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 26-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 20, 2026, at 9:28 p.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On February 20, 2026, at 2:14 p.m., the property manager of a building in the area of Baseline Road and Woodroffe Avenue, Ottawa, contacted police about a man - the Complainant – roaming around the property acting strangely and referencing the devil. The Witness Official (WO) and the Subject Official (SO) arrived at the location and formed grounds to apprehend the Complainant under the Mental Health Act (MHA) at 2:41 p.m. As the Complainant was cooperative, he was not handcuffed prior to being placed in the rear of one of the officer’s police vehicles. The Complainant was transported to the Montfort Hospital, where he was triaged and awaited assessment by the emergency room physician. While waiting, the Complainant fell asleep. Around this time, the Service Employee Witness (SEW) attended and relieved the WO. When the Complainant woke, he became combative after being declined the opportunity to go out for a cigarette. Attempts were made to place him in handcuffs and he fell to the floor, striking his face. The Complainant had an apparent facial injury. A CT scan was conducted, confirming a fractured nasal bone. The Complainant was admitted to the Montfort Hospital under a MHA Form 1.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/02/21 at 8:30 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/02/21 at 8:53 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on February 21, 2026.

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on February 25, 2026.

Subject Official

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

The subject official was interviewed on March 17, 2026.

Witness Official

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on February 26, 2026.

Service Employee Witness

SEW Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The service employee witness was interviewed on February 26, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the psychiatric evaluation section of Montfort Hospital, 713 Montreal Road, Ottawa.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage - Montfort Hospital

On February 20, 2026, at about 3:15 p.m., the Complainant entered the mental health zone of Montfort Hospital, along with the SO and the WO. The Complainant was directed to sit down, which he did, but he began to act up shortly after. Hospital staff provided him a sandwich.

At about 3:35 p.m., the SEW relieved the WO. The Complainant could be seen in a room with the door partially closed [now known to be when he was sleeping].

At about 4:15 p.m., the Complainant stood outside the room and displayed mannerisms consistent with being agitated (there was no audio track). His hands were clenched, and he leaned forward towards the officers. He then lifted his shirt over his head, at which time the SEW and the SO attempted to gain control of his arms. The Complainant lowered his centre of gravity and resisted the officers’ attempts to bring him to the ground. The SEW and the SO pulled the Complainant’s arms forward and downward, and the Complainant fell forward onto his face while both arms were controlled by the officers.

The Complainant was placed in handcuffs with his hands behind the back and turned onto his side. Hospital staff attended to the Complainant.

At about 4:21 p.m., the Complainant was lifted onto a stretcher after his handcuffs were removed, and he was transported out of the mental health zone by hospital staff.

OPS Communications Recordings

On February 20, 2026, at 2:09 p.m., OPS received a 911 call from the CW regarding a man who appeared to be experiencing a mental health crisis.

The SO and the WO were dispatched at 2:14 p.m., arriving at a building in the area of Baseline Road and Woodroffe Avenue at 2:22 p.m. The SO broadcast that the Complainant was “joking with a demon”. The Complainant had flags for violent behaviour and suicidal tendencies. He also wore a hospital bracelet. Officers contacted the Montfort Hospital, who responded that the Complainant was not listed as admitted or a missing patient. The Complainant was apprehended under the MHA and transported to Montfort Hospital.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following records from the OPS on February 24, 2026:

• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Police communications recordings
• General Occurrence Report
• OPS policy - Mental Health Incidents
• Notes - the WO and the SEW

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the Montfort Hospital between March 3, 2026, and April 7, 2026:

• The Complainant’s medical records
• Video footage
• Security Report

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

In the afternoon of February 20, 2026, the Complainant was apprehended by the SO under the Mental Health Act. Police had been called to a building in the area of Baseline Road and Woodroffe Avenue, Ottawa, about a male – the Complainant – behaving strangely. The SO had arrived to find the Complainant crying uncontrollably and muttering to himself. He made references to demons out to get him and said he wanted to die. The officer took the Complainant into custody without incident. As he was cooperative, the SO did not feel the need to place him in handcuffs.

The SO and the Complainant arrived at Montfort Hospital at about 3:11 p.m. They were joined by the WO. The SEW arrived at the hospital at about 3:35 p.m. and relieved the WO. The Complainant became increasingly agitated. At one point, after waking up from a short nap, he tried to leave the psychiatric evaluation section by pushing past the SO and the SEW.

Shortly after, at about 4:15 p.m., an irate Complainant confronted the officers at the threshold of the room in which he had been placed. The Complainant was warned that he would be handcuffed if he did not calm down. When his belligerence continued, the officers each grabbed an arm and tried to control them behind the back. The Complainant struggled against the officers’ efforts, keeping his arms to the front. The officers attempted to force the Complainant to the floor and eventually did so. The Complainant fell face first, fracturing his nose in the process. The Complainant was subsequently handcuffed and restrained to a hospital bed.

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 17, Mental Health Act - Action by Police Officer

17 Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may

The Complainant was seriously injured while in the custody of OPS officers on February 20, 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 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.

With information to believe that the Complainant was of unsound mind and a danger to himself, the SO was within her rights in arresting him under section 17 of the Mental Health Act. The officer had encountered a delusional and upset Complainant, who had no place to live and was talking of suicide. Once in lawful custody, the SO was entitled to control the Complainant’s movements to ensure he was safely processed according to law. This justified the officer’s decision to place the Complainant in handcuffs when he began to act aggressively at the hospital.

The force used to place the Complainant in handcuffs was lawful. The Complainant is seen in the video footage to strenuously resist the officers’ efforts to bring his arms around the back, keeping them in front of his body. The takedown made sense in the circumstances as it would better position the officers to overcome the Complainant’s resistance. It is regrettable that the Complainant broke his nose when his face struck the floor in the takedown, but that was more the product of opposing forces operating on one another – the officers attempting to pull him down as the Complainant fought to stay on his feet – rather than the application of unnecessary force by the officers.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: June 5, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit