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

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 18, 2026, at 4:17 p.m., a woman contacted the SIU requesting a call back in relation to a serious injury sustained by her daughter - the Complainant – at the hands of members of the Toronto Police Service (TPS).

On January 19, 2026, at 0946 a.m., the SIU contacted the woman, who facilitated a three-way conversation with herself, the SIU and the Complainant. Reportedly, on January 18, 2026, at 2:30 a.m., the Complainant and friends attended Century nightclub, 580 King Street West. One of the Complainant’s friends was being accosted by a doorman, leading her to alert nearby officers of the behaviour. The officers ignored her requests and she told them they should be ashamed of themselves. The officers proceeded to tell the Complainant that if she continued talking, she would be arrested for public intoxication. When the doorman’s behaviour escalated, police intervened and took physical control of the Complainant’s friend, at which point the Complainant placed herself between the officer and her friend in an effort to provide protection. Numerous officers took control of her arms and punched her in the face. During the altercation, her breasts were exposed as her shirt was lifted above her head. The Complainant was arrested and advised that she was going to be charged with assaulting police, resisting police and public intoxication. The Complainant was bleeding and requested an ambulance. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) attended and insisted she be transported to hospital to investigate a possible nasal fracture. Officers accompanied the Complainant to hospital and remained with her until she was returned to police custody. At hospital, she was subjected to a CT scan and diagnosed with a nasal fracture, facial trauma and a lip laceration. Later that day, the Complainant was held for a bail hearing and released from custody on charges of public intoxication and assault with intent to resist arrest.

On January 20, 2026, at 10:13 a.m., the SIU contacted the TPS to clarify details surrounding the arrest of the Complainant. It was confirmed that she was arrested in relation to an incident at Century nightclub on January 18, 2026, and subsequently transported to the Toronto General Hospital for an assessment of possible facial injuries. Police were advised that the Complainant had not suffered a serious injury and, as such, the TPS did not notify the SIU of the incident.

On January 20, 2026, the Complainant forwarded several images obtained by medical staff at hospital in addition to the final clinical notes and after-care summary. The records contained evidence of a nasal fracture but it was unclear when the facture was incurred. The CT scan report referencing the diagnosis was sent to the SIU on January 27, 2026.

On February 3, 2026, the Complainant provided additional correspondence to the SIU indicating that she had since had a follow-up examination and was further diagnosed with a concussion, which was attributed to her interaction with police on January 18, 2026. The concussion diagnosis was supported by medical documentation.

As a result of the totality of these circumstances and the final diagnosis, TPS was advised of the SIU’s pending investigation into this matter on February 13, 2026.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/02/13 at 2:02 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/02/17 at 11:35 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

21-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on February 17, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between February 18, 2026, and March 2, 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

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #7 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #8 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #9 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #10 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between March 6, 2026, and April 23, 2026.

Service Employee Witnesses

SEW #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SEW #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The service employee witnesses were interviewed between April 7 and 23, 2026.

Investigative Delay

The incident was initially reported to the SIU on January 18, 2026. The investigative manager, after receiving confirmation of a serious injury, invoked the SIU’s mandate on February 13, 2026.

Delay was also incurred because of resource pressures in the Director’s Office.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the sidewalk outside 580 King Street West, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage - Century Nightclub – 580 King Street West

On January 18, 2026, starting at about 2:07 a.m., a TPS Court Services vehicle was captured parked in front of Century.

Starting at about 2:08 a.m., multiple Century security staff escorted CW #2 down the entry steps of the nightclub. She remained in a heated verbal exchange with them as she was accompanied onto the sidewalk of King Street West.

Starting at about 2:13 a.m., CW #2 remained outside Century and was approached by two officers with yellow “Police” placards on their uniform. A minute later, the Complainant and CW #1 joined her. CW #2 was agitated as she verbally engaged with an officer. An additional police vehicle arrived with emergency lights activated. The SO approached CW #2 with other officers nearby. She remained emotionally elevated and pointed to something or someone over the SO’s right shoulder. The Complainant became involved in the conversation and verbally engaged with the SO. They stood face-to-face with little space between them. As that exchange unfolded, CW #2 leaned in closely to the SO and made a motion consistent with spitting in his face before she drew back. The SO immediately reached out to grab CW #2 with both hands. The Complainant intervened between CW #2 and the SO, who grappled with one another. CW #2’s right hand clutched twice at the face of the SO. During the scuffle, the Complainant’s left hand grasped the right forearm of the SO. Her right hand held her cellphone and contacted the SO under his chin. He shoved her arm away downwards. The Complainant swung her left arm and her hand contacted the right side of the SO’s face in a semi-closed fist. The SO reacted with a right-handed strike downwards, but whether he made contact with anything was not captured in the footage. A tall, red-haired officer with a thin beard stepped behind the SO and the remainder of the scuffle moved out of view.

Starting at about 2:17 a.m., the Complainant was lifted from the ground with her hands handcuffed behind her back. She was escorted by multiple officers and secured in the rear of the Court Services vehicle by special constables.

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - WO #3, WO #1, WO #2, WO #8, WO #5 and WO #4

On January 18, 2026, starting at about 2:07 a.m., the SO stood in front of the Complainant, CW #2 and CW #1 near the front door of a club. CW #2 was doing most of the talking.

Starting at about 2:08 a.m., the Complainant seemed to step in between the SO and CW #2 and did the talking. The SO said to the Complainant, “Get out of here.”

Starting at about 2:08:27 a.m., the SO suddenly turned to his right and appeared to grab CW #2’s arms and push her backwards. Multiple voices said, “Whoa. Whoa.” The Complainant screamed, “Don’t touch her,” and stepped in between the SO and CW #2. A woman’s right hand [CW #2] holding a cell phone appeared to strike the SO in the face. The SO pushed CW #2 backwards towards WO #4 and SEW #2, and she was taken to the ground. A male voice said, “She’s out. She’s out.” CW #2 was rolled to one side and a male voice said, “Nah, she’s breathing.” Immediately after CW #2 was pushed back, the Complainant was directly in front of the SO. She extended her left arm towards the SO’s face. At same time, the SO raised his closed right hand above his head and swung in a downward motion to the Complainant’s face. The Complainant started to fall backwards towards a metal barricade and the SO moved closer to the Complainant, his right hand open as he neared the Complainant’s face. The SO was directly in front of the Complainant as she stumbled backwards. His right and left hands were on either side of the Complainant’s face, and her head appeared to jolt to the left and back. There was a red colour near her mouth to indicate she was bleeding. The SO, WO #1, WO #3 and WO #5 grabbed the Complainant. She struggled and resisted. The police officers wrestled to control the Complainant. She was repeatedly told to get on the ground. She said no and, “You just hit me multiple times.” She grabbed onto the SO’s body armour. After 25 to 30 seconds, she was on the ground. At no time was the Complainant’s head or face seen to strike the ground.

Video Footage of Booking and Lodging at Police Station

On January 18, 2026, at 12:22 p.m., the Complainant was booked and lodged without incident at TPS 14 Division. The Complainant was released from custody at 2:03 p.m.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between January 18, 2026, and April 6, 2026:

• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Police communications recordings
• BWC footage
• In-car camera footage
• Custody footage
• TPS Injury Report
• Prisoner Record
• Scene photographs
• Notes - WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5, WO #8, WO #9, WO #10, WO #6, WO #7, SEW #1 and SEW #2.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between February 17, 2026, and April 15, 2026.

• The Complainant’s medical records from Toronto General Hospital
• Written statements from CW #1 and the Complainant
• Cellphone video footage from CW #1 and CW #2
• Video footage from Century nightclub
• Security Incident Summary from Century nightclub
• Toronto Paramedics Report

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police eyewitnesses, 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 January 18, 2026, the Complainant was at the Century nightclub at 580 King Street West. She was with friends – CW #1 and CW #2 – to celebrate CW #2’s birthday. They became involved in a disturbance with another group of patrons, and were escorted out of the premise by security staff. Unhappy with the manner in which security staff had treated them, CW #2 complained to officers who were outside the club policing the Entertainment District.

The SO was among the officers outside the nightclub. He and CW #2 had a brief verbal exchange before the Complainant intervened and began to argue with the officer. The two were face to face and becoming more belligerent with each other. At one point, the SO told her to get out of the area or he would arrest her for public intoxication. Shortly after, CW #2, standing beside the SO and the Complainant, encroached on the officer’s personal space in an aggressive fashion. The officer grabbed hold of CW #2 and was subsequently confronted by the Complainant, who stepped in to try to separate the two. The SO turned his attention to the Complainant and the two subsequently punched at each other before the officer grabbed hold of her head as other officers took hold of her arms. The officers attempted to take the Complainant to the ground. The Complainant struggled against their efforts and was met with several open-hand palm strikes to the abdomen and a couple of knees to the buttocks by WO #5. Following those strikes, she was forced prone on the ground and handcuffed behind the back.

The Complainant was seen at hospital after her arrest and diagnosed with a nasal fracture and a concussion.

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 129, Criminal Code - Offences Relating to Public or Peace Officer

129 Every one who

(a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer,

(b) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or

(c) resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure,

is guilty of

(d) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(e) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Section 270(1), Criminal Code - Assaulting a Peace Officer

270 (1) Every one commits an offence who

(a) assaults a public officer or peace officer engaged in the execution of his duty or a person acting in aid of such an officer;

(b) assaults a person with intent to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of himself or another person; or

(c) assaults a person

(i) who is engaged in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure, or

(ii) with intent to rescue anything taken under lawful process, distress or seizure.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of her arrest by TPS officers on January 18, 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.

The Complainant was within her rights when she challenged the SO about a perceived indifference on the part of the officers to what she and her friends believed was mistreatment at the hands of the nightclub security staff. However, she crossed the line when she physically engaged the SO as he turned to deal with CW #2, who had just faced-up to the officer in a hostile manner. At that point, I am satisfied she was subject to arrest for assaulting and resisting a peace officer contrary to sections 270 and 129(a), respectively, of the Criminal Code.

I am also satisfied that the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing that the Complainant was on the receiving end of unlawful force in the execution of her arrest. There is a version of events proffered in the evidence that the SO punched the Complainant in the face as her arms were pulled behind her back by other officers, and that he punched her again in the face before she was grounded. According to this version of events, two other officers, who could not be identified, also punched the Complainant in the face in an uppercut fashion.[3] This evidence is contested by the accounts of the witness officials. For example, WO #1 and WO #3, who assisted in her arrest, say that the Complainant repeatedly struck the SO when she first injected herself between the officer and CW #2. WO #2, another arresting officer, indicates that the Complainant flailed her arms in the direction of the SO at about the same time, striking him once in the face. WO #5 acknowledges he struck the Complainant several times with a hand and knee, but says he did so to overcome her resistance as officers attempted to force her to the ground. The incriminating rendition of events is also belied by the available video footage of the incident, which captured a chaotic scene involving a significant crowd in front of the nightclub. The recordings depict an exchange of punches by the SO and the Complainant, and her resistance to the officers as they tried to place her on the ground. They do not depict the sort of one-sided and excessive use of force described by the incriminating evidence. The same can be said of the evidence of a civilian eyewitness to the events in question. Though expressing concern with the number of officers who physically engaged the Complainant, the witness describes an altercation in which the SO and the Complainant punched at each other once, followed by officers attempting to ground the Complainant and the Complainant resisting those efforts. On this body of evidence, it would appear the force used by the SO and the other officers was commensurate with the Complainant’s combativeness and the extent of her struggle with the officers. As there is no reason to prefer the incriminating account as any likelier to be closer to the truth than the picture that emerges from the opposing evidence, and some reason to doubt it, the evidence of excessive force is insufficiently cogent to warrant being put to the test by a court.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s concussion and fracture were likely sustained in the altercation that marked her arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that they are 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 8, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit