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 44-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 9, 2026, at 11:40 a.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On February 8, 2026, at about 11:30 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted YRP to assist with the apprehension of the suspect in a break and enter, the Complainant, who had fled into Markham. The crime had occurred in Scarborough. On February 9, 2026, at 2:00 a.m., YRP canine officers arrested the Complainant and transferred custody to TPS. The Complainant was transported to Scarborough Centenary Hospital (SCH) by TPS. Several hours later, TPS contacted YRP to advise that the Complainant had been diagnosed with a broken orbital bone and finger.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/02/09 at 12:26 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/02/09 at 12:59 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on February 10, 2026.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on February 12, 2026.

Subject Officials (SO)

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

SO #1 was interviewed on March 10, 2026.

Witness Officials (WO)

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

The witness officials were interviewed between February 21 and 24, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the rear yard of a house located in the area of Markham Road and 14th Avenue, Markham.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS and YRP Communications Recordings

On February 8, 2026, at 11:06:58 p.m., a woman called 911 to report a break and enter in progress at a business on Markham Road. She reported seeing a black pick-up truck parked out front, with a masked man dressed in black and holding an object in his hand approaching the entrance, while another man remained in the driver’s seat.

At 11:09:29 p.m., the dispatcher broadcast the call as a “suspicious” incident, and officers acknowledged. TPS officers arrived at 11:10:14 p.m. but initially reported difficulty locating the business.

At 11:19:55 p.m., the business owner attended at the address with officers to show surveillance video.

At 11:21:37 p.m., police reported that the footage had captured a man exiting a black pick-up truck with a sledgehammer, tampering with the door, and walking towards a Canada Post outlet.

At 11:22:11 p.m., officers reported a black pick-up truck parked just east of the building with its engine running. Units moved in to investigate.

At 11:25:14 p.m., the pick-up truck was said to be driving off with three occupants.

At 11:27:10 p.m., the TPS dispatcher requested a “hot shot” for a vehicle stop.

The truck was seen driving through a plaza at 11:27:56 p.m. and accelerating after passing marked police vehicles.

At 11:29:20 p.m., YRP were notified that TPS had entered their jurisdiction northbound on Marydale Avenue.

The pick-up truck reportedly ran a red light at 11:29:43 p.m.

At 11:30:38 p.m., TPS requested a helicopter.[3]

At 11:30:42 p.m., TPS discontinued the pursuit due to safety concerns.

At 11:31:47 p.m., TPS Major Crime West advised that the black pick-up truck had been located unoccupied in the area of Markham Road and Denison Street.

At 11:32:13 p.m., three occupants were reported to have fled northbound through backyards.

At 11:33:39 p.m., YRP officers were requesting a perimeter.

At 11:35:02 p.m., police reported two men in dark clothing running eastbound near a pond.

At 11:39:36 p.m., patrol units were advised to watch for a white BMW with tinted windows, believed to be a potential pick-up vehicle.

By 11:44:02 p.m., it was confirmed that the pick-up truck contained break and enter tools and had an obscured Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), making the suspects arrestable for possession of property obtained by crime.

At 11:45:41 p.m., two men were arrested at gunpoint in a white BMW near a Costco, while one man had reportedly fled on foot northbound from the area.

A drone deployment was requested at 11:51:22 p.m.

At 11:53:40 p.m., WO #1 and his police service dog (PSD) began a dog track. The track proceeded along railway tracks.

At 12:02:25 a.m., February 9, 2026, a police drone was deployed.

By 12:05:41 a.m., police dog units crossed a fence into a residential area.

At 12:08:47 a.m., WO #1 requested that patrol units use intermittent sirens to restrict the suspect’s movement.

At 12:33:44 a.m., occupants of a residence in the area of Markham Road and 14th Avenue reported video footage showing a male in their backyard jumping a fence. Police dog units searched the area, briefly losing and then reacquiring a track.

At 1:34:23 a.m., the perimeter was lifted after video review suggested the male had passed through the area more than an hour earlier. However, at 1:35:41?a.m., SO #2 advised that a new track had been located, and the search would continue.

At 1:42:14 a.m., SO #2 requested that WO #1 and WO #3 attend another residence in the area of Markham Road and 14th Avenue.

Contact with the Complainant was confirmed at 1:45:20 a.m.

At 1:46:20 a.m., police advised that the Complainant was in custody.

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were requested at 1:47:52 a.m. and confirmed at 1:48:08 a.m., with police advising that the Complainant had sustained “a couple cuts from hopping fences”.

At 1:48:59 a.m., the Emergency Response Unit reported no firearm was located and suggested an evidence search by the police dog unit.

At 1:55:52 a.m., TPS assumed custody of the Complainant from YRP.

At 0211:38 a.m., the Complainant was transported by ambulance to SCH, arriving at 2:36:15 a.m.

Video Footage from a Private Residence near the Scene

On February 9, 2026, at 1:37 a.m., the residential driveway camera captured a dark-coloured pick-up truck, consistent with a YRP tactical vehicle, slowly travelling southbound on the street. A police officer [WO #1], accompanied by a PSD on a leash slightly ahead of him, entered the right side of the frame and walked northbound across the driveway. He was followed by two officers in tactical uniforms, later identified as SO #1 and SO #2. During this sequence, one of the officers gestured towards the rear of the house. The pick-up truck then came to a stop and reversed northbound as SO #1 and SO #2 exited the left side of the frame, at which point the video ended.

Additional footage, recorded by a rear camera beginning at 1:38 a.m., showed SO #1 and SO #2 entering the backyard. Both officers could be seen using flashlights to scan the area. They directed their flashlights towards the rear fence located in the northwest corner of the yard and then moved in that direction, where the recording concluded.

YRP Drone Footage

The footage was reviewed and found to be of little investigative value. It captured an aerial view of the involved officers searching backyards with a PSD present. The primary focus appeared to be one specific residential yard with footprints in snow, but no action was taken by the officers during the recording of the footage.

Cell Phone Video Footage from the CW

The footage was partially obstructed by objects, such as a satellite dish, bushes, and a wooden fence.

In the first video, the camera took several seconds to focus on the backyard of a residence in the area of Markham Road and 14th Avenue, where flashlights were visible. The footage was consistent with police officers in tactical uniforms [SO #1 and SO #2] pulling the Complainant from beneath a tarp, while WO #1 stood nearby. Several movements consistent with strikes to the Complainant were visible.

In the second video, the camera again took several seconds to zoom in, focus, and stabilize. Five police officers were visible in the backyard, with the possibility of a sixth officer suggested by the presence of an additional flashlight. The Complainant himself was not visible while on the ground. The officers were later seen assisting the Complainant to a standing position, with his hands handcuffed behind the back, and leading him towards the house as though escorting him out to the front. During the recording, a male voice close to the camera, believed to be the CW, could be heard stating there was a lot of shouting and that “they got him”.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between February 9 and 10, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report
• Police communications recordings
• Custody footage
• Arrest / Booking Report

The SIU obtained the following records from the YRP between February 9 and 10, 2026:

• CAD Report
• Police communications recordings
• General Occurrence Report
• Drone footage
• Notes - WO #1, WO #3, WO #4 and WO #5 and WO #2

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between February 10 and 18, 2026:

• The Complainant’s medical records from SCH
• Video footage from a private residence near the scene
• Cellphone video footage from the CW

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, SO #1 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, SO #2 did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

Shortly before midnight, February 8, 2026, YRP were asked by TPS to assist in the search of a suspect who had fled the scene of an attempted break and enter in Toronto and entered into Markham with two accomplices in a black pick-up truck. The truck had crashed on a street in the area of Markham Road and Denison Street, after which two of the suspects were arrested. The third took flight on foot and remained at large.

YRP deployed officers to the area of the collision and established a perimeter. Police dog teams were brought in to assist in the search, as was a police drone. SO #1 and SO #2 were part of the police operations. They were paired with WO #1, a dog handler, who conducted a track of the suspect across residential streets in the area and the rear yards of homes.

At about 1:40 a.m., with the assistance of residents in the neighbourhood sharing their surveillance camera footage with the police, SO #1, SO #2 and WO #1 located a male – the Complainant – hiding underneath a tarp in the rear yard of a residence in the area of Markham Road and 14th Avenue. They alerted other officers, who arrived at the location to assist in taking the Complainant into custody. WO #1 loudly announced that officers were present and directed the Complainant to surrender. Initially, there was no response from the Complainant. The officer warned that he would deploy his dog if the Complainant did not surrender, at which point the Complainant indicated he would come out. Another brief period passed before SO #1 and SO #2 moved in and physically engaged the Complainant. They removed him from under the tarp and dragged him a distance away. The Complainant was struck several times by the officers, including in the face, before he was handcuffed behind the back.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was seen at hospital and diagnosed with several facial fractures and a broken small left finger.

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 the course of his arrest by YRP officers in Markham on February 9, 2026. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming two subject officials – SO #1 and SO #2. 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 arrest and injuries.

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 Complainant was located hiding under a tarp in the backyard of a property not his own following the flight of break and enter suspects from Toronto into an area in the vicinity of the property. One of the suspects had managed to escape on foot from the site of their crashed get-away vehicle. For these and other reasons, I am satisfied SO #1 and SO #2 were within their rights in moving to take the Complainant into custody.

I am also satisfied that the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing that either officer used unlawful force in the Complainant’s arrest. The officers had reason to believe that the Complainant was a danger. He was reportedly involved in a serious crime a short time ago, in which one of the suspects had been seen wielding a sledgehammer. He had fled from police and concealed himself under a tarp in another person’s property. And, video footage from a surveillance camera in the vicinity of his arrest had captured a male carrying a black object in his hand, which an officer had reasonably broadcast to other officers as a possible firearm. On this record, it was imperative that the Complainant be arrested and handcuffed as soon as possible. There is a version of events proffered in the evidence in which the Complainant was struck with multiple blows by one or more of the police officers, having offered no resistance to his arrest. That evidence, however, is contested by a witness who saw some of the arrest and described the Complainant as struggling. It is also contradicted by the evidence of the officers, including SO #1. While their accounts indicate that SO #1 and SO #2 punched the Complainant in the head after they removed him from the tarp, they did so to overcome his combativeness, which included kicking at the dog when the dog approached his feet, and punching in the direction of the officers. On their rendition of events, I am unable to reasonably conclude the officers acted with excess given the exigencies of the situation. As there is no reason to believe that the Complainant’s evidence is any likelier to be closer to the truth that the accounts proffered by the officers and an independent civilian witness, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the force used by the subject officials was unwarranted.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injuries were the result of the punches struck by one or both of the subject officials, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: May 25, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit