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 44-year-old male (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 18, 2026, at 2:40 p.m., the Timmins Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 11, 2022, at 9:20 a.m., the Complainant contacted a school in Timmins to speak to his son. The school advised they would leave a message for his son. At 9:30 a.m., the Complainant attended the school and stormed past the principal in the hallway, yelling and cursing that he wanted to speak to his son. The school went into a hold and secure mode. At 10:03 a.m., TPS officers attended and arrested the Complainant. TPS officers brought the Complainant’s arm behind the back when he flexed his arm and pulled away. The officers took the Complainant to the ground, and a knee strike was delivered to his side. The Complainant was transported to the detachment and processed. At 11:02 a.m., he was released on an undertaking. On September 2, 2024, the Complainant submitted a complaint to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA). The complaint was not investigated at the time because Mr. Da Luz’s matter was still before the courts. The complaint contained information that the Complainant had sustained broken ribs.

On March 18, 2026, the SIU contacted the Complainant. He advised he had sustained broken ribs from his interaction with TPS officers and would provide documentation.

On March 23, 2026, the Complainant provided medical documentation, which indicated he had been diagnosed with a non-displaced fracture to the posterolateral aspect of the left ninth rib.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/03/24 at 9:02 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/03/24 at 9:28 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

Interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed.

The Complainant was interviewed on March 30, 2026

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between March 30, 2026, and April 1, 2026.

Subject Official

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Official

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on April 3, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the front lobby of a school in Timmins.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Screen Recorded from TikTok

The SIU screen recorded a video from the social media platform TikTok, which was posted to the Complainant’s account. The Complainant was contacted to provide the original video and determine if additional videos existed, but he did not respond to requests. The video was not time or date-stamped. The Complainant edited the video to add overlaid text, which identified the SO and the WO. He also added overlaid text, identifying the purported actions of the SO and WO.

When the video began, the Complainant said he would wait for someone. The SO told the Complainant, “You can’t stay here,” and that he could wait in his vehicle. The Complainant said, “I’ll wait right here man. There’s nothing wrong. I’m just sitting here.” The SO said he would ask one final time. The Complainant did not leave. The SO approached the Complainant on his left side. There was overlaid text which appeared on the video, which read, “Police have control of both of my arms.” The SO directed the Complainant to put his hands behind his back. The Complainant said, “No,” and insisted, “I’m just sitting here.” The camera view became obscured and there were sounds of a struggle. The SO said, “Stop resisting,” multiple times. The video of the incident ended after 34 seconds but overlaid text continued to appear. The text read, “Thrown to the ground punched in the face kneed broken ribs”. The text then listed the Complainant’s charges.

TPS Communications Recordings

[On April 11, 2022, at 9:31:36 a.m.[3]], CW #1 called 911. She reported there was an angry parent [the Complainant] refusing to leave the building. The Complainant’s child had refused to see him. The Complainant had been asked to leave three times and would not leave. He screamed at [CW #2]. The school was in lockdown because the Complainant had barged into the school.

The Complainant called 911. He reported he was at a school in Timmins and had been refused access to his son by the school. The dispatcher directed him to wait outside for police officers to arrive. He said he would wait in the “public lobby” and terminated the phone call.

At 9:37:23 a.m., the SO arrived.

At 9:40:53 a.m., the WO arrived.

At 10:03:21 a.m., the Complainant was in custody.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between March 25, 2026, and June 16, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report
• Notes – the WO
• Witness statements – CW #1 and CW #2
• Use of Force Policy
• Use of Force training records – the SO
• Police communications recordings

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between March 24, 2026, and April 30, 2026:

• Medical records from the Complainant
• Video screen recorded from TikTok

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

In the morning of April 11, 2022, the SO and the WO were dispatched to a school in Timmins. The school secretary had called police to report a disturbance in the front lobby involving the Complainant. The Complainant had arrived at the school demanding to see his son. Told that his son did not want to see him and that he had to leave, the Complainant refused to do so.

The SO and the WO arrived in the lobby and spoke to the Complainant, directing him to leave the premises. They told him he would be arrested if he refused to vacate the area. The Complainant made it clear he was not going to leave and the officers told him he was under arrest. The Complainant was forced to the floor and handcuffed to the back.

The Complainant was transported to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with a left-sided rib fracture.

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 2(1), Trespass to Property Act - Trespass an offence

2 (1) Every person who is not acting under a right or authority conferred by law and who,

(a)without the express permission of the occupier, the proof of which rests on the defendant,

(i) enters on premises when entry is prohibited under this Act, or

(ii) engages in an activity on premises when the activity is prohibited under this Act; or

(b)does not leave the premises immediately after he or she is directed to do so by the occupier of the premises or a person authorized by the occupier,

is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000.

Section 9, Trespass to Property Act - Arrest Without Warrant On Premises

9 (1) A police officer, or the occupier of premises, or a person authorized by the occupier may arrest without warrant any person he or she believes on reasonable and probable grounds to be on the premises in contravention of section 2.

(2) Where the person who makes an arrest under subsection (1) is not a police officer, he or she shall promptly call for the assistance of a police officer and give the person arrested into the custody of the police officer.

(3) A police officer to whom the custody of a person is given under subsection (2) shall be deemed to have arrested the person for the purposes of the provisions of the Provincial Offences Act applying to his or her release or continued detention and bail.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on April 11, 2022. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, identifying the SO as 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.

I am satisfied that the Complainant was subject to arrest under sections 2 and 9 of the Trespass to Property Act. He had been asked multiple times to leave the premises and steadfastly refused to do so.

I am also satisfied that the evidence does not reasonably establish the use of unlawful force by the SO in the Complainant’s arrest. There is a version of the evidence in which the Complainant was forced to the floor and struck multiple times by the SO even though he did not resist arrest. That narrative, however, is contested by the WO’s account and the civilian witness evidence, which indicates that the Complainant physically resisted arrest on his feet and on the floor. On this body of evidence, the officers had cause to ground him when he tensed up and made a fist on being told he was under arrest. In that position, the SO and the WO could expect to better manage any further resistance. The Complainant did, in fact, struggle on the floor against the officers’ efforts to control his arms, and was met with a knee strike to the torso by the SO, after which he was handcuffed. I am unable to reasonably conclude that a knee strike in these circumstances constitutes excessive force. As there is no reason to believe that the one version of the evidence is likelier to be closer to the truth than the countervailing evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Complainant’s injury is attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the SO.

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