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 42-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 28, 2026, at 7:24 a.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On February 28, 2026, at 3:08 a.m., the Civilian Witness (CW) called the LPS to report that she had been awoken by someone attempting to break into her home, located in the area of Dundas Street and Clarke Road, London. At 3:14 a.m., Witness Official (WO) #1, WO #2 and the Subject Official (SO) (a Police Service Dog (PSD) officer), arrived and proceeded to the rear yard, where they found an open door leading to a storage area under the home. Commands were called out to the Complainant, who refused to exit. The SO yelled that he would release his PSD if the Complainant refused to comply. The Complainant did not exit, and the PSD was released, apprehending the Complainant and causing a cut to the left elbow. At 3:21 a.m., the Complainant was arrested. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called and paramedics transported him to the London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) – Victoria Campus. The Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured left elbow.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/02/28 at 2:00 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/03/02 at 12:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 3, 2026.

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on March 3, 2026.

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 March 19, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a crawl space underneath the rear deck of a home situated in the area of Dundas Street and Clarke Road, London.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

LPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The SO and WO #3

On February 28, 2026, starting at about 3:14 a.m., the SO (with the PSD) arrived at a residence in the area of Dundas Street and Clarke Road. The PSD was controlled by the SO by way of a lead.

Starting at about 3:16 a.m., the PSD led the SO to the rear yard of the property and indicated at a small access door to a covered storage crawl space. The SO announced, “London Police, Canine Unit,” and advised someone in the crawl space [now known to be the Complainant] to call out.

Starting at about 3:17 a.m., the SO warned the Complainant to come out or he would get bit by the police dog. Repeated warnings were issued by the SO to call out and there were no responses by the Complainant.

Starting at about 3:18 a.m., the SO opened the door to the crawl space, which was highly cluttered. The PSD entered the crawl space attached to a lead under control by the SO. The PSD was pulled back out of the crawl space and then allowed to re-enter, still on the lead. No noise came from the interior of the crawl space.

Starting at about 3:19 a.m., the SO announced “contact” and entered the crawl space. The SO struggled to get past the clutter to where the PSD was in contact with the Complainant. The PSD could be seen with the Complainant’s left elbow in his grasp. The Complainant was unresponsive and did not call out in any manner. The SO directed assisting officers outside the crawl space to call for EMS as the Complainant was unresponsive and he suspected he had overdosed or was vital signs absent. The SO called to the Complainant to advise him he was under arrest but did not receive a response.

Starting at about 3:20 a.m., the SO controlled the PSD to release his hold of the Complainant. The SO removed himself and the PSD from the crawl space and allowed WO #3 and WO #1 to enter the crawl space to take the Complainant into custody and render first aid.

Starting at about 3:21 a.m., WO #3 and WO #1 cleared an area in the crawl space to effectively render first aid to the Complainant. WO #1 called out to the Complainant to rouse him and conducted a sternum rub, which appeared to create a hard inhalation response from the Complainant, bringing him back to consciousness.

Starting at about 3:25 a.m., the Complainant was advised by WO #3 that he was under arrest for break and enter, provided him rights to counsel, and asked if he wanted to speak to a lawyer. The Complainant acknowledged the arrest and indicated he did wish to speak to a lawyer.

The remainder of footage consisted of the Complainant’s removal from the crawl space and his escort, unhandcuffed, to a waiting ambulance stretcher.

The SO was captured explaining that he did not know that the PSD was on the Complainant until he got past the clutter. He noted that the Complainant at no point made any type of response. The SO stated that he believed the Complainant’s lack of response to be the potential result of drug use. The SO described the Complainant as having zero reaction to the dog bite.

Additional footage depicted the Complainant’s transport by ambulance to LHSC.

LPS Communications Recordings

On February 28, 2026, at 3:08 a.m., the CW called the LPS via 911 and requested police officers attend her residence in the area of Dundas Street and Clarke Road as an unknown person [now known to be the Complainant] was attempting to break in.

Dispatch personnel continued to obtain updates from the CW and requested that available police officers respond to the location. The CW was extremely upset and cried. The CW’s partner took over the phone call and continued to provide dispatchers with updates.

Dispatchers reassured the couple and directed them not to go outside their residence. They explained that police officers would come to them when it was safe.

Dispatch assigned various responding police officers to areas to establish a coordinated containment perimeter.

Police units responded to the residence, including WO #2 and WO #1, and the SO (with a PSD).

At 3:13 a.m., WO #2, WO #1 and the SO arrived at the area of Dundas Street and Clarke Road.

At 3:15 a.m., the SO confirmed that there had been damage to the rear of the residence.

At 3:17 a.m., the SO advised that the PSD had led him to a storage area underneath the residence. The Complainant had been located in the storage area and was ordered to exit the space.

At 3:19 a.m., WO #1 indicated that contact with the Complainant had been made under the residence.

At 3:20 a.m., WO #1 requested that EMS be dispatched to attend as the Complainant appeared to be overdosing or absent of vital signs.

Starting at about 3:49 a.m., EMS transported the Complainant to LHSC while WO #3 rode in the ambulance with the Complainant

LPS Scene Photographs

WO #2 took scene photographs at the conclusion of the interaction with the Complainant. The photographs document the confined area of the storage crawl space.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the LPS between March 2, 2026, and March 4, 2026.

• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• General, Supplementary and Arrest Reports
• Occurrence Reports involving the Complainant between February 21, 2026, and February 28, 2026
• Police communications recordings
• BWC footage
• Scene photographs
• LPS Profile Reports of the Complainant
• Training records for the SO and the PSD
• LPS policy regarding the deployment of PSDs
• Notes - WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from the LHSC on March 27, 2026.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and additional police and non-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 morning of February 28, 2026, LPS officers were dispatched to an address in the area of Dundas Street and Clarke Road. The homeowners had contacted police to report a person attempting to break into their residence.

WO #1 and WO #2 were the first on scene, arriving at about 3:10 a.m. They were joined shortly by a police dog handler, the SO, and his dog, the PSD. Additional officers arrived on scene and set up a perimeter around the house as the SO deployed his dog to locate the suspect. It was not long before the dog led the SO to the rear yard and a crawl space underneath a deck.

The Complainant was hiding in the crawl space, which was cluttered with stored patio furniture and other items. He failed to come out and give any indication of his presence despite repeated direction from the SO for him to do so.

With the dog still attached to the lead, the SO released the PSD into the crawl space. The dog’s first foray into the space was unsuccessful. The SO released the dog into the crawl space again. On this occasion, the dog located the Complainant under some items and bit into his left arm. The Complainant gave no reaction.

The SO approached his dog and the Complainant and released the dog’s hold, after which the Complainant was taken into custody.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fracture of the left elbow and dog bites to the left arm.

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.

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 was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by LPS officers on February 28, 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 injuries.

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 his disposal that the Complainant was present in a dwelling not his own, I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights in moving to arrest him contrary to sections 349(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code.

The use of the police dog in the Complainant’s arrest was, I am satisfied, lawful. The Complainant had been provided ample opportunity to exit the crawl space of his own volition and had not done so. Entering the crawl space to take the Complainant into custody was a dangerous proposition in the circumstances because of its closed and tight confines, and reason to believe that the Complainant had committed a serious offence and was now concealing himself. And the use of other less-lethal weapons was effectively off the table because of the nature of the scene and uncertainty as to the Complainant’s precise location. On this record, the use of the dog made sense as a way to exert some control over the Complainant before officers moved in to arrest him.[3]

At the end of the investigation, it remains unclear whether the Complainant’s fracture resulted from the dog’s use. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the injuries the Complainant suffered were attributable to any unlawful

behaviour on the part of the SO, 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