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 55-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 11, 2026, at 10:35 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On February 11, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., acting on a criminal harassment complaint, TPS officers were dispatched to a residence in the area of Martin Grove Road and Westhumber Boulevard, Etobicoke. The TPS officers attended and became aware of a person - the Complainant - barricaded in the home. The officers were waiting for a Feeney warrant[2] when they heard a woman scream from inside the home that the Complainant was “killing himself”. The officers entered the home and found the Complainant with a lacerated neck and wrist. Paramedic services were called. The Complainant was transported to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC) where he was in critical condition with extensive blood loss.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/02/11 at 10:51 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/02/11 at 11:44 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on February 13, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between February 11 and 12, 2026.

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on February 22, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the basement bathroom of a residence in the area of Martin Grove Road and Westhumber Boulevard, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

SIU forensic services attended, examined and photographed the scene.

A bathroom door had been forcibly removed from its hinges, and it leaned against a wall adjacent to the bathroom entrance. The door handle was absent from the bathroom door. There were indentations on the exterior surface of the door near the absent door handle.

The bathtub was stained with blood, which had dripped down the sides. Some of the blood had accumulated around the drain. There was packaging from medical supplies littered on the bathroom floor.

Outside the basement bathroom doorway were three stacked TPS medical kits. On a ledge outside the bathroom was a blue-handled knife with a skull logo on it. There was a minor amount of blood on the knife. Next to the knife was a fire extinguisher.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On February 11, 2026, starting at about 7:50:23 a.m., WO #1 and WO #2 arrived at an address and met with a woman and her parents. The woman recounted how she had been stalked by the Complainant since high school. She explained how he had repeatedly shown up to places she was known to be throughout her life since 1988. A few weeks prior, the Complainant had appeared at her parents’ house and shoveled their driveway. He showed up again after the next big snowstorm. Her parents identified him and told her. The woman’s brother contacted the Complainant and directed him not to return. On February 9, 2026, the Complainant came to the woman’s parents’ house and rang the doorbell repeatedly. He returned later in the day and did the same thing. The woman expressed a fear for her safety and her family’s safety. WO #2 said they would arrest the Complainant.

Starting at about 9:11:44 a.m., WO #2 and WO #1 arrived at the front door of a residence in the area of Martin Grove Road and Westhumber Boulevard. A woman - CW #1 - said, “He’s downstairs.” WO #2 asked what had been said to her and CW #1 said, “It’s easier for everybody.” WO #2 and WO #1 entered the residence. CW #1 led them to the basement door. She remained upstairs while WO #1 and WO #2 descended the basement stairs.

Starting at about 9:12:36 a.m., WO #2 and WO #1 announced themselves and stood outside a closed door in the basement. WO #2 told the Complainant to open the door. WO #2 tried to open the door, but it was locked. WO #2 threatened to break down the door. The Complainant said, “I’m okay, I’m just taking a shower.” WO #2 said, “You made a comment and CW #1 is concerned. I need to see you.” WO #2 kicked the doorknob. WO #2 asked the Complainant if he would hurt himself and the Complainant said he was fine. WO #2 extended his baton and took several swings at the doorknob. WO #1 went upstairs and asked CW #1 if the Complainant had any weapons in the bathroom. CW #1 was uncertain. WO #1 returned to the basement. WO #2 continued to attempt to communicate with the Complainant through the door.

Starting at about 9:16:21 a.m., WO #1 used the bottom of a fire extinguisher and struck the doorknob. The doorknob broke off from the door. The officer used a utility knife to pry at the door but was unable to open it. WO #2 said, “He’s slowing down,” as the Complainant reduced his frequency of interaction. WO #3 and WO #5 arrived on scene.

Starting at about 9:18:56 a.m., WO #3 used a breaching tool to open the door. He entered the bathroom, followed by WO #2 and WO #5. The Complainant was inside the bathtub in a fetal position. There was blood on the countertop, the floor, and inside the bathtub. WO #3 removed a blue-handled knife from the edge of the bathtub. WO #4 arrived. WO #1 requested a rush on paramedic services. WO #2 said the Complainant had cut his throat. WO #2 applied pressure to the neck wound with a towel. WO #2 said the Complainant had also cut his wrists. The Complainant said, “I’m starting to fall asleep. I don’t want to go through this anymore.” He said he had stabbed his chest as well.

Police Communications Recordings

On February 10, 2026, at 1:39 p.m., a man reported a stalker and harassment case to TPS. The man advised that the Complainant had visited his parents’ residence after he had been told to stop. The Complainant had stalked the man’s sister since high school.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between February 12, 2026, and March 5, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• TPS policy – Persons in Crisis
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4 and WO #5
• BWC footage
• Police communications recordings
• Involved Officer List

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from SHSC on March 10, 2026.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses (including the Complainant), and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario.

WO #1 and WO #2 travelled to a residence in the area of Martin Grove Road and Westhumber Boulevard in the morning of February 11, 2026, to arrest the Complainant for criminal harassment. They had earlier spoken to a woman, who reported that the Complainant had stalked her since high school. She was concerned for her safety, and the safety of her family as the Complainant continued to attend their residence to shovel snow despite being told to stop.

The Complainant answered the officers’ knock on the door and was told he was to be arrested. He told the officers to get a warrant and closed the door, making his way to the basement. He called his sister, made remarks suggesting self-harm, and locked himself in the basement bathroom where he proceeded to cut his neck, chest and wrists.

WO #1 and WO #2 were allowed into the residence by CW #1, who expressed concern for the Complainant’s safety. The officers went to the basement and started to speak to the Complainant through the bathroom door. They told him they wanted to ensure his safety. The Complainant said he was fine and taking a shower. The officers grew increasingly worried with the Complainant’s wellbeing as his voice started to fade and attempted, unsuccessfully, to force open the door. Within minutes, additional officers arrived with a breach tool. The door was opened and officers entered.

The Complainant was inside the bathtub with knife wounds. Paramedics were called to the scene and transported him to hospital.

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 264, Criminal Code of Canada - Criminal Harassment

264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of

(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;

(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;

(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or

(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

(3) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court imposing the sentence on the person shall consider as an aggravating factor that, at the time the offence was committed, the person contravened

(a) the terms or conditions of an order made pursuant to section 161 or a recognizance entered into pursuant to section 810, 810.1 or 810.2; or

(b) the terms or conditions of any other order or recognizance, or of an undertaking, made or entered into under the common law, this Act or any other Act of Parliament or of a provincial legislature that is similar in effect to an order or recognizance referred to in paragraph (a).

(5) Where the court is satisfied of the existence of an aggravating factor referred to in subsection (4), but decides not to give effect to it for sentencing purposes, the court shall give reasons for its decision.

The Complainant was seriously injured on February 11, 2026, in his residence, the result of self-inflicted knife wounds. As TPS officers were attempting to arrest him at the time, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any TPS officer committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s injuries.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of any TPS officer, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s wounds. The evidence establishes there was not.

With information at their disposal that the Complainant had engaged in protracted, unwanted behaviour towards a woman and her family, I am satisfied that WO #1 and WO #2 were within their rights in attending at his residence to arrest him for criminal harassment contrary to section 264 of the Criminal Code.

I am also satisfied that WO #1 and WO #2, and the other TPS officers who arrived on scene to assist with accessing the basement bathroom, comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s wellbeing. At the first sign that the Complainant might try to harm himself, WO #1 and WO #2 approached the residence and were allowed inside by a concerned CW #1. In the absence of a warrant authorizing their entry into the home to arrest the Complainant, the officers had been right in refraining from forcing entry when they were initially rebuffed by the Complainant. Outside the bathroom door, WO #1 and WO #2 acted as one would expect of police officers. They attempted to negotiate a peaceful resolution of the situation and thereafter adopted a more proactive posture as soon as it became clear that the Complainant was harming himself. With the help of additional officers arriving on scene, the bathroom door was forced open and emergency first-aid provided the Complainant.

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