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 a sexual assault reportedly perpetrated by a police officer against a 32-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 6, 2026, at 9:55 a.m., the Complainant submitted an online inquiry with the SIU and left a voice message with the office reporting a sexual assault involving the London Police Service (LPS).

On January 6, 2026, at 10:05 a.m., the SIU returned the Complainant’s call seeking further information, and left a message requesting a call back

On January 19, 2026, at 10:42 a.m., the Complainant contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 16, 2019, the Complainant was arrested by LPS in relation to what the Complainant believed was an incident of intimate partner violence. The arrest was uneventful. He was transported to LPS headquarters and lodged in cells. The Complainant was wearing a pair of shorts that contained a drawstring and assumed they would be confiscated during the initial search prior to being placed in cells, but they were not. After spending a short time in cells, several officers, one armed with a ballistic shield, entered his cell and removed the drawstring from his shorts. In the process, according to the Complainant, an officer (described by the Complainant as being the original arresting officer) fondled his penis. The Complainant advised he had reported the incident to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) with no success.

On January 20, 2026, at 1:22 p.m., the SIU contacted the LPS. It was confirmed the Complainant was in custody on July 16, 2019.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/01/20 at 2:10 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/01/23 at 10:15 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

32-year-old[2] male; interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on January 28, 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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between February 19, 2026, and March 3, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired inside the LPS Detention Unit, 601 Dundas Street, London.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

The SIU searched for audio, video and photographic records of relevance, with negative results. Due to the time that had passed, LPS had no records to disclose as the communication recordings and cell video were only retained for a three-year period. LPS officers were not equipped with body-worn camera or in-car cameras in 2019.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the LPS between January 26, 2026, and March 18, 2026:

• Names and roles of involved police officers / cadets
• General Occurrence, Arrest and Booking Reports
• Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Reports
• Officer #1’s attendance record for July 16, 2019
• Notes – WO #1, WO #3 and WO #2
• Detention Record
• LPS policy – Care and Control of Prisoners

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

On January 21, 2026, the SIU obtained an Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) complaint filed by the Complainant

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU.

In the evening of July 16, 2019, the Complainant was arrested without incident in London by WO #1 and WO #3. In a phone call with officers ahead of his arrest, the Complainant indicated he was suicidal and wanted to jump of a bridge. The Complainant was transported to the LPS Detention Unit, searched and lodged in a cell.

Section 265, Criminal Code - Assault

265 (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or

(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

(2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.

(3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of

(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(c) fraud; or

(d) the exercise of authority.

(4) Where an accused alleges that he believed that the complainant consented to the conduct that is the subject-matter of the charge, a judge, if satisfied that there is sufficient evidence and that, if believed by the jury, the evidence would constitute a defence, shall instruct the jury, when reviewing all the evidence relating to the determination of the honesty of the accused’s belief, to consider the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief.

Section 271, Criminal Code - Sexual Assault

271 Everyone who commits a sexual assault is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years or, if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months or, if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.

On January 6, 2026, the Complainant notified the SIU of a sexual assault allegation involving the LPS. In subsequent information provided the SIU, the Complainant specified that his penis had been fondled by a male police officer in a cell following his arrest on July 16, 2019, by LPS officers. The SIU 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 complaint of sexual assault.

A sexual assault consists of an assault within any of its definitions in the Criminal Code that is sexual in nature and violates the sexual integrity of the victim: R v Chase, [1987] 2 SCR 293.

It is alleged that officers entered the Complainant’s cell, pinned him to the floor with a shield and removed the drawstring from the shorts he was wearing. In the process, one of the officers reportedly fondled the Complainant’s penis.

If true, the allegation could give rise to charges of sexual assault, but it would be unwise and unsafe to proceed with charges on the strength of this evidence alone. The allegation was inconsistent with respect to the identity of the officer said to have committed the assault. In another material inconsistency, the allegation described the impugned contact as occurring over a matter of minutes before it was later suggested three to four seconds was a more accurate description. There is also evidence that the Complainant said it was another LPS employee who abused him – Officer #1. However, records maintained by the service suggest Officer #1 was not on duty on the day in question. The SIU was able to confirm the fact that the Complainant was arrested on July 16, 2019, and taken to the detention unit. While there, the evidence indicates that the Complainant was highly agitated while in an interview room, and that officers entered the room, including the SO, pinned him to the floor, handcuffed him behind the back, and returned him to his cell. There was no indication in this evidence of a drawstring being removed. On this record, the allegation is insufficiently reliable to warrant being put to the test by a court.

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

Date: May 8, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit