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 42-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On November 18, 2024, at 12:45 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On November 17, 2024, at 8:53 p.m., OPP officers were dispatched to a residence in the area of Young Street and King Street South, Alliston, in response to a reported domestic disturbance involving the Complainant and his spouse. Upon arrival, officers established grounds for the arrest of the Complainant on three counts of uttering threats and two counts of assault. At 9:00 p.m., the Complainant was taken into custody and escorted from the residence by Subject Official (SO) #1. During the escort, the Complainant was grounded and his knee struck a sewer grate. He immediately reported discomfort, prompting officers to request Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Paramedics transported the Complainant to Stevenson Memorial Hospital (SMH), where he was diagnosed with a fractured left patella [kneecap].

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/11/18 at 7:48 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/11/18 at 8:10 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on November 20, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between February 20 and 24, 2025.

Subject Officials

SO #1 Interviewed, but declined to submit 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

The subject official was interviewed on March 8, 2025.

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between November 26 and 29, 2024.

Investigative Delay

Delay was incurred in this case because of resource pressures in the Director’s Office.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the exterior grounds east of a building situated in the area of Young Street and King Street South, Alliston.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPP Communications Recordings

On November 17, 2024, at 8:52 p.m., CW #1 called 911 and reported a verbal domestic dispute to the OPP. CW #1 identified herself as the superintendent of a building in the area of Young Street and King Street South and the location of the verbal dispute as a unit in the building. CW #1 identified the occupants as “[the Complainant’s first name]” and “[the spouse’s first name]”. CW #1 lived in an apartment directly above the Complainant and his spouse. From inside her apartment, she had heard doors slam, people yell, and children scream. CW #1 was unsure if the Complainant and his spouse used drugs and/or alcohol or how many children were in the apartment. CW #1 was not aware of any prior domestic disturbances involving the Complainant and his spouse but believed there had been police prior involvement.

Video Footage from Apartment Building in the Area of Young Street and King Street South

On November 17, 2024, starting at about 8:58:30 p.m., six marked OPP cruisers arrived and parked on the street, south of the building.

Starting at about 8:59:01 p.m., six uniformed OPP officers walked north across the parking lot and entered the building through the east side door. A male officer followed at 8:59:16 p.m., also entering through the east side door.

Starting at about 8:59:39 p.m., two additional marked OPP cruisers arrived and parked on the street. Officers crossed the parking lot and entered the building through the east side door.

Starting at about 9:01:14 p.m., the Complainant, handcuffed behind the back, was escorted out of the building through the east side door. SO #1 held the Complainant’s left arm above the elbow with his right hand, later adding his left hand to his hold. They walked across the parking lot, followed by SO #2 and WO #2 a few steps behind.

Starting at about 9:01:17 p.m., after several steps, SO #1 stopped, bent his knees slightly, and pulled back on the Complainant’s left arm. The Complainant stopped, turning his upper body and head to the left. Two seconds later, SO #1 lowered his centre of gravity and again pulled the Complainant backwards and to the right. the Complainant stumbled, turning 180 degrees counterclockwise. SO #2, standing to the Complainant’s right, swung his left arm out towards the Complainant’s neck and head area. Simultaneously, the Complainant fell to the asphalt surface, rolled, and came to rest on his back.

Starting at about 9:01:23 p.m., WO #1 exited the east side door and walked towards the Complainant. As WO #1 approached, she kicked his right flip-flop sandal, which had fallen off, back towards him.

Starting at about 9:01:36 p.m., the Complainant was assisted to his feet but stumbled, dropped to his knees, and laid back down on the ground.

Starting at about 9:03:01 p.m., three male officers exited the building and approached the Complainant, who was now surrounded by six officers. One of the officers soon turned around and re-entered the building.

Starting at about 9:05:17 p.m., another officer exited the building carrying a jacket, which he handed to WO #1. WO #1 placed the jacket over the Complainant’s upper body.

EMS arrived on scene at 9:12:34 p.m. and, by 9:16:19 p.m., the Complainant was placed on a stretcher with police assistance.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between November 20, 2024, and November 27, 2024:

• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Reports
• General Occurrence Report
• Notes – WO #1 and WO #2

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between November 22, 2024, and November 27, 2024:

• Video footage from apartment building in the area of Young Street and King Street South, Alliston
• The Complainant’s medical records from Stevenson Memorial 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 largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, SO #2 did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

In the evening of November 17, 2024, OPP officers were dispatched to an apartment in the area of Young Street and King Street South, Alliston, following a call to police about a disturbance in the residence. The building superintendent had called 911 to report a dispute between a male – the Complainant – and a female – his spouse – that included yelling, doors slamming and children screaming.

OPP officers, including SO #1, arrived at the residence, located in the basement of the building, at about 9:00 p.m. The Complainant was arrested by SO #1 for mischief and handcuffed behind the back. The officer told the Complainant that he would be transported to the police station, and began to escort him down the hallway and up a staircase towards a main floor exit on the east side of the building. The Complainant, a big man well over six feet tall, walked quickly as SO #1 held onto his left arm and repeatedly told him to slow down. As the pair exited the building onto a parking lot, the Complainant ahead of SO #1, the officer yanked on his left arm from behind to slow him down and change his path of travel towards a police cruiser. The Complainant was jerked backwards momentarily and then resumed his forward progress, at which point SO #1, still with a hold of his left arm, yanked on the limb again. On this occasion, the two rotated backwards together in a counterclockwise direction. The Complainant went to ground and broke his left kneecap in the process.

Paramedics attended the scene and transported the Complainant to hospital.

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.

Section 430, Criminal Code - Mischief

430(1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully

(a) destroys or damages property;

(b) renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective;

(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or

(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the custody of OPP officers on November 17, 2024. 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 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 involved in a heated dispute with his spouse that alarmed other residents of the building and resulted in damaged property, the officers who attended at the Complainant’s residence appear to have had cause to arrest him for mischief under section 430 of the Criminal Code. Thereafter, SO #1 was within his rights in exercising reasonable control over the Complainant’s movements.

With respect to the Complainant’s fall and injury, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing they were the result of excessive force by SO #1. It is common ground in the evidence that SO #1 was having difficulty keeping up with the Complainant while escorting him to his cruiser. The officer told the Complainant to slow down but, whether owing to obstinance by the Complainant or the fact that he was about a foot taller than SO #1 with a longer stride, the Complainant failed to do so. On this record, I am satisfied that SO #1 was entitled to resort to a measure of force to slow the Complainant and he did what one would expect, namely, pull back on his arm. That tactic, in my view, was reasonable and executed with appropriate force. The more difficult question involves the second yank backwards and the subsequent fall to the ground. There is a version of events proffered in the evidence that the Complainant was kicked in the knee or tripped by SO #1, and intentionally grounded. If true, that account would give rise to legitimate concerns about unwarranted force given the Complainant’s vulnerable situation at the time (his arms handcuffed behind the back) and the presence of other officers in the vicinity who could have been enlisted to assist in bringing the Complainant under control. SO #1, however, denies that he intentionally grounded the Complainant. Rather, according to the officer, the Complainant lost his balance as the two began to rotate and stumbled to the ground. The video footage of the incident is broadly consistent with both alternatives other than it refutes the evidence that the Complainant was kicked in the knee. That did not occur. In the circumstances, there being no reason to believe the inculpatory version of events is likelier closer to the truth than the account proffered by SO #1, and some reason to doubt it, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the evidence of unlawful force by SO #1 is sufficiently cogent to warrant being put to the test by a court. With respect to SO #2’s conduct, that is, his left arm and hand extending in the direction of the Complainant’s head as the Complainant is going to the ground, the evidence also falls short of justifying criminal charges. SO #2 did not give the SIU a statement (as was his legal right), the Complainant made no mention of any punch as such, and the video evidence is equivocal as to whether the officer was delivering a punch or assisting the Complainant to the ground.

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