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

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 8, 2026, at 9:30 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 8, 2026, at 3:18 p.m., OPP officers responded to an address in rural Lambton County for a reported incidence of violence. Officers located the Complainant and a male person inside the unit, who were subject to conditions not to be in the company of each other. The Complainant became uncooperative and combative with officers when they attempted to arrest her for breaching the condition. She was taken into custody at 3:31 p.m. and transported to the Lambton OPP Detachment. While at the detachment, the Complainant complained of pain to her left foot. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were requested at 5:23 p.m. She was taken to Charlotte Eleanor Englehart Hospital (CEEH), Petrolia, and diagnosed with fractures to two bones in her left foot.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/03/09 at 8:51 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/03/09 at 9:52 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 9, 2026.

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on March 9, 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 7, 2026.

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed ; notes received and reviewed

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

WO #1 was interviewed on March 16, 2026

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around an exterior staircase at the rear of a residence located in rural Lambton County.

Physical Evidence

On March 9, 2026, at 4:15 p.m., SIU forensic services attended the scene at the residence located in rural Lambton County. This was a multi-unit residential property that faced east onto a roadway. One of the units was located on an upper-level at the rear of the building and was accessed by a set of wooden stairs.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On March 8, 2026, at 3:36 p.m., the Complainant asked the SO if she could get her socks, as she did not want to put shoes on without them. The SO told her they were not going to do that, causing the Complainant to express frustration. The SO escorted the Complainant out of the residence while controlling her with his left hand on her upper left arm. The Complainant argued with the SO as they walked down an exterior staircase, turning and twisting her body, and requesting that he let go of her arm. The SO told her to stop while taking control of her with both hands. Near the bottom of the staircase, the Complainant suddenly screamed, “Ah, you fucking ass, you just fucking stepped on me. You actually just fucking stepped on me you fucking idiot.”

At 3:37 p.m., the SO escorted the Complainant to his police vehicle, which was parked on the roadway in front of the residence. As they approached the vehicle, the Complainant stated, “You stepped on my fucking foot that’s already fucked right up.”

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

On March 8, 2026, at 3:38 p.m., the Complainant was placed in the rear of the SO’s police vehicle. She complained that she had mud on her feet.

Another person was also placed in the rear of the police vehicle at 3:57 p.m. The Complainant said to the SO, “You know you broke my fucking foot again, right?” The Complainant then spoke to the other person in the rear of the vehicle about a male person in the residence throwing things around the apartment. Shortly after, the Complainant said, “He fucking twisted my arm good though. I don’t like that cop, that’s why I was a dick to him. They’re always goofs anyway. If you’re a cop, you’re a goof.”

At 4:14 p.m., the SO arrived at the Petrolia detachment.

Communications Recordings & Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

A male called the OPP on March 8, 2026, at 2:39 p.m., asking that a welfare check be done on his son and the Complainant. A video had circulated that his son and the Complainant were fighting during the early hours, and he was aware they had a non-contact order.

The SO was dispatched to the residence in rural Lambton County, followed by WO #1 at 3:02 p.m., and they arrived at 3:18 p.m.

At 3:31 p.m., the SO advised police dispatch that he had a person in custody [a male]. This was followed a minute later with another transmission for another person in custody [the Complainant].

The SO transmitted that a guard would be required at the detachment, and then asked for CPIC[3] information on the female (not the Complainant) in the rear of his cruiser and the CW. He subsequently indicated that they both would be taken into custody for breaching their conditions.

At 5:23 p.m., a sergeant requested EMS as there was a female with an injury to her foot.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between March 8, 2026, and March 12, 2026:

• CAD Report
• Police communications recordings
• General Occurrence Report
• Arrest Report
• BWC footage – the SO and WO #1
• ICC footage – the SO and WO #1
• Notes – WO #1 and WO #2

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from CEEH on April 7, 2026.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, the SO and other police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the afternoon of March 8, 2026, the SO and WO #1 were dispatched to a residence at an address in rural Lambton County. A male had called police to request a welfare check of his son and the Complainant, whom he had reason to believe had been fighting. The caller was also aware that his son and the Complainant were prohibited from being in each other’s company.

The SO and WO #1 arrived at the address and entered the apartment. The caller’s son was arrested for assault. The Complainant was located in a bedroom and arrested by the SO for breach of the non-association condition.

The SO handcuffed the Complainant behind the back and escorted her down an external staircase from the second floor apartment. As the pair neared the bottom of the stairs, the SO stepped on the Complainant’s left foot. The Complainant was not wearing shoes or socks at the time.

The Complainant was seen at hospital after her arrest and diagnosed with a fractured left foot.

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 shortly after her arrest by an OPP officer on March 8, 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 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 angry at the SO as they made their way down the stairs. The officer had prevented her from putting on socks and she, in turn, refused to put on a pair of shoes without socks. The Complainant was also annoyed with how hard the SO was holding her left arm as they descended the stairs, and she let the officer know it. She argued with him to release her arm, twisting and turning her body in the process. It is in this context that the SO is alleged to have intentionally stepped on the Complainant’s left foot. The SO denies that he purposely stepped on the Complainant’s foot. He says that action was accidental, the result of the parties making their way down a narrow staircase. The BWC footage did not capture what was happening with the parties’ legs and feet at the time. On this record, with no reason to believe the allegation of intentional force is any closer to the truth than the SO’s account of what happened, the evidence does not reasonably establish excessive force by the officer.

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

Date: July 2, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit