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 35-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 31, 2026, at 11:54 p.m. the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On January 31, 2026, at approximately 1:00 p.m., LPS responded to a complaint of a male kicking a door at the Pioneer Gas Station at Highbury Avenue North and Huron Street, London. The Subject Official (SO) located the Complainant in the area and detained him. A check of Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) data revealed the Complainant was subject to two outstanding warrants. He was arrested and placed into a police cruiser. A second officer, Witness Official (WO) #1 was requested to transport the Complainant to the police station. During the drive to the police station, WO #1 noticed a substance around the Complainant’s mouth. When asked about it, the Complainant said he had ingested some fentanyl. At 2:00 p.m., the officer took the Complainant to the London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) where he was treated for a possible drug overdose. The doctors were also concerned about possible infections in the Complainant’s hands. The Complainant was admitted at 11:00 p.m. and held for a bail hearing upon his release from LHSC.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/02/01 at 8:11 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/02/01 at 8:23 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

35-year-old male; declined an interview; medical records obtained and reviewed

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

The witness officials were interviewed on February 27, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a police cruiser parked in the parking lot east of the Pioneer Gas Station, 1331 Huron Street, London.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

LPS Communications Recordings

At 12:30 p.m., January 31, 2026, the SO reported he had the Complainant in custody. The police dispatcher asked for a cruiser to assist, and WO #1 responded. The SO confirmed that the Complainant was subject to arrest warrants.

At 12:53 p.m., WO #1 broadcast she was transporting the Complainant to the cells. About ten minutes later, she requested Emergency Medical Services (EMS). WO #1 advised that the Complainant had consumed fentanyl and refused to spit out the substance.

WO #2 advised she was with WO #1 and, at 1:08 p.m., WO #1 reported the Complainant wished to die rather than be placed in police cells. The officer reported he was awake and talking, and that he had “already eaten a quarter”.[3] WO #3 advised that it appeared the Complainant had swallowed the substance. WO #2 reported that the Complainant had swallowed more of the substance and that he was then spitting it out.

At 1:31 p.m., the SO was in the ambulance. He reported that Narcan had been administered to the Complainant.

At 1:42 p.m., the ambulance arrived at LHSC.

LPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The SO, WO #2 and WO #1

On January 31, 2026, starting at about 12:27 p.m., the SO approached the Complainant at the Pioneer Gas Station and asked why he was kicking the door. The Complainant admitted he had warrants for missing court and asked not to be put in jail.

Starting at about 12:29 p.m., the SO advised the Complainant he was under detention for break and enter, and the officer handcuffed his hands behind the back. The Complainant advised he had nothing in his pockets that the SO needed to know about. The SO searched the Complainant and located a smoking pipe in the Complainant’s right pants pocket. The SO continued to search the Complainant’s pants and his coat pockets. The Complainant was placed in the rear seat of the cruiser. The SO learned that the Complainant had numerous warrants, confirmed they were still outstanding, and arrested the Complainant for those warrants.

Starting at about 12:36 p.m., WO #1 arrived to assist in the transport of the Complainant. While seated in the SO’s cruiser, the Complainant told the SO that if he had fentanyl, he would have to go to the hospital.

The SO had a conversation with WO #1 and, at 12:42 p.m., the SO opened the rear door of his cruiser. The Complainant’s handcuffs were now at the front of his body, and his shoes were off. The Complainant was removed from the cruiser, and the handcuffs were once again secured behind the back, after which another search was completed. Two pill bottles were found inside the Complainant’s coat.

It was agreed that another search would be conducted at the station.

WO #1 took custody of the Complainant at 12:48 p.m.

Starting at about 1:07 p.m., WO #1 opened the rear driver side door. The Complainant was seated with his hands handcuffed behind the back. She told the Complainant to spit out the substance and advised him he could die. The Complainant stated he would rather die than go to cells as he chewed on something. The Complainant remained awake and refused to spit out the substance. He said he already had a “quarter”. The Complainant eventually advised WO #1 that he had ingested the fentanyl when he was in the back of the SO’s cruiser.

Starting at about 1:11 p.m., WO #3 arrived and spoke with the Complainant. WO #3 confirmed the Complainant had swallowed the substance.

EMS arrived at 1:13 p.m. The SO walked over to the ambulance and said the Complainant might have something in his sock.

Video Footage - Pioneer Gas Station

Starting at about 12:26 p.m., January 31, 2026, the Complainant was at the side of the Pioneer Gas Station. He approached a door, pounded on it with his fist and kicked it once.

Starting at about 12:27 p.m., the SO emerged from the front of the gas station and ran in the same direction as the Complainant. One minute later, the Complainant was in custody with the SO.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following records from the LPS between February 2, 2026, and March 11, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Custody footage
• BWC footage – WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and the SO
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2, Officer #1, Officer #2, Officer #3, Officer #4, Officer #5, Officer #6, Officer #7, Officer #8, Officer #9, Officer #10, WO #3 and Officer #11

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between February 10, 2026, and February 11, 2026:

• The Complainant’s medical records from LHSC
• Video footage from Pioneer Gas Station

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police witnesses 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 early afternoon of January 31, 2026, the SO was dispatched to the Pioneer Gas Station at the southeast corner of Huron Street and Highbury Avenue North following a call to police about a male kicking a door at the premises. The SO arrived on scene, parked his cruiser in the parking lot at the east side of the station, and located the male – the Complainant. He detained the Complainant and subsequently arrested him on the strength of several outstanding warrants. The SO handcuffed the Complainant behind the back and conducted a pat-down search by the side of the cruiser, confiscating several items, including a smoking pipe, after which he placed him in the rear of his vehicle. The time was about 12:31 p.m.

WO #1 arrived on scene in her cruiser at about 12:40 p.m. She was to take custody of the Complainant and transport him to the station. She and the SO approached the rear of the SO’s cruiser, opened the passenger door and observed that the Complainant had brought his handcuffed hands to the front and his shoes were off. The officers removed the Complainant and subjected him to a secondary search. On this occasion, they located vials and substances in the inner pockets of the Complainant’s coat.

Following the search, en route to the station, WO #1 observed that something was in the Complainant’s mouth. He said that he had consumed fentanyl, at which point WO #1 pulled over and called for an ambulance. While waiting for the ambulance, WO #1 pleaded with the Complainant to spit out what was in his mouth. Other officers arrived on scene and did the same. The Complainant said that he would rather die than go to police cells.

Paramedics attended and transported the Complainant to hospital. He was unresponsive with persistent bradycardia on arrival. He was monitored overnight and released into the custody of the LPS the following day.

Section 215, Criminal Code - Failure to Provide Necessaries

215 (1) Every one is under a legal duty

(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person

(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and

(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.

(2) Every person commits an offence who, being under a legal duty within the meaning of subsection (1), fails without lawful excuse to perform that duty, if

(b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code of Canada - Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or

b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant overdosed on drugs in London on January 31, 2026. As he was in the custody of the LPS at the time, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The SO was identified as 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 overdose.

The offences that arise for consideration are failure to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to sections 215 and 221 of the Criminal Code, respectively. Both require something more than a simple want of care to give rise to liability. The former is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. The latter is premised on even more egregious conduct that demonstrates a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is not made out unless the neglect constitutes a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable standard of care. In the instant case, the question is whether there was any want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that endangered the Complainant’s life or contributed to his overdose. In my view, there was not.

I am satisfied that the Complainant was lawfully in police custody during the events in question. There were several warrants in effect authorizing his arrest, and the SO was within his rights in taking him into custody. He was also engaged in the exercise of his lawful duties when he searched the Complainant pursuant to a police officer’s common law power of search incident to arrest.

Once the Complainant was in the SO’s custody, the officer owed him a duty of care. This would include taking reasonable steps to ensure the Complainant did not harm himself. The Complainant did, in fact, harm himself. He was able to retrieve a quantity of fentanyl on his person and consume it while in the back seat of the officer’s cruiser. The question arises whether the search conducted by the officer was substandard. The SO’s BWC footage captured the officer performing what appears to be a thorough search of the Complainant’s pants pockets and outer coat pockets. He retrieved certain items and asked the Complainant whether he had anything on him the officer should know about, to which the Complainant answered in the negative. The SO did not check the Complainant’s inner coat pockets, which is where vials and substances were subsequently located. He probably ought to have done so. That said, balancing what the officer did against what he did not do, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO’s failure to detect the drugs in the Complainant’s possession amounted to a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care, particularly when it remains unclear where exactly the drugs were concealed before they were accessed by the Complainant. They might have been secreted in the Complainant’s underwear and only placed in his coat pockets after his ingestion, in which event nothing short of a strip search at the scene would have located them. The SO, however, would not have had grounds to conduct a strip search at the scene: R. v. Golden, [2001] 3 SCR 679.

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

Date: May 29, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit