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 44-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 21, 2026, at 8:20 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On January 21, 2026, at approximately 12:24 a.m., Witness Official (WO) #1 was driving a PRP cruiser equipped with an Automated Licence Plate Recognition (ALPR) system when the ALPR registered a positive on the plate of the car in front of the cruiser, indicating that the registered owner was a suspended driver. WO #1 began to follow the car to find a suitable place to pull it over. While being followed, the driver of the car, the Complainant, began to drive erratically. WO #1 activated his cruiser’s emergency lights to signal the driver to stop. The Complainant continued to drive in an erratic manner and collided with parked cars on Patience Drive, Brampton. The Complainant subsequently fled on foot and a perimeter was set up by police. A PRP police service dog (PSD) unit was requested to assist in locating the Complainant. The Complainant was eventually located near his home in the area of Sandalwood Parkway East and Richvale Drive. The Complainant resisted arrest, and a conducted energy weapon (CEW) was deployed. The Complainant was eventually grounded and taken into custody, after which he was released on multiple charges. A short time later, the Complainant contacted Emergency Medical Service (EMS) and complained of pain in his hand. EMS transported him to Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH) where he was diagnosed with a fractured rib.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/01/21 at 10:11 a.m.

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

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

44-year-old male; interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on January 22, 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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #7 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between February 3 and 11, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the front driveway of a residence in the area of Sandalwood Parkway East and Richvale Drive, Brampton.

The driveway of the residence was covered in snow and ice at the time of the events in question.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – WO #4

The CEW event log of WO #4’s weapon was reviewed. It confirmed that the CEW was unholstered and armed at 1:37 a.m., January 21, 2026. Less than a minute later, the CEW was holstered. There was no deployment of any electrical current.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

PRP Communications Recordings

On January 21, 2026, at 12:25 a.m., WO #1 radioed that he was in the area of Sandalwood Parkway West and Chinguacousy Road. The Complainant had reportedly crashed into two parked cars, after which he fled on foot through backyards. WO #1 advised he was no longer in foot pursuit and gave the direction of his travel. He advised officers that the Complainant was wanted for “fail to remain”.

The Complainant’s home address was provided and, at 1:08 a.m., WO #4 asked the SO to go back to the area of Sandalwood Parkway East and Richvale Drive in the event the Complainant was walking home.

At 1:36 a.m., the SO advised he had located the Complainant on the driveway and had him pinned down though not handcuffed. About two minutes later, he reported the Complainant was in custody.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – WO #1, WO #2, WO #4 and WO #6

On January 21, 2026, starting at about 12:25 a.m., WO #1 began a foot pursuit of the Complainant outside a residence in the area of Sandalwood Parkway West and Chinguacousy Road.

Starting at about 1:37 a.m., the SO was captured holding the Complainant on his stomach on a driveway [now known to be in front of the Complainant’s home] and attempting to pull his right arm behind his back. WO #2 was also seen struggling with the Complainant on the ground and screaming in pain at one point before falling onto her back. WO #4 arrived and pressed his CEW against the Complainant’s back area. He told the Complainant to stop fighting and to put his hands behind the back. The officer did not deploy the CEW. The SO knelt on the Complainant’s back as other officers gained control of the Complainant and handcuffed his hands. WO #2 advised that she had been bitten by the Complainant. The Complainant was told he was under arrest and placed in the rear seat of a police cruiser.

Starting at about 1:45 a.m., WO #6 asked the Complainant if he had any injuries. The Complainant indicated his back was injured. WO #6 spoke to WO #7 about the Complainant’s complaint of back pain. WO #7 instructed WO #6 to complete release paperwork and, at 3:11 a.m., the Complainant was released from custody.

Video Footage from Private Residences

On January 21, 2026, starting at about 1:47 a.m., the Complainant was captured running into the driveway of his residence towards an entrance door. The SO approached and grabbed the Complainant by the upper body, pulling him onto the driveway. The Complainant landed on his back and the SO held him down. About one minute later, WO #2 arrived and assisted the SO with the Complainant. As the officers struggled to roll the Complainant over, the SO delivered a knee strike to the Complainant’s torso. The Complainant rolled over and continued to struggle against the officers. WO #2 fell onto her back, and the SO delivered a second strike to the Complainant’s torso. WO #4 arrived, drew his CEW and placed it against the Complainant’s back. More officers arrived and gained control of the Complainant. He was handcuffed and escorted to the roadway.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PRP between January 23, 2026, and April 14, 2026:

• Occurrence Reports

• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• BWC footage – WO #4, WO #6, WO #2, WO #1, WO #3, Officer #1, Officer #2, Officer #3, Officer #4, Officer #5, Officer #6 and WO #7
• Notes – WO #3, WO #1, WO #6, WO #4, Officer #7, WO #5 and WO #7

• ALPR Report
• CEW deployment data – WO #4
• Scene photographs
• Use of Force Policy

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources on January 25, 2026:

• Video footage from private residences in the area of Sandalwood Parkway East and Richvale Drive

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the early morning of January 21, 2026, the Complainant was driving on Sandalwood Parkway in Brampton when a police cruiser started to follow his vehicle attempting to pull him over. The Complainant did not stop for the cruiser. He turned into some side streets, ultimately losing control of his vehicle because of icy road conditions and striking parked cars. The Complainant exited his car and fled the scene on foot through some backyards.

WO #1 was on patrol when his ALPR registered a hit on the Complainant’s vehicle, indicating that the registered owner was a suspended driver. The officer briefly chased the Complainant on foot and broadcast he was subject to arrest for failing to remain at the scene of an accident. The time was about 12:25 a.m.

The Complainant made his way home to the area of Sandalwood Parkway East and Richvale Drive, about six kilometres east of the collision scene. The SO was waiting for him in the area and grabbed a hold of the Complainant, throwing him to the ground, just as he was attempting to enter the house. The officer kept the Complainant pinned to the ground with his body weight for a period before he was joined by WO #2, responding to the scene. The Complainant struggled against the officers’ efforts to control his arms and bit WO #2’s finger. The SO kneed the Complainant in the left ribs and pulled him onto his left side. The parties continued to wrestle for control of the Complainant’s arms and the SO delivered another knee strike to the torso. With the arrival and intervention of additional officers, the Complainant was handcuffed to the back and taken into custody.

The Complainant was charged with multiple offences and released at the scene. He subsequently attended hospital and was diagnosed with a fractured left rib.

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 320.17, Criminal Code - Flight from Peace Officer

320.17 Everyone commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel while being pursued by a peace officer and who fails, without reasonable excuse, to stop the motor vehicle or vessel as soon as is reasonable in the circumstances.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by PRP officers on January 21, 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 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 had failed to stop for WO #1, the SO and WO #2 were within their rights in moving to arrest him under section 320.17 of the Criminal Code.

The evidence establishes that the SO used only reasonable force to effect the Complainant’s arrest. The initial takedown made sense. Having failed to pull over for WO #1 and then fled from arrest after crashing his car, the SO could well anticipate that the Complainant would resist arrest. Forcing him to the ground would position the officer to better deal with any resistance. In fact, the Complainant did resist arrest by failing to release his arms to be handcuffed and biting WO #2. In the circumstances, the knee strikes, each delivered during a period of active struggle by the Complainant, were a proportionate and justified use of force.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s fracture was the likely result of one or both of the SO’s knee strikes, there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the injury is attributable to unlawful conduct by the officer. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: May 15, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit