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 62-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 13, 2026, at 2:28 p.m., the Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On February 13, 2026, at 12:45 a.m., Civilian Witness (CW) #2 called DRPS to report a disturbance in a residence in the area of Taunton Road West and Simcoe Street North, Oshawa. At 12:54 a.m., officers arrived at the address and heard a commotion in the apartment. The occupants inside the apartment would not open the door and the officers used a breaching tool to force entry. At 1:13 a.m., CW #1 was observed in the apartment with injuries. The officers were confronted by an agitated man - the Complainant - refusing to comply with their commands. Witness Official (WO) #1, the Subject Official (SO), WO #2 and WO #3 took the Complainant to the ground, where he landed on a paint can. A struggle ensued, and the Complainant placed his hands underneath his body. The Complainant grabbed WO #2’s legs and pulled her to the ground. WO #3 entered to assist. Officers delivered hand strikes to the Complainant’s torso and head. WO #4 entered the apartment and deployed his conducted energy weapon (CEW) in drive-stun mode.[2] At 1:14 a.m., the Complainant was arrested for domestic assault. Officers noticed a small laceration on his forehead and transported him to Lakeridge Health Oshawa (LHO). The Complainant was medically cleared at 2:10 a.m. and taken to cells at DRPS Central East Division. At 9:00 a.m., the Complainant complained of breathing difficulties and soreness on his left side. He was transported by ambulance to LHO. At 10:26 a.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured rib on his left side.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/02/14 at 8:19 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/02/14 at 8:55 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on February 17, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between February 17 and 20, 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

The witness officials were interviewed between February 27, 2026, and March 5, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired inside an apartment in the area of Taunton Road West and Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, primarily in and around a narrow hallway.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – WO #4

The device was deployed in drive-stun mode at 1:13 a.m., February 13, 2026. The right arc button was pressed, and electricity was discharged for approximately 12.4 seconds, followed shortly after by a second brief deployment during which electricity was discharged for less than one second.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

DRPS Communications Recordings

On February 13, 2026, at 12:43 a.m., CW #2 phoned 911 to report a disturbance inside an apartment. A woman was reportedly screaming, and objects were being smashed.

At 12:54 a.m., DRPS officers responded to a report of a domestic disturbance at an apartment in the area of Taunton Road West and Simcoe Street North, Oshawa.

At 1:07 a.m., officers reported that attempts had been made to breach the door of the apartment and that sounds of a disturbance could be heard inside.

At 1:09 a.m., police were said to have made entry into the apartment.

At 1:14 a.m., WO #1 reported that the Complainant had been arrested for breaching a recognizance, choking, assault, and mischief.

Emergency Medical Services were requested at 1:19 a.m.

The Complainant was transported to LHO in a police cruiser, and it was reported that he had struck his head on the cruiser partition a couple of times during the transport.

DRPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - WO #1, the SO, WO #2, WO #4 and WO #3

At 1:03 a.m., February 13, 2026, the BWC footage commenced with WO #1, the SO and WO #2 approaching an apartment. The officers knocked and announced their presence as police. CW #1 could be heard attempting unsuccessfully to unlock the apartment door from inside while indicating that she had been choked. Officers unsuccessfully attempted to gain entry by kicking the door.

At approximately 1:09 a.m., the apartment door was forced open with a breaching ram. WO #1 observed CW #1 pointing towards a hallway as the Complainant approached the officers. WO #1 repeatedly instructed the Complainant to show his hands and place them behind his back. The Complainant did not do so. WO #1, the SO and WO #2 attempted to gain control of the Complainant, who resisted efforts to handcuff him. The officers wrestled the Complainant to the ground, the SO delivering a punch or two to the Complainant’s left side in the process. The Complainant grabbed hold of WO #2’s legs and tripped her to the floor. The SO punched the Complainant’s backside six times while telling him to release his hold of WO #2. The Complainant struggled against the officers’ efforts to control his arms and repeatedly insulted the officers. WO #2 struck the Complainant three times in the head and the SO punched his left arm and side about six times while telling the Complainant to let go of his hand.

At 1:13 a.m., WO #4, WO #3 and Officer #1 entered the apartment. The Complainant continued to resist and refused repeated commands to surrender his hands. After verbal warnings were provided, WO #4 deployed his CEW in drive-stun mode to the Complainant’s lower back. WO #1 and the assisting officers were subsequently able to secure the Complainant in handcuffs.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the DRPS between February 19, 2026, and March 18, 2026:

• Occurrence Report
• Judicial Release Order – the Complainant
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• BWC footage – WO #1, WO #2, WO #4 and WO #3
• DRPS booking and cell footage
• Custody Detention Record – the Complainant
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2, WO #4 and WO #3
• CEW deployment data – WO #4
• Scene photographs
• DRPS policies – Arrest and Warrant; Use of Force

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between February 13, 2026, and April 28, 2026:

• Video footage from apartment building, Oshawa
• Paramedic Report from Durham Region Paramedic Service

• The Complainant’s medical records from LHO

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the early morning of February 13, 2026, the SO, in the company of WO #1 and WO #2, attended at an apartment in the area of Taunton Road West and Simcoe Street North, Oshawa. A neighbouring tenant had called 911 to report the sounds of a woman screaming coming from the apartment. Officers knocked on the door and asked the woman – CW #1 – to open it. CW #1 tried but was unable to open the door. She could be heard moaning in distress and saying that she had been choked. WO #2 retrieved a ram from her cruiser and the SO used it to break open the door.

CW #1 was by the doorway and pointed in the direction of a hallway. The Complainant appeared in the hallway. He was at the apartment in violation of a bail order.

WO #1 ordered the Complainant to put his hands behind the back. The Complainant refused to do so and instead walked towards the officer. WO #1 grabbed a hold of the Complainant and attempted to wrestle control of his arms behind the back. The Complainant refused to release his arms. There followed a struggle during which the Complainant was forced to the hallway floor and subjected to multiple punches by the SO, WO #2 and WO #4, and the use of a CEW, before he was handcuffed behind the back.

The Complainant was taken into custody and transported to hospital on two occasions before he was eventually diagnosed with a broken left rib.

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 DRPS officers on February 13, 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. Given what the officers knew of the 911 call and what they heard at the door, they were within their rights in moving to take the Complainant into custody for assault against CW #1.

The force used against the Complainant, though significant, fell within the limits prescribed by the criminal law. It is apparent on the BWC footage that the Complainant struggled intensely against his arrest. He proved a formidable physical challenge to the three officers, even mocking the officers’ inability to subdue him despite their greater numbers. The multiple punches struck by the officers all occurred at points of active struggle by the Complainant, including on one occasion when he grabbed a hold of WO #2’s legs and tripped her up. It was only after the CEW discharge that he finally relented and the officers were able to handcuff him behind the back.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s rib was fractured in the altercation that marked his arrest, the likely result of one or more of the SO’s punches, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the injury is attributable to unlawful conduct 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 11, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit