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 36-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 22, 2026, at 6:05 a.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On February 21, 2026, at 11:30 p.m., police were called to attend the scene of a motor vehicle collision, involving a Honda Civic, around Dundas Street and Egerton Street. Prior to police arrival, witnesses on scene had observed a lone male driver – the Complainant - retrieve several items from the vehicle and flee the area on foot. Examination of the vehicle revealed blood located on the deployed airbag. While this was happening, the owner of the Honda Civic contacted police indicating her vehicle had been stolen from the Western Fair located at 900 King Street, London, approximately one block from the collision scene. Officers responded to the area, set up containment and initiated an unsuccessful track with a police dog to locate the driver. With the continued assistance of civilian witnesses, however, officers were led to a street in the area of the intersection. There, officers continued their search and located fresh footprints in the snow in the area of a residence on an adjacent street, leading into a rear yard. At 12:11 a.m., February 22, 2026, officers located the Complainant in a detached outbuilding in the rear yard of the residence. The Complainant was arrested at 12:13 a.m. following the use of a conducted energy weapon (CEW) and hand strikes. As the Complainant was brought to his feet, obvious facial injuries were observed. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were summoned at 12:43 a.m., and the Complainant was transported to Victoria Hospital. He was diagnosed at 3:34 a.m. with a fractured nose and fractured right ribs.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/02/22 at 7:55 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/02/22 at 11:30 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Number of SIU Reconstructionists Assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on February 26, 2026

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on February 22, 2026

Subject Officials

SO #1 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; written statement received and reviewed

SO #2 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

The witness officials were interviewed between March 11, 2026, and April 8, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a shed in the backyard of a residential property in the area of the intersection of Dundas Street and Egerton Street, London; and, the intersection of Dundas Street and Egerton Street, London.

Dundas Street was a two-lane, urban road that aligned east-west through downtown London. The speed limit was 50 km/h.

The residential property where the arrest took place was a single-family dwelling with a partially fenced-in backyard. The backyard contained a wooden shed surrounded by grass and covered with snow at the time of the incident under investigation.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – SO #2

During a period of about 80 seconds between 12:12 a.m. and 12:14 a.m., February 22, 2026, the CEW trigger was pulled seven times.

Starting at 12:12:58 a.m., Cartridge 1 through Cartridge 3 were deployed for about five seconds.

Starting at 12:13:06 a.m., Cartridge 4 and Cartridge 5 were deployed for about five seconds.

Starting at 12:13:34 a.m., Cartridge 6 and Cartridge 7 were deployed for about five seconds.

Expert Evidence

A SIU Reconstructionist was asked to review the evidence, including video footage, aerial images of the collision scene, and physical / visual observations of the involved vehicle to determine whether the injuries sustained by the Complainant were consistent with being involved in a motor vehicle collision.

The collision occurred at the intersection of Dundas Street and Egerton Street in London. The speed limit on Dundas Street was 50 km/h. Time and distance calculations using reference points from video footage determined the involved vehicle travelled approximately 50 km/h and slowed to approximately 35 – 45 km/h one second prior to the collision.

On February 27, 2026, a physical examination of the vehicle revealed the airbags to have been deployed. Blood was discovered on the steering wheel airbag. It was unknown if the seatbelt was utilized during the collision. There was deformation to the steering wheel.

The vehicle was equipped with an airbag control module; however, the download of the system was unsuccessful with no data extracted.

The injuries sustained by the Complainant were consistent with the collision dynamics and the expected movement of the driver during the collision. The Complainant would have moved forward and to the left relative to the vehicle’s interior, with the airbag contacting the driver’s face and his torso loading the steering wheel. The blood on the airbag was consistent with the Complainant’s facial injury. The location of the Complainant’s rib fractures (mid-thorax) was consistent with the location of the steering wheel from a driver’s seated position.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

LPS Communications Recordings

On February 21, 2026, at 11:35 p.m., the LPS received a report of a single vehicle collision at Dundas Street and Egerton Street involving a Honda Civic. The driver had reportedly fled on foot. A description of the driver [the Complainant] was provided along with the direction in which he had run.

At 11:41 p.m., an update indicated the Complainant had been observed near two addresses on a nearby street.

At 11:48 p.m., grounds to arrest the Complainant were said to exist for failing to remain at the scene of the collision and possibly impaired driving.

At 11:57 p.m., a police dog unit began tracking for the Complainant.

On February 22, 2026, at 12:02 a.m., it was confirmed that the vehicle had been stolen.

At 12:12 a.m. WO #3 announced that contact had been made with the Complainant in the rear of a residence.

At 12:14 a.m., WO #3 advised that the Complainant was under arrest and requested EMS as the Complainant had been tasered.

At 12:25 a.m., the Complainant was also arrested for impaired driving and transported to Victoria Hospital.

Video Footage – City of London

The camera was situated on the northwest corner of Dundas Street and Quebec Street, which was controlled by a traffic light. A vehicle entered the intersection of Dundas Street and Egerton Street and collided with an indiscernible object. The driver [the Complainant] was observed to flee the scene and head northbound on Egerton Street. After about two minutes the Complainant returned to the vehicle before leaving again.

LPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – SO #2, WO #1 and SO #1

On February 21, 2026, at 11:46 p.m., SO #2 arrived at the residence, where the Complainant was found, with his CEW in a ready position. He called out to the Complainant that a police dog unit would be attending and urged him to surrender. No one responded.

At 12:12 a.m., February 22, 2026, WO #2 and his police dog, and SO #2, attended a shed in the backyard of the residence. WO #2 observed the Complainant inside the shed and ordered him to surrender; the Complainant did not respond. WO #2 and SO #2 instructed the Complainant to show his hands.

At 12:13 a.m., SO #2 opened the shed door, deployed his CEW and pulled the Complainant out of the shed and onto the ground, delivering one punch to his back as he struggled to control him. WO #1 arrived and held the Complainant’s head to the ground while SO #2 delivered a strike to the right side of the Complainant’s torso as he was in a prone position on the ground. SO #2 gave several commands to the Complainant to present his hands. SO #1 arrived, positioned himself on the right side of the Complainant, and instructed him to present his hands but the Complainant did not do so. SO #1 struck the Complainant in the face or upper body with a closed fist three times as SO #2 simultaneously deployed his CEW to his lower back, after which the Complainant released his hands from beneath his body and handcuffs were applied.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the LPS between February 25, 2026, and May 5, 2026:

• Names, badge numbers, call signs, and roles of involved police officers
• Names, contact information and statements of civilian witnesses
• General Report
• Arrest Report
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report
• CEW deployment data
• Third party video footage
• BWC footage
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report
• LPS policies – Use of Force; Arrest and Detention
• Notes - WO #2, WO #1 and WO #3.
• Written statement of SO #1

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources:

• The Complainant’s medical records from Victoria Hospital

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed interviews with the SIU. SO #1 did provide a written statement.

In the late evening of February 21, 2026, LPS officers were dispatched to a motor vehicle accident at the intersection of Dundas Street and Egerton Street. The collision involved a single vehicle that had been stolen moments earlier about a block away. Witnesses to the collision reported that the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle – the Complainant – had fled the area.

The Complainant had run from the site of the collision to a residential street nearby and ultimately made his way to the rear of a property the next street over where he hid in a backyard shed.

A police dog unit was deployed to the area and eventually tracked the Complainant to the shed. SO #2, one of the officers who had been searching for the Complainant, called out to the Complainant but there was no response. The officer eventually opened the door to the shed and told the Complainant to show his hands. When the Complainant, lying on the ground, failed to do so, SO #2 discharged his CEW. As the Complainant cried out in pain, SO #2 dragged him out of the shed, delivering a punch to the torso in the process.

SO #1 and WO #1 arrived on scene and joined in the arrest process. Repeated directions were given to the Complainant to show and release his hands. So #2 struck the Complainant again in the torso and SO #1 punched him in the head or upper body area three times. Following another CEW discharge by SO #2 into the Complainant’s back, his hands were controlled and handcuffed.

The Complainant was seen at hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with a broken nose and three fractured right ribs.

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 diagnosed with serious injuries following his arrest by LPS officers on February 22, 2026. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1 and SO #2 the subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official 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.

With information to believe that the Complainant had stolen a vehicle, crashed it and fled from the scene, and thereafter broken into a shed to hide from police, I am satisfied that SO #2 and SO #1 were within their rights in moving to take him into custody for various criminal offences.

I am also satisfied that there is no evidence to reasonably conclude either subject official used unlawful force in the Complainant’s arrest. The Complainant had fled from police and was actively attempting to conceal himself in a shed not his own. Asked repeatedly to show his hands, he refused. On this record, the officers would have had reason to believe that the Complainant would resist arrest. The use of the CEW and SO #2’s initial punch made sense in the circumstances as a discrete use of force intended to neutralize that risk while officers positioned themselves to physically control the Complainant. The Complainant continued to resist once out of the shed by struggling against the officers’ efforts to control his arms. Given the Complainant’s course of behaviour to that point, the officers had cause to move quickly from attempting to wrestle his arms under control to the use of strikes and, lastly, another CEW discharge, to subdue and handcuff the Complainant.

It remains unclear at the end of the investigation whether the Complainant’s broken nose and ribs resulted from the force used by the subject officials or the motor vehicle collision. In any event, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injuries are attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of either SO #1 or SO #2, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: June 22, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit