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 38-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 23, 2026, at 11:53 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On February 23, 2026, at 5:54 a.m., TPS officers were called to a convenience store located in the area of Lake Shore Boulevard West and Kipling Avenue, Etobicoke, regarding a shoplifter, the Complainant. The Subject Official (SO) and the Witness Official (WO) arrived and attempted to arrest the Complainant. She resisted and was taken to the ground and handcuffed, after which she was transported to 22 Division. The Complainant arrived at 22 Division at 7:20 a.m., where her right wrist was observed to be discoloured and swollen. At 8:31 a.m., she was transported to Toronto Western Hospital (TWH) by TPS officers and diagnosed with a fractured right wrist.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/02/23 at 12:00 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/02/23 at 12:30 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

38-year-old female; interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on February 25, 2026.

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on February 23, 2026.

Subject Official

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Official

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on April 2, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a bus shelter located in the area of Lake Shore Boulevard West and Kipling Avenue, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Police Telephone and Radio Communication Recordings

On February 23, 2026, at 5:47 a.m., a 911 dispatcher returned a hang-up call from a convenience store regarding a theft that turned violent. A store employee “[man’s first name]” reported a man [now known to be the CW] and a woman [now known to be the Complainant] had stolen alcohol and, when confronted by another employee, engaged in a verbal and physical altercation before heading westbound [on Lake Shore Boulevard].

At 5:54 a.m., the WO and the SO were dispatched and provided descriptions of the CW and the Complainant.

At 6:14 a.m., the SO made a police radio broadcast that he had spotted the Complainant and the CW.

Three minutes later, the WO broadcast he had one person in custody and requested an additional officer attend. The SO broadcast that the Complainant was resisting arrest. Sounds of a struggle were audible in the background.

At 6:20 a.m., a police officer broadcast that both the CW and the Complainant were in custody.

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

On February 23, 2026, at 6:06 a.m., a convenience store employee “[man’s first name]” told the WO that earlier that day, the Complainant had entered the store and taken six beers from the beer fridge without paying for them. He confronted her but allowed her to leave. Later, she returned with the CW and again went to the beer fridge. The employee tried to reason with the CW, who eventually left the store with the Complainant. They took beer and food but did not pay.

At 6:16 a.m., the WO and the SO were at a bus shelter with the Complainant and the CW. The WO arrested the CW. The SO attempted to arrest the Complainant. He had one handcuff secured around the Complainant’s right wrist. She struggled against being handcuffed. He told her she was under arrest for theft. She replied that she had not stolen anything. The SO turned the Complainant around and attempted to bring both her hands behind her back. The Complainant continuously resisted his efforts.

At 6:18 a.m., the SO pulled her back by the handcuff secured to her right wrist. The Complainant turned and brought her left hand in front of her body. The SO attempted to maintain control of both her wrists. The WO assisted the SO. He took the Complainant by her left hand. The SO pulled the Complainant’s handcuffed right wrist behind her back. The Complainant said, “You’re hurting me.” She continued to resist and screamed for help. The Complainant reached her left hand around the front of her body and attempted to pull her right wrist from the SO’s grasp.

At 6:19 a.m., the police officers took the Complainant to the ground. The SO brought the Complainant’s right arm behind her back and the WO successfully secured her wrists, in handcuffs, behind her back.

At 6:20 a.m., the Complainant was placed in the back of a police vehicle.

At 6:24 a.m., the SO readjusted the Complainant’s handcuff fit. The Complainant continually said that her wrist hurt.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between February 26, 2026, and March 12, 2026:

• BWC footage – the SO and the WO
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• TPS policies – Arrest; Use of Force
• Notes – the WO

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police eyewitness, and video footage that captured the incident, 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 morning of February 23, 2026, the SO and the WO were dispatched to a convenience store in the area of Lake Shore Boulevard West and Kipling Avenue. A store employee had contacted police to report a male and female shoplifter. The officers arrived on scene and spoke with store staff, confirming that two suspects had left the store with alcohol and food without paying for the items. The employee showed a video clip he had taken with his cellphone, depicting the male and female.

The SO and the WO located the suspects – the CW and the Complainant – at a nearby bus shelter. The CW was taken into custody by the WO without incident. The Complainant, however, resisted when the SO attempted to secure her in handcuffs. The officer was able to affix a cuff to the right hand but had difficulty attaching the other cuff to the Complainant’s left hand. The Complainant objected to her arrest, denied that she had done anything wrong, and struggled against the SO’s efforts to bring her arms behind the back. The tussle eventually made its way outside the bus shelter where the WO intervened. The officers brought the Complainant to the ground, after which the WO secured both her hands in handcuffs.

Following her arrest, the Complainant was taken to hospital and treated for a fractured right wrist.

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 her arrest by TPS officers on February 23, 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 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.

The SO had been provided descriptions of the shoplifters. The Complainant and the CW matched the descriptions and were located nearby. On this record, I am satisfied that the Complainant was subject to arrest for theft.

I am also satisfied that the force used in the Complainant’s arrest was lawful. This consisted of the officers grappling with her over the course of about three minutes to wrestle control of her arms. No weapons were used, and no strikes were delivered. The takedown was executed with minimal force and made sense in the circumstances. With the Complainant on the ground, the officers could better manage her resistance. In fact, it was shortly after the Complainant was placed on the ground that she was handcuffed.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant broke her wrist in the altercation that marked her arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the injury is attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the SO. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: June 4, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit