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 57-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 3, 2026, at 10:05 p.m., the Stratford Police Service (SPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 3, 2026, at 5:52 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) from the SPS Street Crime Unit observed the Complainant walking in the area of Downie Street and Whitelock Street, Stratford. The Complainant was wanted on an endorsed warrant, so the SO pointed the Complainant out to uniform officers who were present. The Complainant observed the officers and fled on foot. The SO and uniform officers pursued the Complainant on foot and caught up to him within seconds near the intersection of McNab Street. The Complainant resisted arrest and a struggle ensued. Officers grounded the Complainant and were able to handcuff him. The Complainant was searched, and a small amount of methamphetamine was found. Soon after, swelling was observed to one of the Complainant’s eyes, so officers requested Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Paramedics attended and took the Complainant to Stratford General Hospital (SGH) where he was diagnosed with a fractured orbital bone.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/03/04 at 9:39 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/03/07 at 1:30 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 7, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on March 7, 2026.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject official was interviewed on April 10, 2026.

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on March 23, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the sidewalk of residential street in the area of Downie Street and Whitelock Street, Stratford. The street was a paved two-lane street in a residential area. There were compact snowbanks on either side of the sidewalk at the time of the incident.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

SPS Communications Recordings & Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

Starting around 5:50 p.m., March 3, 2026, WO #1 requested that SPS dispatch confirm the arrest warrant for the Complainant. WO #1 subsequently advised he would be “out” with the Complainant and, after a few seconds, updated that the Complainant had run from him.

Starting around 5:52 p.m., WO #1 advised that the Complainant was in custody and would also be charged with resist arrest.

Starting around 5:56 p.m., EMS were requested for a cut above the Complainant’s eye. The Complainant was also under arrest for possession of methamphetamine.

Starting around 6:00 p.m., EMS arrived on scene and transported the Complainant to the hospital.

SPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - WO #1

Starting around 5:52 p.m., March 3, 2026, WO #1 exited his police vehicle and chased the Complainant. The SO exited his vehicle and ran across the street to intercept the Complainant, who continued to run away from WO #1. The SO attempted to tackle the Complainant, causing them both to fall to the snow-covered ground. The Complainant rose to his feet, causing the SO to fall backwards, and attempted to run again. The SO grabbed hold of the Complainant and grounded him again. WO #1 arrived, grabbed hold of the Complainant and pushed him downwards, causing him to land in a seated position with WO #1 to his back and the SO to his front. WO #1 and the SO both struggled to arrest the Complainant. The SO delivered a punch to the right eye area of the Complainant, which caused him to fall onto his back as both officers struggled for control. The Complainant was turned over onto his stomach and the SO delivered a punch to the left side of his body. The Complainant was positioned with his legs underneath him. He repeatedly attempted to lift his torso up off the ground as WO #1 instructed him to put his hands behind the back. The Complainant continued to push back against the police officers and ignored multiple commands to give up his hands and to stop resisting. He was eventually handcuffed by the officers. The Complainant was stood up. Blood was present above his right eye as well as small abrasions on his face. The Complainant stated, “I wasn’t fighting, I just went to run is all.”

Video Footage – CW #1’s Cellphone

Starting around 5:53 p.m., March 3, 2026, several police officers, including WO #1, the SO and WO #2, struggled to control the Complainant while on the ground behind a snowbank. No strikes or kicks were observed in the footage

Video Footage – A residence in the area of Downie Street and Whitelock Street, Stratford

Starting around 5:54:31 p.m., March 3, 2026, the SO parked his police vehicle on the side of a street.

Starting around 5:54:48 p.m. the SO and the Complainant collided and fell to the ground in front of the residence, after which the Complainant got up and attempted to keep running.

Starting around 1754:50 p.m., WO #1 arrived and both officers struggled to control the Complainant. The Complainant was positioned on his back. The SO delivered a right-hand punch towards the face of the Complainant followed by a right-hand punch to the left side of his torso. The SO and WO #1 attempted to place the Complainant onto his stomach while his hands remained beneath his body. The SO delivered two left-handed punches to the head area of the Complainant and one knee strike to the lower left side of the Complainant’s torso as WO #1 continued to remove his hands from beneath his body.

Starting around 5:55:17 p.m., WO #2 arrived and pulled the Complainant’s feet outwards, which put him in a prone position and allowed officers to handcuff him.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the SPS between March 6, 2026, and March 16, 2026:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• General, Arrest and Occurrence Reports
• BWC footage
• In-car Camera Footage
• Photographs
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Copy of Arrest Warrant for the Complainant
• Notes – WO #1 and WO #2
• SPS policies – Use of Force; Arrest and Detention

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between March 7, 2026, and March 10, 2026:

• Cellphone footage from CW #1
• Video footage from private residence of CW #3
• The Complainant’s medical records from SGH

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized.

In the afternoon of March 3, 2026, the SO observed the Complainant in the area of Downie Street and Whitelock Street, Stratford. Aware that the Complainant was subject to a warrant for his arrest, the officer contacted uniformed personnel to respond to the area to take the Complainant into custody.

WO #1 arrived in the area in his fully marked cruiser. The officer pulled up to the Complainant as he walked south on the east sidewalk of the street and watched as the Complainant reversed directions and ran northwards.

The SO had stopped his vehicle on the west side of the street and was a short distance north of WO #1’s cruiser when the Complainant took flight. He exited his cruiser, ran across the street and tackled the Complainant to the ground. The Complainant attempted to right himself and was held down by the SO and WO #1, who arrived on scene within seconds. There ensued a struggle during which the SO delivered several punches to the head and torso of the Complainant, and a knee strike to his left side. With the assistance of additional officers arriving on scene, the Complainant was handcuffed behind the back.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a right orbital bone fracture.

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 his arrest by SPS officers on March 3, 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 Complainant was subject to arrest at the time of the incident on the strength of a warrant that was in effect for a probation violation.

The force used by the SO, I am satisfied, was lawful. The initial takedown was a proportionate use of force. It was effective in bringing the Complainant’s flight to an end without the use of weapons, and better positioned the officers to deal with any further resistance on his part. In fact, the Complainant did continue to struggle against the officers’ efforts to take him into custody. He attempted to right himself in order to resume his flight, and then refused to release his arms to be handcuffed. It took the combined efforts of four police officers to finally wrestle control of his arms behind the back. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO’s punches and knee strike constituted excessive force, particularly as they were all delivered at a time of active resistance by the Complainant.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s fractured orbital bone was the result of one or more of the SO’s strikes, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury is attributable to unlawful behaviour on the part of the officer. 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