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 31-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 17, 2026, at 6:27 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 17, 2026, a police officer was on patrol when he observed a stolen vehicle with one occupant parked at 1785 Queen Street East, Brampton. Two police officers approached the vehicle and arrested the Complainant, removing him from the vehicle and placing him on the ground. The Complainant’s face struck the pavement in the process. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) transported him to William Osler Health System - Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH) where he was diagnosed with a nasal bone fracture.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/03/17 at 6:40 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/03/17 at 8:54 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 17, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between March 17 and 23, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on March 29, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a vehicle parked in the parking lot of the plaza located at 1785 Queen Street East, Brampton.

1785 Queen Street East, Brampton, was a multi-unit commercial strip plaza with on-site parking and a pedestrian walkway servicing the store fronts.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage from Hasty Market

On March 17, 2026, starting at 10:52 a.m., a Jeep Wrangler [now known to be driven by the Complainant] parked in front of Hasty Market. A man [now known to be CW #1] exited through the passenger door and entered the store.

Starting at 11:06 a.m., a police vehicle [now known to be driven by the WO] stopped briefly at the back of the Jeep, before reversing into a parking spot and parking. The WO subsequently drove away.

Starting at 11:11 a.m., the WO returned. He reversed into a parking spot and parked.

Starting at 11:13 a.m., the WO pulled in behind the Jeep and stopped as the SO parked on the passenger side. The SO approached the front passenger window of the Jeep and held an object against the window. The SO subsequently ran to the driver’s door, opened it and pulled on the Complainant. He repeatedly punched the Complainant using his right hand. The WO and the SO removed the Complainant from the vehicle and placed him on the ground. The Complainant was pulled away from the vehicle where a struggle appeared to take place. The SO punched the Complainant on the right side of the torso before he was forced onto his stomach and handcuffed.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The WO

On March 17, 2026, starting at 11:14 a.m., the WO was operating a police vehicle and stopped behind a Jeep Wrangler that was parked in front of Hasty Market. The WO approached the front driver’s door where the SO was engaged in a struggle with the Complainant, who was seated in the driver’s seat. The SO punched the Complainant with his right fist four times striking the left side of his face/body. The Complainant covered the left side of his face using his left hand while holding the steering wheel with his right. As he was removed from the vehicle by the SO and the WO, the SO punched him with his right fist once striking the left rib area. The Complainant was pushed to the pavement and rolled with the front of his body facing the pavement. He was told to put his hands behind his back. The Complainant positioned his arms under his body and resisted the police officers’ efforts to force him flat onto the pavement. The Complainant was eventually handcuffed.

PRP Communications Recordings

On March 17, 2026, starting at 11:15 a.m., the SO advised the PRP Communications Centre that the Complainant was in custody for possession of a stolen vehicle. An ambulance was required.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PRP between March 17, 2026, and April 22, 2026:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Civilian Witness List
• Occurrence Details Summary
• Incident Details Summary
• Police communications recordings
• BWC footage
• Scene photographs
• Notes - the SO and the WO
• PRP policy - Incident Response

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between March 20, 2026, and April 24, 2026:

• Video footage from Hasty Market
• The Complainant’s medical records from BCH.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police witnesses, 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. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the morning of March 17, 2026, the WO was a Community Intervention Response Team (CIRT) officer on patrol in his marked cruiser when his Automatic Licence Plate Recognition (ALPR) device detected a stolen vehicle - a Jeep Wrangler - parked outside the Hasty Market, 1785 Queen Street East, Brampton. The officer radioed for the assistance of another officer.

The SO responded to the request and arrived in the area. Notwithstanding the tinted windows on the Jeep, it was determined that there was a male in the driver’s seat of the vehicle. The WO positioned his cruiser directly behind the Jeep to prevent its escape as the SO went to the driver’s door and opened it. His intention was to arrest the driver.

The Complainant was sitting in the Jeep and gripped the steering wheel with his right hand as the SO, joined shortly by the WO, attempted to forcibly extricate him. The SO delivered several punches to the Complainant’s head and upper body area. The Complainant was forced out of the vehicle, taken to the ground and punched again in the abdomen by the SO before he was handcuffed behind the back.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a broken nose.

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 354(1), Criminal Code - Possession of Property Obtained by Crime

354 (1) Every one commits an offence who has in his possession any property or thing or any proceeds of any property or thing knowing that all or part of the property or thing or of the proceeds was obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from

(a) the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment; or

(b) an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence punishable by indictment.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by PRP officers on March 17, 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 their disposal that the Complainant was in the driver’s seat of a stolen vehicle, the SO and the WO were within their rights in moving to take him into custody for possession of stolen property under section 354 of the Criminal Code.

With respect to the force used in the Complainant’s arrest, I am unable to reasonably conclude it was excessive and, therefore, unlawful. There is a version of events proffered in the evidence in which the Complainant was immediately attacked by the SO, and that he was repeatedly punched by the officer even though he offered no resistance. That evidence, however, is contested by a third-party non-police witness, who says that the Complainant resisted the SO as the officer tried to remove him from the vehicle. It is also at odds with the video evidence, which suggests that the Complainant gripped the steering wheel with his right hand as the SO was attempting to pull him from the driver’s seat. The SO, in his notes of the incident, acknowledges that he punched the Complainant several times to the face. He says he did so because the Complainant struggled against his efforts to remove him and, concerned from his experience that the Complainant might put the vehicle in gear to get away, he felt there was a need to quickly overcome the Complainant’s resistance. According to the SO, in evidence that finds support in the video footage of the incident, the Complainant was resisting on the ground when the officer punched him in the torso. On this record, the quantum of force used by the SO would appear commensurate with the exigencies of the situation given the Complainant’s resistance and the need to quickly take him into custody. As there is no reason to prefer the incriminating version of events as closer to the truth than the opposing body of evidence, and some reason to doubt it, 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.

There was evidence of possible misconduct on the part of the SO in contravention of sections 10, 19 and 27 of the Police Code of Conduct. The SO had ample opportunity to activate his BWC prior to approaching the driver’s door of the Jeep but failed to do so, only turning it on after the Complainant had been removed from the vehicle. His failure to do so meant the SIU investigation was without benefit of the best evidence of what transpired in the Jeep. I will be referring this matter to the PRP for their review. Further to the SIU’s legal obligation under section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, I will also be referring the matter to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: July 9, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit