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 53-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 6, 2026, at 8:32 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On February 6, 2026, police were called about smoke coming from an abandoned house located in Simcoe. Police officers attended and located the Complainant inside. At 12:14 p.m., he was arrested and transported to the OPP Norfolk Detachment for processing. The Complainant was lodged in cells at 12:57 p.m. A booking sergeant monitored the Complainant in cells remotely. A cell guard was called in to take over the Complainant’s monitoring but arrived late. At 2:30 p.m., the Complainant’s condition was observed to be deteriorating rapidly and, at 2:34 p.m., he was found on the cell floor, unresponsive. Naloxone was administered and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called. The Complainant was transported to Norfolk General Hospital (NGH) where three vials of suspected fentanyl were found concealed under his scrotum. At approximately 3:10 p.m., the Complainant was admitted and intubated, and received medication to counteract an overdose.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/02/06 at 8:52 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/02/06 at 9:06 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on February 7, 2026.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on April 13, 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 February 17 and 25, 2026.

Service Employee Witness

SEW Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the booking area and a cell of the OPP Norfolk County Detachment, 548 Queensway West, Simcoe

Physical Evidence

On February 6, 2026, at 11:55 p.m., SIU forensic services arrived to examine and photograph the scene.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

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

At 12:13 p.m., February 6, 2026, the SO and WO #1 were at an address in Simcoe. The Complainant was placed in handcuffs with his hands behind the back, escorted to the SO’s police cruiser, and searched by the SO. The Complainant denied having fentanyl even after straws and foils were located.

At 12:17 p.m., the Complainant was arrested for being unlawfully in a dwelling.

At 12:45 p.m., the Complainant was in the booking area of an OPP detachment. During the booking process, the SO read a warning regarding drug ingestion. The Complainant stated he had not taken any drugs or consumed alcohol in the past 24 hours. The Complainant had multiple layers of clothing and was asked to remove all but one layer, which he did, after which he was searched wearing only spandex pants and a T-shirt. The SO patted down his legs and asked the Complainant to remove his socks and pull them inside out, which he did, with nothing located. Throughout the process, the Complainant was cooperative and coherent.

At 12:57 p.m., the Complainant was placed in a cell.

At 2:14 p.m., the SO returned to the cell and told the Complainant he was under a probation order that was active until 2027. Since one of the conditions was to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, the SO charged the Complainant with failing to comply with a probation order, and advised him he would be held for bail. The Complainant was subsequently removed from the cell to speak to counsel.

At 2:30 p.m., the SO was at the cell speaking to the Complainant, who appeared to be under the influence of something. The Complainant mumbled that he had taken fentanyl about five hours ago. The SO reminded him that he was asked about drug use, and commented that it would have been nice to know that information earlier. The SO left the cell area, returning at 2:34 p.m. The Complainant was on the cell floor at this point. He was unresponsive to words, but reacted to a sternum rub. EMS were requested, and the SO delivered a total of two Narcan doses into the nose of the Complainant.

EMS arrived at 2:52 p.m. The Complainant was awake but his breathing was shallow.

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – The SO

The Complainant was captured being transported to the OPP detachment. He indicated to the SO that he was just trying to warm up and not hurting anyone. He explained he was “clean” and had no outstanding charges. There was no conversation about the consumption or possession of drugs.

Police Communications Recordings

On February 6, 2026, at 11:32 a.m., a woman contacted 911 requesting that police attend an address in Simcoe regarding a possible break and enter at a boarded-up property. The woman indicated that she smelled smoke coming from the home.

WO #1 was dispatched, and the SO advised he would assist.

At 11:46 a.m., the SO broadcast that upon arrival, smoke was emanating from the home. He requested that the fire department attend. Shortly after, the SO broadcast that he had located the source of the fire and extinguished it, but he required the fire department as a precaution.

At 12:24 p.m., WO #1 advised that an arrest had been made. The SO reported he was transporting the Complainant to the detachment.

Booking and Cell Footage – OPP Norfolk Detachment

On February 6, 2026, at 12:45 p.m., the SO entered the cell area and checked a cell, looking in the toilet. The SO then brought the Complainant into the booking area in handcuffs, with his hands behind the back. The SO removed the handcuffs. The Complainant removed layers of clothing and stood against the wall to be searched. The SO searched him by using two hands and scanning the outside of his clothing. He did not place his hands between the waistband and skin. The Complainant removed his belt, shoes and pants. He wore ‘long john’ style undergarments, which he kept on. The SO then searched the inner clothing by rubbing both legs with his hands. The Complainant removed his socks to be searched, after which he placed them back on. The SO did not touch the socks.

At 12:57 p.m., the SO took the Complainant to a cell and provided two blankets. The Complainant spent the majority of the time standing or sitting by the cell door.

At 2:22 p.m., the Complainant was removed from the cell and returned three minutes later by the SO.

At 2:28 p.m., the SO could be seen talking to the Complainant. The SO subsequently left, and the Complainant went to his waistband and appeared to pull out what was possibly a plastic bag and a pill bottle before his head blocked the camera’s view. The Complainant then went to his knees.

At 2:30 p.m., the Complainant sat on the floor, allowing the blanket to fall off his shoulders. Less than a minute later, his legs stiffened, and he lay on his back on the floor.

At 2:32 p.m., the SEW looked in the cell and left.

At 2:34 p.m., the SO attended and entered the cell, performing a sternum rub on the Complainant and administering naloxone. The Complainant was placed in a recovery position to await EMS arrival.

At 2:52 p.m., EMS arrived, loaded the Complainant onto a gurney, and departed at 2:55 p.m.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between February 6, 2026, and May 7, 2026:

• BWC footage - the SO and WO #1
• ICC footage - the SO
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• General Occurrence Report
• Intake Booking Forms
• Booking footage
• Notes - the SO, WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and the SEW

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from the NGH on February 17, 2026.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the early afternoon of February 6, 2026, the Complainant was arrested by the SO and WO #1 inside a residence in Simcoe. The officers had gone to the address following a call to police about smoke coming from the residence. The Complainant was unlawfully inside the abandoned home. He had stepped in seeking shelter from the cold outside, and had started a fire in a crock pot to warm himself.

The Complainant was searched by the SO at the scene and again at the OPP Norfolk Detachment. Some drug paraphernalia was confiscated. Asked whether he had consumed illicit substances in the last 24 hours, the Complainant said he had not.

The Complainant was lodged in a cell at about 1:00 p.m. About 2:30 p.m., upon returning to his cell from a phone room where he had contacted a lawyer, the Complainant retrieved fentanyl from vials secreted in his groin area and consumed a quantity of the drug. He began to suffer the effects of the drug and became unresponsive on the cell floor.

The SO entered the cell within minutes of the Complainant’s medical event and attempted to rouse him with a sternum rub. He placed the Complainant in the recovery position, administered a couple of doses of nasal naloxone and contacted EMS.

Paramedics arrived on scene at about 2:52 p.m. and took charge of the Complainant’s care. He was transported to hospital and treated for acute fentanyl overdose.

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 - 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.

Section 349, Criminal Code - Being unlawfully in dwelling-house

349 (1) Every person who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on that person, enters or is in a dwelling-house with intent to commit an indictable offence in it is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) For the purposes of proceedings under this section, evidence that an accused, without lawful excuse, entered or was in a dwelling-house is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that he entered or was in the dwelling-house with intent to commit an indictable offence therein.

The Complainant suffered a drug overdose while in the custody of the OPP on February 6, 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 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.

The Complainant was unlawfully in a house not his own and, therefore, subject to arrest under sections 349(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code.

The evidence does not reasonably establish that the SO failed to comport himself with the care required by the criminal law in relation to the Complainant. The issue for consideration is whether the officer was derelict in failing to locate and remove the drugs in the Complainant’s possession before lodging him in cells. The body-worn camera footage at the arrest scene shows what appears to be a fairly thorough pat-down search by the SO of the Complainant in the field before he was placed in the officer’s cruiser and transported to the detachment. The booking area footage confirms that the officer conducted an even more thorough search at the detachment, this time having the Complainant remove layers of clothing and his socks. On both occasions, the SO ran his hands up and down the Complainant’s legs, reaching the area of his groin. Perhaps a more diligent pat-down search in the area of the groin would have detected the vials concealed in that area. Or, perhaps, they were only discoverable through a strip search, during which the Complainant would have been compelled to remove his underwear. The SO, however, did not believe he had the grounds to justify a strip search. That determination does not seem an unreasonable one in light of the Complainant’s denial of drug consumption and his healthy appearance and coherent behaviour. In either event, I am not satisfied that the SO’s conduct amounted to a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care. Lastly, it is important to note that the officer acted quickly and professionally moments after it became apparent that the Complainant was in trouble.

For the foregoing reasons, 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