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 a 38-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 17, 2026, at 11:14 a.m., the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On January 17, 2026, at 7:32 p.m., LECA received an online complaint from the Complainant. Reportedly, on August 24, 2025, the Complainant received a phone call from her son indicating he had just been assaulted at his residence in the area of Keil Drive South and Richmond Street, Chatham. The Complainant directed her son to contact police while she and her husband made their way to his home. Arriving prior to police, the Complainant was speaking to another resident about what had occurred when she observed six police vehicles. Officers approached her son and husband, circling them as if they were the individuals involved in the dispute. The Complainant approached the officers, tapping one on the shoulder, to explain that they were not the individuals involved and were, in fact, responsible for calling the police. Two male officers grabbed the Complainant’s arms, forcing them behind her back where her wrists were handcuffed, and she was dragged to one of the nearby police vehicles. Her son was grabbed without care and handcuffed. The Complainant had spinal surgery on July 7, 2025, and she was still in the healing process at the time of the incident. She now has permanent damage to her spine requiring additional surgical intervention to repair.

On February 18, 2026, at 11:33 a.m., the SIU contacted the Complainant to obtain further information about her complaint. The Complainant reiterated what was in her complaint and further explained the nature of her pre-existing injury and surgery. She advised she had surgery at the London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) in July 2025 in relation to degenerative disc disease. She reported that she was healing as expected but because of the interaction with police, the remaining disc was forced out the sides of L4 and L5. This development was not an expected outcome of the previous surgery but rather was due to the force used during the interaction with police. The Complainant advised that she had a scheduled consultation with her surgeon at LHSC on February 26, 2026, and would be able to provide further documentation to reflect the new injury.

On February 27, 2026, at 1:32 p.m., the Complainant forwarded a letter by her orthopedic spine surgeon dated February 26, 2026. The contents of the letter outlined the Complainant’s history of chronic low back pain. The letter referenced her surgery on July 8, 2025. The surgery was described as without complication and noted that the Complainant experienced good postoperative recovery. In September 2025, following an interaction with police, the Complainant met with her physician, indicating the redevelopment of symptoms. At this time, the physician ordered an MRI scheduled for December 17, 2025. The results indicated a new injury of the disc, which was now herniated at the L4 and L5. As a result, the Complainant was scheduled for surgery in April 2026.

On March 2, 2026, the CKPS was advised of the SIU’s decision to invoke its jurisdiction.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/03/02 at 12:40 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/03/02 at 2:15 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 8, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between March 23, 2026, and April 21, 2026.

Subject Official

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

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

The witness officials were interviewed between March 12 and March 27, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the parking lot outside of an address in the area of Keil Drive South and Richmond Street, Chatham.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

CKPS Communications Recordings

At 6:53 p.m., August 24, 2025, Civilian #1 called 911 asking that police attend an address in the area of Keil Drive South and Richmond Street for a fight. She indicated that she, her mother [now known to be Civilian #2], her boyfriend [now known to be CW #2] and her mother’s boyfriend were involved. A family member had hit her boyfriend. She indicated that her boyfriend’s parents [now known to be the Complainant and CW #3] were en route, and she needed police to attend before they arrived.

At 6:58 p.m., dispatch placed a phone call to Civilian #1 and asked where her boyfriend’s parents were coming from. Civilian #1 responded by saying, “Ah, they’re here, they were here, you guys were missing everything, I told you guys to get here.” The dispatcher asked Civilian #1 where her boyfriend was located. She responded that he was coming inside right now. A male voice [now known to be CW #3, father of CW #2] could be heard stating, “I’m going to deal with it my fucking self, put your hands on my fucking kid, with (inaudible) little babies around.”

At 7:01 p.m., CW #2 called 911 and said, “Ya, I’ve called four times now.” He confirmed the address in the area of Keil Drive South and Richmond Street and stated, “I need someone to get out here because someone was going to get hurt if somebody doesn’t get the fuck out here, you guys aren’t understanding that.” Yelling and screaming could be heard in the background. Dispatch asked CW #2 what was happening. He indicated that a fight was about to happen and that the police needed to get there. CW #2 indicated that his girlfriend’s parents already tried to fight him and now his parents were present.

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – WO #2

At 7:06:42 p.m., August 24, 2025, WO #2 arrived at an address in the area of Keil Drive South and Richmond Street. Civilian #1 was out in a cul-de-sac on the phone; walking away from her were the Complainant and another woman. CW #3 and CW #2 stood in the parking lot. WO #4 exited his vehicle and approached the group in front of the address.

At 7:06:59 p.m., WO #2 joined WO #4, and the Complainant and CW #3 approached them. WO #2 told the parties to knock it off and separate.

At 7:07:08 p.m., CW #3 began to move towards a group of people and was approached by the SO and WO #2. The Complainant came up behind the SO, as did CW #2 and CW #1, who had her cell phone in hand appearing to record the incident. CW #3 moved in on the SO and the SO reached out his right arm to create distance. The Complainant reached out and appeared to grab the SO’s left arm or shoulder as WO #2 and CW #3 moved backward in the parking lot. The Complainant then moved in front of the SO. The Complainant and the SO were now holding each other’s arms and grappling with each other. The Complainant struggled to break free. CW #1 and CW #2 move in closer behind the SO. WO #2 went to assist the SO in arresting and handcuffing the Complainant.

At 7:07:40 p.m., WO #4 was engaged in holding CW #3 and CW #1 back, and WO #3 was engaged with CW #2.

At 7:08 p.m., WO #4 walked back into view with CW #2 handcuffed. The SO walked the Complainant back to his vehicle.

At 7:13 p.m., WO #4 and WO #2 spoke to CW #2. Some of the conversation was captured on WO #2’s microphone. CW #2 was explaining what had transpired prior to police arrival.

At 7:16 p.m., CW #2 advised WO #4 that he did not intend to proceed with charges against his girlfriend’s family for assault.

At 7:21 p.m., the Complainant could be seen returning to the scene having been released, followed by WO #5. The Complainant was limping.

At 7:22:02 p.m., the Complainant returned to the group, and the entire crowd converged as the officers and other parties gathered. The Complainant was visibly upset. WO #2 said, “You was all cooperative in the car and now you was trying to fire this thing up again.”

At 7:23:26 p.m., the SO and WO #3 left the area. The Complainant was heard telling WO #2 that she wanted the videos and that the CKPS would hear from her lawyer. WO #2 spoke to the Complainant about remaining calm as she could have been arrested for obstruction but was released unconditionally instead. He did not understand why she was trying to fire up the disturbance again.

ICC Footage - WO #3 and the SO

At 7:06:52 p.m., August 24, 2025, WO #3 and the SO arrived on scene, and parked behind WO #2’s vehicle. The Complainant was captured reaching out towards WO #4 as WO #2 and the SO approached. A group began to converge on the arriving officers.

At 7:07:31 p.m., the SO emerged from behind a van. He was handcuffing the Complainant behind her back. The officer walked the Complainant back towards the cruiser as WO #5 and WO #1 were arriving. The Complainant could be heard telling the SO that she would be filing charges. The Complainant resisted as the SO was escorting her to a cruiser. He asked her to stop pulling away. She replied, “I just had spinal surgery you dick.” He asked her to stop resisting and just walk to the cruiser. The Complainant said, “You are still pushing me,” and the SO directed her to keep walking. WO #5 walked behind them. The Complainant said, “Don’t push me against the car.”

At 7:08:57 p.m., the Complainant argued with the officers about getting in the vehicle and explained how the officers should place her in the cruiser.

At 7:10:04 p.m., the SO advised the Complainant that she was under arrest for obstruction.

At 7:13:42 p.m., the Complainant said, “Of all the officers Chatham Kent you get the one that manhandles a woman, trying to calmly talk to the officers, who just had spinal surgery. Who grabs me up, doesn’t say anything, aside from that I am obstructing justice, and resisting arrest. Places me in cuffs. Like, I am a nurse, I work for the community, I know it gets recorded in here, so, this was absolutely ridiculous. Your officers were supposed to come in and deescalate, deescalate a situation, not come in balls to the wall, start running around grabbing people, pushing people around. And then putting them in cuffs and pushing them to the door. We called asking for help, your dispatchers, literally said they weren’t coming. Literally said they had better things to do. And then you guys show up here like a fucking task force and start with this crap. I will be filing charges. This was absolutely so unnecessary. And your little blonde officer, with the braces and his Invisalign and fucking elastics on his teeth, should not be a police officer. He should not be a police officer. He was abusive, forceful, unprofessional. You hired all these brand spanking new police officers who just come in rush through full of fucking testosterone. Can I even roll down the window, nope. Just so you know I was rolling down the window, seeing if I could roll down the window, I was not trying to escape. My son calls you guys for help, calls you for help and you tell him he was not important enough. That’s great police work. 107404”

At 7:19:29 p.m., the SO returned to the vehicle, opened the door and asked the Complainant to step out. The Complainant said, “As long as it was not you, I will stay in here, you could take me to the station. I am not dealing with you.” WO #5 returned to the cruiser. The SO advised the Complainant that she was being released unconditionally and that she should not have put her hands on him. There followed a brief argument about what had transpired. The Complainant could be heard giving instructions to WO #5 about helping her from the car.

At 7:21:31 p.m., the Complainant was observed walking away from the cruiser followed by WO #5. The Complainant was now walking with a noticeable limp, favouring her left side.

Cellphone Video Footage - CW #1

The SO was captured handcuffing the Complainant behind the back. WO #2 asked everyone to stop yelling.

Photographs Provided by the Complainant

On March 5, 2026, the Complainant provided SIU with twelve digital photographs of her upper right arm. The photographs depicted faint bruising in the upper arm.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the CKPS between March 5, 2026, and April 8, 2026:

• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report.
• General Occurrence Report
• Police communications recordings
• ICC footage.
• Body-worn camera training records.
• Notes - the SO, WO #1, WO #3, WO #4 and WO #5 and WO #2

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

Records Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between February 26, 2026, and May 1, 2026:

• Photographs provided by the Complainant
• Cellphone video footage from CW #1
• The Complainant’s medical records from Dutton Medical Centre
• The Complainant’s medical records from LHSC

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

In the evening of August 24, 2025, CKPS officers were dispatched an address in the area of Keil Drive South and Richmond Street, Chatham. Civilian #1 had called police to report that her boyfriend – CW #2 – had been assaulted by a family member. Minutes later, further 911 calls were received from CW #2, indicating that his parents were now on scene and that police were required to keep the peace.

Officers, including the SO, arrived on scene – a parking lot outside the address – and approached a group of people. Tempers flared between CW #2 and his parents, on the one side, and Civilian #1’s parents, on the other. Not knowing exactly what was going on, the officers intervened to keep the parties separated and focused their attention on CW #2 and his father, CW #3. Annoyed at her family’s treatment, the Complainant approached the SO from behind and attempted to push him with her right arm. The SO disengaged from CW #3, whom he was pushing away at the time, and took hold of the Complainant’s arms. The Complainant tried to break free of the officer’s hold and CW #3 attempted to intervene to assist his wife. The Complainant was escorted by the SO and another officer a distance away from CW #3 and handcuffed behind the back.

Immediately after her arrest, the SO took hold of the Complainant’s left arm from behind and walked her to his cruiser, where she was placed in the rear seat. The Complainant was subsequently released unconditionally at the scene.

CW #3 was diagnosed with a disc excursion at L4-L5, and underwent surgery for the condition.

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 139 (2), Criminal Code – Obstructing Justice

139(1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,

(a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or

(b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,

is guilty of

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

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Every person who intentionally attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of her arrest by CKPS officers on August 24, 2025. 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 lawfully arrested for obstruction of justice. Having only just arrived at the scene without an understanding of what precisely was happening and who was responsible for what, the officers were within their rights in distancing persons they perceived to be aggressors away from the centre of the disturbance. When the Complainant interfered in that process by physically making contact with the SO, she rendered herself subject to arrest under section 139(2) of the Criminal Code.

The force used by the SO in the Complainant’s arrest was also lawful. This consisted of some manual force to overcome her initial resistance and control her arms behind the back, and a degree of pressure to the Complainant’s left arm as he held and pulled her along at points during the escort to his cruiser. It is alleged that the officer manhandled the Complainant during her arrest and subsequent walk to his vehicle. The ICC footage, however, belies this claim. While the officer perhaps compelled the Complainant forward a little quicker than she would have liked given a pre-existing back condition, the ICC footage falls well short of establishing excessive force.

In the result, while it may be that the Complainant’s injury was incurred in the struggle with the SO, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that it 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 15, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit