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 January 12, 2026, at 3:52 p.m., the Complainant called the SIU and reported a hip injury that he had sustained from an interaction with Toronto Police Service (TPS) officers on January 10, 2026. The Complainant had been admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital (MSH) as a result of the incident.

On January 13, 2026, at 9:55 a.m., the SIU called the Complainant, who explained that he had attended a counter rally to the anti-immigration protest that occurred at the intersection of Yonge and Dundas Streets [Sankofa Square]. The Complainant stated that he was in an area cordoned off for protestors by TPS officers. Upon attempting to leave as directed by TPS, he noticed a female behind him pushed by Witness Official (WO) #1. [The female was later identified as Civilian Witness (CW) #1.] When the Complainant turned to complain, he was pushed to the ground and directed to leave. The Complainant advised that he was subsequently transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured hip.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/01/13 at 1:25 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/01/14 at 11:00 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

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 January 14, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between January 14 and 15, 2026.

Subject Official

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

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

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

The witness officials were interviewed on January 22, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around Sankofa Square at the southeast corner of Yonge Street and Dundas Street East, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On January 10, 2026, starting at about 1:30 p.m., the SO was captured escorting two media reporters out of a barricaded area in Nathan Phillips Square.

At 2:16 p.m., a man pushed the SO’s police bike away from him. The SO and other TPS police officers grounded the man and arrested him.

At 2:23 p.m., the SO and a female entered a police-restricted area within the protest. The SO said, “You’re going to be arrested for obstruct,” turned the female around and pushed her away. The female began to walk towards the sidewalk area.

At 3:03:00 p.m., several protesters holding Canadian flags stood in Sankofa Square. The SO assisted other police officers in escorting a man in a grey jacket away from the crowd. Several people were observed being arrested.

At 3:03:24 p.m., the SO took out his baton and held it against his body as protesters began walking towards him and a group of police officers.

At 3:03:55 p.m., a protester repeatedly asked the SO for his badge number. He did not respond.

At 3:04:49 p.m., the SO closed his baton.

At 3:17:32 p.m., the SO turned to his right to park his police bicycle in line with others. The Complainant entered the left camera frame walking east. The SO turned to walk east behind the Complainant.

At 3:17:55 p.m., a woman - CW #1 - walked into the camera frame moving south to take photos of the demonstrators. WO #1 stepped in front of her and the SO approached on her right side to redirect her eastward. The Complainant stopped and walked west towards CW #1. The SO said, “You’re going to get arrested,” as WO #1 redirected CW #1 eastward and told the Complainant to walk east. The Complainant said, “Don’t touch her, don’t touch her,” and the SO said, “We’re not touching her.” The Complainant walked eastward as he looked back at WO #1 and the SO, who were redirecting CW #1 to exit the north end of the square at Dundas Street.

At 3:18:11 p.m., the SO approached the Complainant and said, “You’re going to get arrested if you don’t …” The Complainant interrupted and said, “For what?” The SO said, “Obstruct.” The Complainant replied, “I’m just walking.” The SO used his right hand to guide the Complainant’s right arm as he turned to walk northward.

At 3:18:16 p.m., the Complainant turned to his left and the SO moved his right hand to the Complainant’s left arm. The Complainant said, “Hey, hey, you don’t have to touch me, I was just walking.” He raised his right hand back [in what appeared to be a ‘stop’ hand pose] towards the SO. The SO used his right hand to hold the Complainant’s left biceps, his left hand to grab the Complainant’s right hand, and turned him to the right.

At 3:18:20 p.m., the SO used his right hand to hold the Complainant’s right biceps and held his left open hand on the Complainant’s back, and pushed him forward towards the sidewalk. The Complainant stumbled and fell on his left side on the sidewalk and slid slightly. The Complainant rolled to his right and rested on his back. The Complainant cried out. The SO turned and walked back to the area near the demonstration with other police officers, including WO #1.

At 3:18:28 p.m., the SO walked back towards the sidewalk where CW #1 shouted, “You pushed him!” The SO told her to back up. The Complainant used his left hand to hold his left hip. The SO adjusted the police bicycles to form a barrier at the sidewalk, then turned to his right (east) where two unidentified men assisted the Complainant to his feet. The Complainant bent over and shouted out in pain.

Video Footage from 10 Dundas Street East

On January 10, 2026, starting at about 3:18:08 p.m., the Complainant, CW #1, and the SO and WO #1, walked eastbound from around the subway building at the north end of Sankofa Square. The SO escorted the Complainant northward towards Dundas Street, and WO #1 escorted CW #1.

At 3:18:19 p.m., the Complainant faced south towards the SO. The SO used his left hand to hold the Complainant’s left upper arm and turned him to face northbound. The officer used both hands to push the Complainant towards the sidewalk. The Complainant stumbled and landed on his left side with his left arm extended out to brace his fall. The Complainant landed in the middle of the sidewalk and skidded to the outer edge of the sidewalk where he rested on his back. The SO started to walk back towards the inner square and turned to walk back to CW #1 at the sidewalk, who raised her phone.

At 3:18:33 p.m., the SO adjusted the bicycles to block off the pathway into the square. Two unidentified men tended to the Complainant and assisted him to his feet.

At 3:19:25 p.m., the SO turned to walk south back to the square. The Complainant stood bent over.

At 3:33:27 p.m., an ambulance entered the lower right camera frame and stopped on the north side of Dundas Street, across from where the Complainant was located. An ambulance entered the left camera frame and parked on the south side of Dundas Street. The Complainant was loaded onto a stretcher.

TPS Communications Recordings

On January 10, 2026, at 2:37:46 p.m., a police broadcast directed that a boundary be erected on the west and east sides of the square.

At 2:44:50 p.m., a police officer ordered that the crowd be kept away from the Primary Response Unit on the west and east curbs.

At 2:46:44 p.m., a police officer broadcast that the counter protesters were violent with police. They were verbally and physically hostile with police.

At 2:49:48 p.m., a police officer reported that the crowds were en route from Nathan Phillips Square.

At 2:59:23 p.m., a police officer said, “When we get to Dundas Square [Sankofa Square], let’s move them right into the square, and then let’s have the bikes form up a safe zone around them. Right into the square.”

At 3:00:53 p.m., a police officer directed the bicycle officers to make a perimeter on the north side of Sankofa Square.

At 3:21:13 p.m., CW #2 called 911 to report she had learned from a woman [now known to be CW #1] of a man [now known to be the Complainant] thrown over bicycles to the ground by police officers at the corner of Yonge Street and Dundas Street. The Complainant had landed on his side and his hip was injured. He was in pain and required medical attention. CW #2 asked a police officer [now known to be the SO] for his badge number, which he did not provide.

At 3:26:47 p.m., the dispatcher asked if a police officer could attend for an ambulance call at the corner for a person who had been thrown over a bicycle by a police officer.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between January 14, 2026, and January 26, 2026:

• BWC footage
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Reports
• TPS policies – Arrest and Release; Incident Response and Use of Force
• Annual Use of Force requalification - the SO
• Notes – WO #1, WO #3, WO #4 and WO #2
• Communications recordings
• Consolidated Incident Action Plan
• In-car camera footage

WO Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between January 13, 2026, and January 19, 2026:

• Email from CW #1 with photos and footage

• Drawings and video from the Complainant
• Instagram video from the Complainant
• Email correspondence from the Complainant
• Video footage from 10 Dundas Steet East
• Ambulance Call Report from Toronto Emergency Medical Services
• The Complainant’s medical records from MSH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant 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, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of January 10, 2026, the Complainant was at Sankofa Square to protest against a demonstration by the Canada First movement. The Canada First demonstrators had made their way to Sankofa Square from Nathan Phillips Square, where they had initially gathered. The Complainant, with a group of other people, had also been at Nathan Phillips Square attempting to disrupt the Canada First demonstration.

TPS officers had been assigned to police the demonstration and counter-protest. They were to preserve the peace and attempt to keep the rival factions separated. At Sankofa Square, officers used their bicycles to erect a perimeter between the Canada First demonstrators, at the centre of the square, and the counter-protesters, on its periphery. The Complainant was in the area of the northeast corner of the square when he and others were asked to leave the square.

The Complainant began to slowly walk away but stopped to object to the treatment of a woman, who was being physically escorted by police in the direction of Dundas Steet East. The SO ordered him to leave or he would be arrested for obstructing police. The officer then pushed the Complainant by the arms northward towards Dundas Street East, the roadway that bordered the square to the north. The Complainant told the SO that he did not have to touch him and turned to face the officer. The SO reacted by turning him around and pushing him in the back towards Dundas Street East. The Complainant stumbled forward and fell onto the Dundas Street East sidewalk, fracturing his left hip in the process.

The Complainant was transported by paramedics to hospital and treated for his injury.

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 a fall following a push from a TPS officer on January 10, 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 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.

I am satisfied that the SO was engaged in the lawful exercise of his duties to maintain public order and preserve the peace as he and his fellow officers were tasked with policing the Canada First demonstration and those who had gathered in counter-protest of that movement. This included the creation and enforcement of a reasonable buffer zone between the two groups. That is what the police were doing when they directed the Complainant and others out of the square.

I am also satisfied that the SO did not exceed the ambit of legally justified force when he pushed the Complainant. The atmosphere between the opposing groups had at times been highly charged and there was a level of urgency to ensuring the buffer zone be kept clear. In the circumstances, I am unable to fault the SO when he initially placed his hands on the Complainant to push him forward and away from the square when the Complainant did not promptly vacate the area. By the time of the final shove, the Complainant had turned to face the officer and stopped his egress out of the square, upset that the SO was touching him. The shove the SO delivered at this time was an escalation in his use of force, but one, I am satisfied, that was warranted in the circumstances in light of the Complainant’s heightened resistance. It was not executed with heavy-handed force, nor did it appear destined to cause the fall or the type of injury the Complainant sustained. In fact, there was evidence that the Complainant’s fracture may in some measure have been the result of a pre-existing medical condition.

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

I note what appears to have been the use of derogatory language by the SO against a person contrary to sections 10 and 12 of the Police Code of Conduct. At about 2:24 p.m. on his BWC footage, the officer refers to a female he has just pushed backwards in a demeaning way. I will be referring this matter to the 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 8, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit