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 March 15, 2026, at 6:22 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 14, 2026, at approximately 9:43 p.m., TPS officers stopped a motor vehicle on Jane Street, near Queens Drive. The driver of the vehicle, the Complainant, exited the car and fled on foot. He was chased and arrested in the underground parking lot of an apartment building in the area of Jane Street and Queens Drive. During the interaction, a conducted energy weapon (CEW) was deployed in drive-stun mode.[2] Shortly after the arrest, the Complainant complained of pain to his eye area. He was taken to Humber River Hospital (HRH) to be examined and was found to be without serious injuries. On March 15, 2026, at 5:45 p.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis from the CEW deployment and admitted to the hospital.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/03/15 at 8:02 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/03/15 at 8:20 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 16, 2026.

Subject Officials (SO)

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

SO #2 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on April 1, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the underground parking garage of an apartment building located in the area of Jane Street and Queens Drive, Toronto.

Forensic Evidence

On March 14, 2026, at 9:46:07 p.m., the CEW was armed. Both cartridges were loaded with a status of “ready”. At 9:46:13 p.m., the right arc button was pressed, and electricity was discharged for 0.292 seconds. At 9:46:16 p.m., the right arc button was pressed, and electricity was discharged for 1.50 seconds. At 9:46:17 p.m., the right arc button was pressed, but no electricity was discharged. At 9:46:23 p.m., the right arc button was pressed, and electricity was discharged for 0.194 seconds. At 9:46:37 p.m., the right arc button was pressed, and electricity was discharged for 2.916 seconds. At 9:46:59 p.m., the right arc button was pressed, and electricity was discharged for 0.190 seconds. At 9:47:13 p.m., the CEW was rendered safe.

In summary, the right arc button was pressed six times with electricity discharged five times. These six arc button activations resulted in a total of 4.742 seconds of electricity discharge.

From the pulse graphs, all electrical data showed an average stimulation voltage greater than 2700 volts, which indicated the CEW was consistent with application in drive-stun mode to a conductive source as opposed to arcing through open air.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Video Footage from Apartment Building

On March 14, 2026, at 9:28 p.m., a garage door opened. There were emergency warning lights, which flashed outside as the door opened. A vehicle [operated by the Complainant] travelled into the parking garage and disappeared from camera frame. Behind the Complainant was a marked TPS vehicle [SO #1 and SO #2] with emergency lights activated. The TPS vehicle travelled into the parking garage and disappeared from camera frame.

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage

On March 14, 2026, at 9:41:48 p.m., SO #1 and SO #2 occupied a TPS vehicle [southbound on Jane Street, Toronto]. SO #1 and SO #2 followed a civilian vehicle [the Complainant] as it turned left [eastbound onto Queens Drive] and then left again into a driveway.

At 9:42:13 p.m., SO #1 and SO #2 activated their emergency warning lights as the Complainant was stopped in front of a garage door. The garage door opened and the Complainant drove into an underground parking garage. At the end of the garage ahead of SO #1 and SO #2, the Complainant reversed his vehicle into a parking space. SO #1 and SO #2 followed the Complainant into the garage.

The Complainant had parked beyond a pillar marked with a number on it. SO #1 and SO #2 parked their vehicle in the main laneway between two rows of parked vehicles, in between two numbered spaces. The Complainant exited and walked away from his vehicle in between the two numbered spaces, disappearing from camera view. A police officer exited the vehicle and asked, “Where are you going?” Indiscernible voices were heard from out of camera frame.

At 9:44:33 p.m., the Complainant and the TPS officers re-entered the camera frame as they fell to the ground near the front right corner of the TPS vehicle. SO #1 and SO #2 were on top of the Complainant and appeared to pin him to the ground. The Complainant’s body position could not be discerned because the camera was obstructed by the A-frame pillar of the police vehicle. SO #1 and SO #2 appeared to struggle with the Complainant’s limbs as he rolled closer to the TPS vehicle. The Complainant attempted to sit up from the ground and SO #2 grappled with him to bring him back to the ground. The Complainant was closer to the TPS vehicle. He was obstructed because he was below the edge of the engine hood and was out of view of the camera. The Complainant yelled for the police officers to stop and said he did nothing wrong.

At 9:46:13 hrs, SO #1 unholstered his CEW and pressed it against an unseen portion [lower back] of the Complainant’s body. SO #1 said, “Stop or I’m going to taze you.” Three seconds later, there was a short audible sound of electrical conduction, which was repeated twice shortly after.

At 9:46:38 p.m., SO #2 looked in the direction of the garage door and said, “Hey! Call 911!” There was a longer sound of electrical conduction. The Complainant remained obstructed by the vehicle as SO #1 and SO #2 were on top of him. There was another short sound of electrical conduction.

At 9:48:01 p.m., SO #1 called out multiple times to someone unseen in the direction of the garage door, telling them to open the garage door. SO #1 or SO #2 told the Complainant to place his hands behind the back.

At 9:48:51 p.m., WO #1 ran into the camera frame, followed shortly by WO #2.

At 9:49:08 p.m., WO #3 arrived. He appeared to deliver a knee strike to the Complainant, though where the strike connected was not captured on camera. Ten seconds later, WO #4 arrived and never engaged in the struggle. The group of TPS officers appeared to no longer struggle with the Complainant but remained on top of him.

At 9:49:35 p.m., the TPS officers stood up. SO #1 and WO #1 assisted the Complainant to a seated position. The Complainant said, “I didn’t do anything,” and, “Why did you punch me?” SO #1 said, “Why are you fighting with us?” The Complainant said he did not fight. He argued about his arrest for several minutes.

At 9:53:32 p.m., WO #1 and WO #2 assisted the Complainant to an upright position.

At 9:54:34 p.m., the Complainant was placed against the engine hood of the police vehicle. He loudly asked, “Why did you punch me in my fucking eyes? Why? I’m no drug dealer man.” He was placed into the rear seat of SO #1 and SO #2’s police vehicle. A police officer told him an ambulance was on its way.

At 10:02:08 p.m., SO #2 entered the police vehicle. He told the Complainant they would take him outside and adjust his handcuffs, and that paramedics would examine him. The Complainant asked, “Why did you guys kick…why did you…,” before SO #2 interrupted. SO #2 explained they had told the Complainant to stop and cooperate and he refused.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On March 14, 2026, at 9:42:33 p.m., SO #2 sat in the driver’s seat of a police vehicle and SO #1 sat in the passenger seat. The police vehicle travelled into an underground parking garage with emergency lights activated.

At 9:43:01 p.m., SO #1 exited the vehicle. A man [the Complainant] walked adjacent to the police vehicle in the direction of the garage door. The Complainant wore a black jacket with his hands in the front pockets of the jacket. SO #1 asked him where he was headed. The Complainant immediately turned his back to SO #1 and walked towards a nearby wall. SO #1 ran up behind the Complainant and grabbed the back of his shoulders. SO #1 pushed him forwards towards the wall. The Complainant urinated on the wall. SO #1 grabbed the Complainant’s right arm and placed his right hand against the wall then held him by his upper arms. SO #1 asked the Complainant why he had not stopped. SO #2 walked around the back of the police vehicle towards SO #1 and the Complainant. SO #2 said, “Hands up, hands up,” and asked, “Why are you pissing?” The Complainant removed his right hand from the wall and reached towards his groin area.

At 9:43:26 p.m., SO #1 advised that they were wearing BWCs. The Complainant pushed off the wall. The Complainant turned and moved to his left, then turned to his right and away from the wall. SO #1 and SO #2 told the Complainant to place his arms behind the back multiple times. SO #1 brought the Complainant’s right hand behind the back. The Complainant said, “No, no, no…” He appeared to break free from SO #1 and SO #2 and took a few steps towards a nearby vehicle. SO #2 grabbed the Complainant around his waist with both arms. SO #1 and SO #2 were in close proximity to the Complainant, which obscured the BWC view. SO #1 grabbed the Complainant by his right leg and pulled him away from the vehicle by his leg. The camera became obscured and, when it became unobscured, the Complainant was still up against the vehicle.

At 9:43:57 p.m., SO #1’s BWC became detached from his vest and fell to the ground. The camera faced towards the ground and the view was completely obscured. The audio continued to record.

At 9:44:32 p.m., SO #2’s BWC became detached from his vest and fell to the ground. The camera faced towards the roof of the underground garage. The audio continued to record. The Complainant was told to “stop” repeatedly. He was told he was under arrest. He was told to get on the floor. The Complainant said, “Stop fucking arresting me man,” and, “Stop doing that.” There were yells from multiple voices, which made it difficult to discern what was said. The Complainant said, “I didn’t do nothing wrong man.” He said, “Please, please, please.”

At 9:46:15 p.m., SO #1 said, “Stop or I’ll taze you.” One second later, there was an audible sound of electrical conduction followed immediately by a verbal pain response from the Complainant. The electrical conduction sound repeated multiple times. The Complainant continued to say, “Stop,” and, “Please.” He said, “I am not resisting arrest.” SO #2 yelled, “Call 911!” There was another longer sound of electrical conduction. SO #1 or SO #2 said, “You’re under arrest.” The Complainant asked, “For what?” SO #1 or SO #2 said, “For fail to stop for police.” There was another short burst of electrical conduction. The Complainant continued to yell.

At 9:47:52 p.m., there was a sound consistent with a strike followed by a verbal pain response from the Complainant. SO #2 told the Complainant to put his hands behind the back. SO #2 said, “I’m going to punch you in the face again.” The Complainant complained that he had been punched.

At 9:48:00 p.m., SO #1 yelled at someone to “open the garage”. The Complainant yelled, “Don’t open the garage.”

At 9:48:33 p.m., WO #1 and WO #2 arrived outside the garage door in a police vehicle.

At 9:48:36 p.m., the garage door opened. WO #1 ran into the garage and past an unidentified civilian. The Complainant was in a prone position with SO #2 on top of his upper body as SO #1 held the Complainant’s legs. WO #1 grabbed the Complainant by the left side of his body. WO #1’s BWC became obscured due to the proximity with the Complainant. When it became unobscured, WO #1 held the Complainant’s left arm at the Complainant’s left side. WO #2 arrived and held the Complainant’s left leg.

At 9:49:10 p.m., WO #3 arrived and delivered a knee strike to the Complainant’s left side, then kneeled on top of him.

At 9:49:32 p.m., SO #1 handcuffed the Complainant. SO #2 said, “He’s a big boy, you want two cuffs?” The Complainant complained he had been beaten up. He sounded out of breath. He insisted he was not a drug dealer. He complained he had been punched in the face. SO #2 said, “Yea I know I did, I did punch you. You resisted arrest.”

At 9:54:50 p.m., the Complainant was searched and nothing was located.

At 9:58:47 p.m., WO #1 searched around the Complainant’s vehicle with a flashlight. Nothing was located.

TPS Communications Recordings

On March 14, 2026, at 9:42:46 p.m., a police officer [SO #2] advised he was at an address in the area of Jane Street and Queens Drive because he had attempted to pull a vehicle over. The vehicle had travelled into a parking garage and did not stop. It was stopped in a numbered parking space.

At 9:43:02 p.m., the dispatcher asked for clarification from SO #2 and there was no response.

At 9:43:26 p.m., the dispatcher asked for clarification again and there was no response.

At 9:43:36 p.m., the dispatcher requested that an additional unit attend the address.

At 9:44:07 p.m., the dispatcher advised that radio transmissions from SO #2 were not successful. The dispatcher repeated this transmission multiple times.

At 9:45:05 p.m., an unidentified police officer advised that SO #2 and SO #1 were likely underground.

At 9:46:26 p.m., the dispatcher again requested additional units to attend the address because SO #2 and SO #1 had “just set off their priority”.

At 9:48:37 p.m., the dispatcher advised additional units were at the garage door but could not enter the garage.

At 9:48:54 p.m., a police officer advised there was a person [the Complainant] in custody.

At 9:50:45 p.m., a police officer requested an ambulance for the Complainant because he had a small cut on his forehead.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following records from the TPS between March 16, 2026, and June 7, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• BWC footage
• ICCS footage
• Police communications recordings
• TPS Use of Force Policy
• Notes – SO #1, SO #2, WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4
• CEW deployment data – SO #1
• Toxicology Results and Letter of Opinion prepared by Centre of Forensic Sciences
• Video footage from apartment building
• Involved Officer List

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between March 23, 2026, and June 1, 2026:

• CEW Master Instructor Report from York Regional Police (YRP)
• The Complainant’s medical records from HRH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes.

In the evening of March 14, 2026, SO #2 was on patrol operating a marked cruiser. His passenger and partner was SO #1. At about 9:41 p.m., the officers began to follow a vehicle for failing to stop at a red light before making a right turn onto Jane Street and heading south. The vehicle quickly turned left into an apartment complex and then left again onto a ramp to the underground parking for a building situated in the area of Jane Street and Queens Drive. The cruiser, its emergency lights activated while stopped behind the vehicle, followed the vehicle as the entry gate rose and the garage door opened.

The Complainant was driving the vehicle. He continued down a lane between rows of parking spaces, reversed into a parking spot and exited his vehicle. He was immediately confronted by SO #1 asking where he was going. The officers had stopped their cruiser short of the vehicle in the lane. The Complainant walked past the officers and towards a wall, against which he began to urinate. He was pinned against the wall by SO #1 while he continued to relieve himself, after which he began to struggle against both officers as they tried to control his arms behind the back. The Complainant was told he had failed to stop for police.

The parties struggled for about five minutes. With the assistance of additional officers, the Complainant was handcuffed and taken into custody. He had been forced to the ground, punched twice in the head by SO #2 and drive-stunned multiple times in the back by SO #1.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis, which was attributed to trauma and the use of the CEW.

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 320.17, Criminal Code - Flight from peace officer

320.17 Everyone commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel while being pursued by a peace officer and who fails, without reasonable excuse, to stop the motor vehicle or vessel as soon as is reasonable in the circumstances.

The Complainant was diagnosed with a serious injury following his arrest by TPS officers on March 14, 2026. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1 and SO #2 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 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.

When the Complainant failed to stop for SO #2 and SO #1 after they activated their emergency lights, and instead continued into the garage and parked his vehicle, he provided the officers a basis to arrest him for failure to stop for police contrary to section 320.17 of the Criminal Code.

With respect to the force used by the officers in the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence does not reasonably establish that it was excessive. The Complainant struggled against the officers’ efforts to place him in handcuffs immediately after he had urinated. The parties wrestled with each other on their feet for a period until the officers, reasonably in my view, forced the Complainant to the ground. In that position, the officer could expect to better manage any continuing resistance by the Complainant. The Complainant did, in fact, continue to resist. Despite their greater number, the Complainant was able to partially lift himself off the ground and prevent his arms from being brought behind the back. In the circumstances, the officers were within their rights in escalating their use of force and did so by drive-stunning and punching the Complainant. The Complainant seemed impervious to the former, even talking through the application of the CEW at points. The punches struck by SO #2 to the head hurt the Complainant but were still not enough to subdue him. It was only with the arrival of additional officers, including one who delivered a knee to the Complainant’s back, that the Complainant was controlled and handcuffed. On this record, it would appear that the quantum of force brought to bear by the police was commensurate with the extent of the Complainant’s opposition.

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

Date: July 9, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit