers were present in the vicinity of the Complainant to arrest him at the time, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3 were identified as subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the subject officials committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s injury.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the subject officials, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s injury. In my view, there was not.

The police officers were lawfully placed and in the exercise of their duties through the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s act of self-harm. They had reason to believe that he had violated the term of a release order, and were inside the residence with the permission of one of the homeowners.

I am satisfied that the subject officials comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s wellbeing in the few minutes they had available to them before he cut himself. They were mindful of the possibility that the Complainant might self-harm but had no hard evidence to suggest he was a threat to himself. In the circumstances, their decision to locate themselves by the bathroom door but not to force entry seems a reasonable one. They did not know that the Complainant had a knife with him and opted to allow him some leeway in the form of a quick shower before taking him into custody so as not to unnecessarily escalate the situation. As soon as there was reason to believe that the Complainant was at risk, the officers acted quickly to access the bathroom and render emergency first aid.

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

Date: May 8, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit