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 27-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 21, 2026, at 10:24 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 20, 2026, at 9:42 a.m., officers were dispatched to a call regarding a motor vehicle collision at Heritage Drive and Patricia Street in Rockland. The driver [now known to be the Complainant] of an involved vehicle [now known to be a grey 2021 Mercedes SUV] had been in two separate collisions, leaving both scenes. At 9:50 a.m., an officer [now known to be Witness Official (WO) #1] conducted a stop of the Complainant’s vehicle. The Complainant displayed signs of intoxication and refused to identify himself. WO #1 attempted to remove the Complainant from the SUV, at which point a struggle ensued. The Complainant grabbed WO #1 by the neck and attempted to trip him, pushing him into traffic. WO #1 fell back and struck his knee. A second officer [now known to be the Subject Official (SO)] attended and punched the Complainant in the face, and he fell to the ground. The Complainant was subsequently handcuffed. At 10:10 a.m., Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called, and the Complainant was transported to Hôpital Montfort. X-rays revealed that the Complainant had sustained a fracture of the right orbital bone. He received treatment, consisting of three sutures above the right eye, and was discharged back to the custody of the OPP.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/03/21 at 11:40 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/03/23 at 8:30 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 23, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Not interviewed [OPP statement reviewed]

CW #1 was interviewed on May 6, 2026.

Subject Official

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

The subject official was interviewed on May 17, 2026.

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #1 was interviewed on March 31, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the westbound lane of County Road 17, about half-a-kilometre west of the roadway’s intersection with Carmen Bergeron Street, Rockland.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPP Communications Recordings – 911

On March 20, 2026, at 9:41:10 a.m., a grey four-door BMW [grey Mercedes SUV] was reported driving erratically and striking a “No Parking” sign in front of an address on Patricia Street before turning onto Julie Street. The caller stated she had to pull into a driveway to avoid being struck and provided a licence plate for the vehicle in question.

A second witness, CW #2, described the vehicle as “silver-bluish” with significant damage to the front passenger side. She noted it was travelling too fast to confirm the plate. From St. Patrick Catholic School, CW #2 had observed the vehicle speeding along Heritage Drive, heard a crash after it turned onto Patricia Street, and later saw the driver stop mid-block on Julie Street and exit to inspect the damage. He continued northwesterly on Heritage Drive towards the Ultramar while swerving and skidding.

At 9:45:13 a.m., CW #1 called 911 and said she had seen a vehicle, travelling at a high rate of speed, strike a fencing, reverse out, and then skid down the roadway.

OPP Communications Recordings – Radio

On March 20, 2026, at 9:44:27 a.m., Rockland OPP dispatched units for an incident involving a motor vehicle collision and a fail to remain at the scene of an accident. The OPP had received three calls in which the initial description of the vehicle was a grey BMW sedan [now known to be a grey Mercedes SUV]. The SUV had left on Julie Street, swerving on the road. The caller thought the driver had hit a sign and other objects. There was damage to the front bumper, and a portion of the bumper was missing. The SUV had travelled down Saint Jacques Street and hit a fence on Heritage Drive.

At 9:50:35 a.m., WO #1 radioed that he saw the vehicle matching the description heading west on County Road 17. WO #1 requested backup.

At 9:52:15 a.m., WO #1 radioed that he was headed west on County Road 17, past the OPP detachment.

At 9:53:35 a.m., the SO radioed that he and WO #1 had fought with the Complainant. There was a knife on the ground, and the officers were going to search him.

At 9:55:10 a.m., WO #3 radioed that they had the Complainant in custody for impaired driving and requested EMS for a cut above his eye.

At 9:58:20 a.m., the dispatcher confirmed the SUV was not stolen.

At 10:05:27 a.m., the SO radioed that all three officers were going to Hôpital Montfort. At that time, the Complainant screamed and was aggressive.

At 10:15:33 a.m., WO #1 rode with the Complainant in the ambulance while the SO followed.

At 10:22:35 a.m., the SO advised WO #2 that the Complainant had sustained a cut to his eyelid and would require sutures.

OPP In-car Camera (ICC) Footage - WO #1’s Cruiser

On March 20, 2026, at 9:49:47 a.m., WO #1 was travelling eastbound when he passed the Complainant, operating a SUV, westbound on County Road 17. The vehicle displayed visible damage to its right front side. WO #1 immediately conducted a U-turn and followed the vehicle westbound on County Road 17. Within seconds, the officer activated his emergency siren.

At 9:50:33 a.m., the SUV pulled over to the right curb, and WO #1 stopped behind it. WO #1 requested backup.

At 9:50:38 a.m., the SUV driver’s door opened, and the Complainant peered out. WO #1 radioed he was westbound on County Road 17.

At 9:50:54 a.m., WO #1 said, “Stay in your car,” and walked towards the SUV.

At 9:51:07 a.m., WO #1 stood at the open driver’s door and faced the Complainant.

At 9:51:11 a.m., WO #1 used his left hand to reach into the driver’s side.

At 9:52:01 a.m., WO #1 reached into the driver’s door as a police cruiser [the SO] entered the left camera frame with its lights and siren activated. The cruiser came to a stop in a northwest direction, obstructing the westbound lane of the highway.

At 9:52:02 a.m., WO #1 pulled the Complainant out of the vehicle and held his upper body with both hands. Simultaneously, the Complainant placed both hands on WO #1’s upper body. The Complainant used his right leg to strike WO #1’s left leg. WO #1 used a right knee to strike the Complainant’s torso.

At 9:52:05 a.m., the Complainant used both hands to grab WO #1’s left leg and WO #1 went down onto his right knee. WO #1 used his right hand to grab the back of the Complainant’s left thigh, and he pushed him forward towards the SUV. The SO rounded the driver’s side of his cruiser and ran towards them.

At 9:52:08 a.m., the Complainant and WO #1 slid onto the asphalt next to the SUV. The SO, positioned over WO #1 and the Complainant, used his right hand to punch towards the Complainant’s face six times. The first punch missed the Complainant and appeared to hit the left side of the SUV. An officer shouted, “Stop resisting.” WO #1 and the SO rolled the Complainant onto his stomach.

At 9:52:19 a.m., the SO used his right hand to push the Complainant’s head to the ground as he and WO #1 shouted for the Complainant to give them his hands. The SO laid his upper body across the Complainant’s upper back. The officers secured the Complainant’s hands behind the back.

At 9:53:09 a.m., WO #3’s cruiser entered the left camera frame and stopped in the westbound lane. He walked over to the officers and the Complainant.

OPP Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - WO #1 & The SO

On March 20, 2026, at 9:50:03 a.m., WO #1 announced on the radio he saw the suspect vehicle travelling westbound on County Road 17 and requested backup.

At 9:50:55 a.m., WO #1 exited his cruiser and said to the driver: “Stay in your car.” The Complainant sat in the driver’s seat with the door open. WO #1 approached the driver’s side door, and the Complainant asked him what was going on. WO #1 asked the Complainant for his driver’s licence.

At 9:51:08 a.m., WO #1 asked the Complainant to exit the vehicle and the Complainant asked what was going on. WO #1 told the Complainant the vehicle was reported stolen and used his left hand to reach forward to try to grab hold of the Complainant’s left arm. The Complainant leaned back and said, “No, it’s not, don’t fucking touch me,” as he held his left index finger in the air.

At 9:51:14 a.m., WO #1 told the Complainant he was being detained. The Complainant said, “Let me get my camera.” The Complainant asked WO #1 if his BWC was on. WO #1 confirmed it was and directed him to get out of the vehicle.

At 9:51:33 a.m., WO #1 asked the Complainant how his front bumper was damaged. The Complainant said, “It got damaged,” and WO #1 said it was damaged because of a hit and run. The Complainant shouted, “Hit and run what?” repeatedly, and WO #1 told him to step out of the vehicle. WO #1 moved forward, and the Complainant shouted repeatedly, “Don’t touch me!”

At 9:52:02 a.m., WO #1 used both hands to hold the Complainant’s left upper jacket sleeve and chest area as the Complainant stood. The Complainant used his right hand to hold WO #1’s left forearm. A struggle ensued and the camera view was obscured.

At 9:52:10 a.m., the Complainant rested on the asphalt on his back.

At 9:52:12 a.m., WO #1 rolled the Complainant to his left side and a voice said, “Stop resisting right now.” Two voices shouted simultaneously, “Put your hands behind your back!”

At 9:52:17 a.m., WO #1 pulled the Complainant’s left arm behind the back. A black belt case with a turquoise handle [box cutter knife] rested on the Complainant’s left side.

At 9:52:20 a.m., the SO used his right hand to push the Complainant’s head to the ground and used his left arm to pull the Complainant’s right arm behind the back. The Complainant screamed and both officers directed him to stop resisting.

At 9:52:26 a.m., the SO leaned over the Complainant’s upper back as WO #1 handcuffed the Complainant’s hands behind his back. The SO said, “You have a fucking knife,” and pointed at the black case on the ground. WO #1 performed a pat down search on the Complainant.

At 9:53:24 a.m., the SO told WO #3 he punched the Complainant because he was fighting with WO #1.

At 9:53:46 a.m., WO #1 and the SO rolled the Complainant to the right. Blood was visible on the ground where his face had rested.

At 9:53:53 a.m., EMS were requested to attend as the Complainant was placed into a right-

side recovery position.

At 9:54:38 a.m., an officer said, “He’s hammered, eh.” An officer replied, “Oh yeah.” WO #1 picked up the black case, pulled out a turquoise box cutter knife, replaced it, and put it on the roof of the vehicle.

At 9:55:50 a.m., the Complainant said, “You punched me in my fucking eye.” The SO replied, “Yes,” and the Complainant said, “And you expect me to stop squirming around.”

At 9:56:09 a.m., the Complainant said, “So what did I do?” The SO said, “You were resisting, you were fighting an officer on the 17, there’s a knife on the ground,” and the Complainant interrupted with, “What knife?” The Complainant sat against the rear tires of the SUV.

At 9:57:29 a.m., WO #3 said, “You know you’re under arrest for impaired operation of a conveyance, right?” The Complainant shouted, “No, I don’t, I got kicked in the fucking face.”

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between March 23, 2026, and March 26, 2026:

• General Report
• Occurrence Details Report
• Supplementary Report
• Involved Officers List
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• ICC footage – WO #1, the SO, WO #3 and Officer #1
• BWC footage – the SO, WO #1, WO #3, Officer #2 and WO #2
• Notes – WO #1, WO #3 and WO #2
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report
• Intoxilyzer Report
• Witness statement – CW #2
• OPP photographs of the Complainant’s injuries, damaged fence and SUV

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between March 27, 2026, and May 6, 2026:

• The Complainant’s medical records from Hôpital Montfort
• Cellphone video footage and photographs from CW #1

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

In the morning of March 20, 2026, OPP officers were on the lookout in the Rockland area for a SUV that had reportedly been involved in several collisions and was said to be operated in a reckless manner - speeding, swerving and skidding on the roadway. It had sustained significant damage to the front passenger side.

WO #1 was among the officers responding to one of the collision scenes, travelling east on County Road 17, when he spotted the SUV passing him in the opposite direction. The officer performed a U-turn and accelerated after the vehicle, activating his cruiser’s emergency lights and siren. A short time later, the SUV pulled over to the shoulder of the road and came to a stop. WO #1 stopped a short distance behind the SUV.

The Complainant was driving the SUV and was alone in the vehicle. He opened his driver’s door, observed WO #1 approaching him on foot, and asked the officer what he had done. WO #1 said he was driving a stolen vehicle. The Complainant said the vehicle was not stolen. Told he was being detained for a “hit and run”, the Complainant asked for more information. The Complainant refused to exit the SUV at the officer’s direction and then began to grapple with him on the road when WO #1 dragged him out.

The SO was responding to WO #1’s radio request for backup when he arrived on scene to find WO #1 and the Complainant fighting in the middle of County Road 17. The officer exited his cruiser and ran to the altercation just as WO #1 was bringing the Complainant down against the driver side of the SUV. As the two continued to wrestle each other, the SO threw six punches in the direction of the Complainant’s head. Following the final blow, the Complainant brought his hands to cover his face. He was turned onto his front and handcuffed behind the back.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was seen at hospital and diagnosed with a fractured right orbital bone.

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 OPP officers in Rockland on March 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 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.

With information at his disposal that the Complainant had engaged in dangerous driving, I am satisfied that WO #1 was within his rights in moving to detain the Complainant for investigation. While the officer could have done a better job of explaining to the Complainant why he was being detained, he did enough, in my view, to impress on him that he was being investigated in connection with a series of “hit and run” incidents. WO #1’s direction that the Complainant exit his vehicle was a lawful incident of the officer’s detention authority. Given what he reasonably suspected of the Complainant’s recent driving behaviour, it was imperative that he be removed from the care and control of the SUV. Thereafter, when the SO came upon WO #1 struggling to effect the Complainant’s detention, he was justified in intervening to assist his colleague.

I am further satisfied that neither officer resorted to unlawful force in their dealings with the Complainant. The initial struggle between the Complainant and WO #1 gives rise to no concerns regarding excessive force by the officer. It was in the nature of a fairly even wrestling contest between the two during which the Complainant attempted to trip WO #1 on a couple of occasions and was eventually forced to the ground by the officer. No blows were struck by either party. The six punches attempted by the SO, though significant and causing injury to the Complainant, did not exceed what was reasonably necessary in the circumstances. There was some urgency to subduing the Complainant as soon as possible given their precarious position on live lanes of traffic. The use of sharp manual force to the face had the potential of doing just that without resort to less-lethal weaponry. Of the six blows, it is important to note that at least one missed entirely, and possibly others, and that no further punches were thrown once the Complainant brought his hands up to his face.

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

Date: June 24, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit