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 injuries of a 50-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 22, 2026, at 1:54 p.m., the Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On January 21, 2026, at 10:48 p.m., NRPS officers were called to a disturbance at an address in the area of Lincoln Street and King Street, Welland, involving the Complainant and a family member, the Civilian Witness (CW). When officers arrived, the Complainant doused them in cooking oil. The Complainant was arrested and transported to the Niagara Detention Centre for processing. He complained of a sore wrist but declined medical attention. At 11:56 p.m., the Complainant was transported to the NRPS holding facility. When the Complainant woke the next morning, his wrist felt worse, and he requested to go to hospital. The Complainant was transported to the Greater Niagara General Hospital (GNGH) at 11:47 a.m. and diagnosed with a broken left wrist.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/01/22 at 2:14 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/01/26 at 11:00 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on January 23, 2026.

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on January 23, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between February 4, 2026, and February 17, 2026.

Service Employee Witness (SEW)

SEW Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The service employee witness was interviewed on February 4, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the kitchen area of an apartment located in the area of Lincoln Street and King Street, Welland.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

NRPS Communications Recordings

On January 21, 2026, at 10:47 p.m., the CW requested police attend an address in the area of Lincoln Street and King Street, Welland, before disconnecting the call. He called 911 again in a highly agitated state and demanded police remove the Complainant from his home. The Complainant was having a manic episode and had put razor blades to his own throat. The CW threatened to hurt the Complainant, called him a junkie and claimed the Complainant had hit him with a lamp. The call-taker advised the CW to meet officers outside.

NRPS Cell / Booking Footage

On January 21, 2026, at approximately 11:56 p.m., the Complainant was escorted into the booking area by the SO. His hands were handcuffed in front of his body. The Complainant displayed a raw, bloody left wrist where the handcuff rested. The Complainant explained he had a confinement issue and had flipped the handcuffs from behind his back to his front, causing the injury to the wrist. The Complainant was calm and cooperative, and displayed no medical distress. The left wrist injury was visible during his search and the removal of handcuffs. The recording ended when the Complainant was escorted out of view.

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – The SO’s Cruiser

On January 21, 2026, at 11:00 p.m., the front camera of the police cruiser captured the Complainant handcuffed behind the back in the presence of the SO, WO #2 and WO #1.

The interior ICC camera commenced at 11:01 p.m. The Complainant was placed in the rear of the SO’s police cruiser with his hands handcuffed behind the back. The Complainant leaned forward and moved his hands from behind his back to the front of his body, while handcuffed, by sliding his wrists under his buttocks. He made utterances of being in pain while doing this. He cursed a few times and apologized to the SO. The Complainant admitted he squirted cooking oil at officers when they entered the residence but said he had not recognized them as police, and he feared for his life. He made general utterances of pain to his wrist but did not make any specific complaints.

The SO arrived at NRPS at 12:08 a.m. The Complainant was removed from the rear of the police cruiser.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the NRPS between January 29, 2026, and February 9, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Custody footage
• ICC footage – the SO
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and the SEW
• NRPS policies – Persons in Custody; Use of Force

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from GNGH on February 9, 2026.

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 in part, 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 evening of January 21, 2026, police were dispatched to an apartment in the area of Lincoln Street and King Street, Welland. The CW had called 911 to report a disturbance involving the Complainant. The CW wanted the Complainant removed from his residence.

The SO arrived on scene with WO #1 shortly before 11:00 p.m., joined shortly by WO #2. The CW met them outside the building and provided them a key to the apartment. WO #1 opened the door, stepped inside and was splashed with cooking oil from a bottle by the Complainant. The Complainant retreated into the kitchen area and was physically engaged by the officers. He was taken to the floor and handcuffed behind the back by the SO.

The Complainant was placed in the backseat of the SO’s cruiser and transported to a police detention facility. En route, he slipped the handcuffs under his legs so that they were then positioned in front of his body. In statements made to police personnel at the station, he would explain that the pain in his left wrist was the result of this maneuver.

The next day, the Complainant was seen at hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left wrist.

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 at or around the time of his arrest by NRPS 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.

The SO, WO #1 and WO #2 were within their rights in moving to take the Complainant into custody for assault when he splashed cooking oil at WO #1.

As for the force used to effect the Complainant’s arrest, there is insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude it was unlawful. There is a version of events proffered in the evidence that the officer who handcuffed the Complainant – the SO – broke his wrist by some application of force in that process and struck the Complainant in his right side. This evidence is at odds with what the Complainant said at the station following his arrest, namely, that he was responsible for the wrist injury, the result of his having maneuvered his handcuffs to the front of his body. It is also not necessarily indicative of excessive force in light of other evidence that he resisted arrest. Lastly, it is contested by the evidence of witnesses, including WO #1 and WO #2, who say the Complainant struggled against the officers’ efforts to control his arms behind the back. None of these witnesses acknowledge any strikes to the Complainant’s right side. On this record, with no reason to believe that the incriminating account of what happened is any likelier to be closer to the truth than that provided by the eyewitnesses, and good reason to doubt it, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the Complainant was the subject of unwarranted and unlawful force.

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

Date: May 21, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit