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 31-year-old man.

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 3, 2026, at 2:32 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On January 6, 2026, 14 Division Major Crime Unit (MCU) officers involved in an ongoing fraud investigation were at a grocery store near the intersection of Yonge Street and Gerard Street East to arrest the Complainant. The Complainant attempted to leave the store and fell backwards when he pulled away as officers grabbed his arms. The officers fell on top of the Complainant during the interaction. The Complainant was placed in handcuffs and transported to the police station where he complained of a sore elbow. He was taken to Toronto Western Hospital (TWH) for X-rays, which resulted in an inconclusive diagnosis due to swelling. It was determined that a follow-up would be required, and the Complainant was taken to the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC). On January 27, 2026, the Complainant was returned to the TWH where he again underwent X-rays.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/02/03 at 2:42 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/02/05 at 9:30 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on February 5, 2026

Subject Officials

SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject officials were interviewed on April 27, 2026

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 between March 19, 2026, and April 2, 2026

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the sidewalk outside a grocery store located in the area of Yonge Street and Gerrard Street East in Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage 1 –Grocery Store in Area of Yonge Street and Gerrard Street East

The footage was in black and white and of low quality. It captured a view of the sidewalk and street near the grocery store.

At 4:30 on the counter, the Complainant was seen exiting the grocery store, turning to his right and walking along the sidewalk.

At 4:44 on the counter, an individual walked out of the grocery store with a large, expanded umbrella, obstructing a view of the Complainant. The recording subsequently captured two shadows coming together, suggesting an engagement of sorts between two persons. It was impossible to decipher what transpired given the poor quality of the footage.

At 4:48 on the counter, two other persons arrived in the area.

At about 4:56 on the counter, additional persons arrived in the area.

Video Footage 2 –Grocery Store in Area of Yonge Street and Gerrard Street East.

The second video also afforded a view of the same street outside the grocery store. It was in colour and of higher quality. A black van was captured parking adjacent to the grocery store entrance. Individuals and vehicles were moving on the street. The footage did not capture the Complainant’s arrest.

At 4:44 on the counter, the Complainant was seen exiting the grocery store carrying what appeared to be a box of diapers.

At 4:48 on the counter, the Complainant exited the screen and could not be seen on the camera recording.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between February 5, 2026, and February 17, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• List of all involved officers
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, SO #1 and SO #2
• In-car camera system (ICCS) footage
• Police custody footage
• Three TSDC photographs of the Complainant’s injury

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between February 5, 2026, and February 26, 2026.

• Video footage from a grocery store near Yonge Street and Gerrard Street East
• The Complainant’s medical records from TWH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and both subject officials, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the afternoon of January 6, 2026, members of the 14 Division MCU were on the lookout for the Complainant. They had information to believe that he had purchased a cellphone the day before with counterfeit money, and planned to arrest him for the offence. Operating unmarked vehicles and dressed in plainclothes, the officers located the Complainant exiting an apartment building and tracked him to a grocery store, just around the corner from his residence in the area of Yonge Street and Gerrard Street East. They took up positions on the street outside the grocery store intending to take the Complainant into custody on his exit from the store.

Unaware he was being followed, the Complainant left the store with a box of diapers in hand and started walking in the direction of his residence. He was confronted by SO #1. The officer physically engaged the Complainant and the two went to the ground by a stand of bicycle racks.

Other members of the MCU arrived quickly at the site of the arrest, including SO #2, and intervened. SO #2 kneed the Complainant twice in the left torso. The Complainant was handcuffed behind the back and transported to the police station.

The Complainant complained of pain in the left arm and was transported to hospital where X-rays proved inconclusive because of swelling in the area. He was told to return to the fracture clinic for a follow-up assessment. On January 27, 2026, the Complainant was X-rayed again in hospital and diagnosed with a radial head fracture of the left elbow.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code of Canada - 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 380, Criminal Code of Canada - Fraud

380(1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or

(b) is guilty

(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,

where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on January 6, 2026. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1 and SO #2 subject officials. 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 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 defrauded a seller by paying for a cellphone with counterfeit currency, SO #1 and SO #2 were within their rights in moving to arrest him for a number of criminal offences, including fraud under $5000 contrary to section 380(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

With respect to the force used by the officers in the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence does not reasonably establish it was unlawful. There is an account in the evidence in which the Complainant was accosted by SO #1 and pushed to the ground by the officer without any forewarning that he was an officer and that he (the Complainant) was being arrested. Thereafter, according to this account, the Complainant was struck in the head and ribs by unidentified officers, even as the Complainant offered no resistance to his arrest. This rendition of events is contested by SO #1 and SO #2, whose evidence paints a picture of reasonable force. The former says he told the Complainant he was an officer and that he was under arrest, after which the Complainant pulled backwards and tripped and fell on a stand of bicycle racks. SO #2 concedes he kneed the Complainant twice on the ground, but says the Complainant was not releasing his arms to be handcuffed and the strikes were intended to overcome his resistance. None of the officers involved in the Complainant’s arrest acknowledged or saw strikes to his head. On this record, there being no reason to believe that one of the opposing accounts is any likelier to be closer to the truth than the other, I am unable to reasonably conclude that either SO #1 or SO #2 acted with excessive force.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s elbow was broken in the altercation that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury is attributable to unlawful force on the part of the subject officials. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: June 2, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit