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 46-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 21, 2026, at 8:32 p.m., the Waterloo Regional Police Service (WRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 21, 2026, at 2:30 p.m., plainclothes officers were at the Canadian Convention Centre parking lot, 79 Bramsteele Road, Brampton, for the purpose of a takedown of known suspects. Officers boxed-in a suspect vehicle and a collision occurred. At 2:55 p.m. the Complainant and another person were arrested. A third suspect fled and was still outstanding. The Complainant was taken to Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH) and diagnosed with a broken femur.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/03/21 at 9:00 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/03/22 at 12:19 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 27, 2026.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on March 22, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on April 13, 2026.

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 on and around the west end of the parking lot of the Canadian Convention Centre, 79 Bramsteele Road, Brampton. The centre was closed at the time of the incident.

Physical Evidence

On March 22, 2026, SIU forensic services attended and processed the scene. The scene was scanned and recorded with a 3D scanner. The following items were collected:

Item 1: Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) probe (with brand name stamped into metal side of probe) found draped over driver side mirror of a black sedan.

Item 2: Collection of CEW wire found on pavement on the driver side and passenger side of a SUV.

Item 3: Collection of thirteen individual yellow and pink CEW discharge)">AFIDs (Anti-felon Identification Disks) found on the ground on the driver and passenger side of the SUV.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data

Two pulse logs were generated. The data plotted in the first trigger pull indicated that over the course of one second, the charge remained at or near zero, while the voltage was near maximum. This suggested a single or no probe connection.

The second pulse log spanned four seconds and indicated the CEW discharging for the first three seconds of deployment. However, the charge weakened after one second, weakened further after two seconds, and was at or near zero after three seconds. This suggested both probes hit the subject and penetrated the skin initially, but the connection did not last.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage from Canadian Convention Centre

Starting at about 2:21 p.m., March 21, 2026, a white pick-up arrived at the Canadian Convention Centre and backed into a parking space located on the west side of the parking lot. Three males were in the vehicle. The driver exited the vehicle followed by the other men, went to the rear of the pick-up, and put the tailgate down.

Some minutes later, a black sedan-type vehicle [now known to be operated by the Complainant] arrived and backed into the space immediately to the driver side of the white pick-up. The occupants of the Complainant’s vehicle did not exit. One of the men from the white pick-up opened the trunk of the Complainant’s sedan, then closed it and returned to the tailgate of the white pick-up where the other men were located.

The Complainant eventually exited his vehicle wearing a yellow and black jacket. He went to where the three men were located at the tailgate of the white pick-up. The Complainant subsequently returned to his vehicle, opened the trunk and removed a black duffle bag, which he placed on the bed of the white pick-up. The Complainant retrieved a couple of other black bags and placed them on the bed of the pick-up, after which he went to the passenger side of his vehicle and talked to the occupant [now known to be the CW].

WRPS unmarked vehicles appeared and boxed-in the white pick-up and the Complainant’s vehicle. A grey SUV [now known to be operated by the SO] stopped at the driver side of the Complainant’s vehicle. A grey pick-up [now known to be operated by WO #2] stopped directly in front of the white pick-up. The Complainant returned to the driver seat of his vehicle and left his trunk open as the SO approached his driver door. The men associated to the white pick-up ran to get back into their vehicle. A black SUV [now known to be operated by WO #1] stopped directly in front of the Complainant’s vehicle. A fourth SUV [now known to be operated by WO #3] approached and stopped directly at the passenger side of the white pick-up.

The Complainant’s vehicle travelled forward and struck WO #1’s and WO #2’s vehicles in front of him. The vehicle then reversed to the curb behind it and stopped, causing its trunk to close. WO #2 moved his pick-up forward directly to the front of the white pick-up. The SO’s vehicle approached the driver side of the Complainant’s vehicle again. The Complainant accelerated forward at the same time as the white pick-up. Both vehicles struck WO #2’s pick-up. The Complainant’s vehicle reversed to the right, struck the white pick-up rear quarter-panel and stopped sideways to the curb. WO #1 and the SO moved their vehicles closer to the Complainant’s vehicle. The Complainant’s vehicle was pinned by the white pick-up behind it, WO #1’s and the SO’s vehicles to the front, and a light standard to the driver side.

The white pick-up moved forward and again struck WO #2’s pick-up, pushing it backward. The pick-up then reversed at a high rate of speed and jumped the curb, travelling onto a grass boulevard and over a small tree. It proceeded to speed forward and strike the front of WO #2’s pick-up again, pushing it backward. The white pick-up eventually pushed past the front of WO #2’s pick-up and escaped the area at a high rate of speed, travelling west out of the parking lot area. The Complainant began to back his vehicle a short distance, at which point it became stuck and could not move. The SO moved his vehicle closer to the front end of the Complainant’s vehicle. WO #3 repositioned his vehicle to the right rear of the Complainant’s vehicle. WO #2 repositioned his vehicle to the passenger side of the Complainant’s vehicle.

The SO went to the driver side door of the Complainant’s vehicle and struggled to open the door. WO #2 went to the passenger side door and removed the male passenger [now known to be the CW.] WO #3 went to the SO’s position and assisted him in trying to open the driver side door. WO #3 and the SO struggled to pull the Complainant from his vehicle. The officers were eventually able to pull the Complainant out of the vehicle, resulting in all three falling onto the grass boulevard. A short struggle between the three occurred before the Complainant was handcuffed to the rear.

Several minutes later, uniformed police officers from the Peel Regional Police (PRP) arrived on scene.

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) arrived on scene at about 3:14 p.m.

Civilian Cellular Telephone Video Footage

A white pick-up truck was captured nose-to-nose with a grey pick-up. The grey pick-up driver side door was open, and the driver seat occupied by WO #2. The brake lights of the grey pick-up were activated. A dark SUV [now known to have been operated by WO #3] was positioned nose first up to the white pick-up’s front passenger door. The white pick-up began to travel forward and struck the grey pick-up. WO #1, out of his vehicle on the driver side of the white pick-up, pointed his hands forward. WO #2 stepped up in the open door of his pick-up and pointed an object at the front window of the white pick-up. The white pick-up reversed at a high rate of speed and climbed over a curb of the parking lot onto a grass boulevard and stopped. Front end damage to the white pick-up was observed. The SO retreated to the passenger side of the grey pick-up. The white pick-up travelled forward quickly and struck the front end of WO #2’s pick-up, pushing it backward with significant force. The SO ran backward to escape the path of the oncoming vehicles. WO #2 applied his brakes in an apparent attempt to pin the white pick-up and prevent it moving forward. The white pick-up pushed WO #2’s pick-up back far enough to get past the front end, after it which it left the parking lot area at a high rate of speed.

With the white pick-up clearing the scene, two other vehicles were observed. A dark-coloured sedan [now known to be the Complainant’s vehicle] was sideways against the parking lot curb and against a light standard. A dark SUV [now known to be operated by WO #1] was positioned to the front end of the Complainant’s vehicle. WO #3 repositioned his SUV to the rear passenger corner of the Complainant’s vehicle. WO #2 repositioned his pick-up to the passenger side of the Complainant’s vehicle. The SO and WO #3 approached the driver side of the Complainant’s vehicle. WO #2 approached the passenger side of the Complainant’s vehicle. The CW opened the front passenger door. WO #2 reached into the front passenger and pulled the CW out of the vehicle, placing him up against the hood of his pick-up. WO #1 was present to assist in controlling the CW, who was handcuffed to the back. WO #3 and the SO were eventually joined by WO #2 at the driver side of the Complainant’s vehicle, attempting to remove the Complainant. The Complainant was never seen on video. No strikes or kicks were observed. Indistinct yelling could be heard.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the WRPS and the PRP between March 22, 2026, and April 7, 2026:

• Arrest and Show Cause Reports
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Reports
• Police communications recordings
• Motor Vehicle Collision Reports
• CEW deployment data
• Scene photographs
• Video footage from the Canadian Convention Centre
• Cellphone video footage from witness
• PRP body-worn camera footage – Officer #1 and Officer #2
• Notes –WO #1, WO #3, the SO, Officer #3, Officer #4, Officer #5, Officer #6, WO #2 and WO #4
• Civilian witness statements obtained by WRPS

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from BCH on April 9, 2026.

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

On March 21, 2026, a team of WRPS officers, operating in plainclothes and unmarked vehicles with the Gangs and Hate Crimes Unit, were looking to arrest a group of males suspected in a series of tractor trailer load thefts. One of them - the Complainant – was also subject to a Canada Border Services Agency arrest warrant. The team – WO #2, the SO, WO #1 and WO #3 – tracked the suspects to the area of 79 Bramsteele Road, Brampton, the address of the Canadian Convention Centre. Three had arrived in the area in a pick-up truck, which had reversed into a parking spot against a curb in the last row of parking spaces at the west end of the centre’s parking lot. The Complainant arrived minutes later in a dark-coloured sedan, which he reversed and parked in the space immediately north of the truck. With him in the front passenger seat was the CW.

The officers surveilled the two vehicles and the five males. The Complainant removed items from the trunk of his vehicle and placed them on the bed of the pick-up truck. After a time, WO #2 decided the officers would move in to arrest the suspects. The centre was closed, the parking lot was empty and most of the males were out of the vehicles. The plan was to approach the pick-up truck and Volkswagen in their unmarked vehicles and box them in from the front and sides to prevent the males using them to escape.

On seeing the unmarked police vehicles converging on their location, the males entered their vehicles and tried to drive off. The driver of the pick-up truck moved back and forth on a couple of occasions, pushing the police vehicles in front of him sufficiently back to allow him to escape. The Complainant also drove forward into the police vehicle in front of him, propelling it backwards. He then backed up and accelerated forward again, pushing the police vehicle further back. When the Complainant reversed a second time, his vehicle spun to the right and came to a stop; its driver side had struck a light standard. As this was occurring, the SO had smashed out the driver’s window with his baton and attempted to incapacitate the Complainant through the window with his CEW, but neither of his two discharges were effective.

With the Complainant’s vehicle at rest, the SO and WO #3 struggled to remove the Complainant from the driver’s seat, at least partly because the driver’s door was wedged against the light standard. The Complainant was eventually forced out of the vehicle by the officers and taken to the ground where he was struck several times by the SO and WO #3 before being handcuffed behind the back.

Paramedics attended the scene and transported the Complainant to hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured right femur.

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 WRPS officers on March 21, 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.

With information at their disposal from weeks of surveillance that the Complainant was part of a crime ring involved in the theft of tractor tailer loads, and aware of the immigration warrant, I am satisfied that the SO and the Gangs and Hate Crimes Unit were within their rights in moving to take the Complainant into custody.

As for the force used in the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence does not reasonably establish it was unlawful. The use of the police vehicles to surround the Complainant and his associates made sense as a means of preventing their escape. The officers accomplished this objective carefully; their vehicles were positioned close to the pick-up and Volkswagen but did not make contact with them. The use by the SO of his baton and CEW was also reasonable in the circumstances. The Complainant was endangering the lives of the officers with his attempt to break free of the police blockade and it was imperative that he be neutralized as soon as possible to prevent that harm from materializing. As it turned out, the CEW did not achieve neuromuscular incapacitation, leaving the Complainant able to continue to operate his sedan. The forcible extraction of the Complainant from the vehicle and his grounding were commensurate with the exigencies of the moment. The Complainant had given the officers reason to believe that he was bent on escape, even if it meant putting the safety of the officers in jeopardy. It was imperative that he be promptly taken from the vehicle and placed in a position of disadvantage to remove the threat of the Complainant’s sedan’s continued use as a weapon. The SO kneed the Complainant twice in the lower torso, and WO #3 punched and kneed him twice, following his removal from the vehicle. The officers say the Complainant struggled against their efforts to handcuff him and the blows were necessary to overcome his resistance. I am unable to reasonably conclude that force of this type was excessive in the circumstances. On the other hand, while not mentioning the knees and punches, there is another body of evidence in which it is claimed that the Complainant did not resist on the ground. As there is no reason to believe that this body of evidence is any likelier to be closer to the truth than the accounts proffered by the officers, and some reason to doubt it,[3] there is no basis for proceeding with charges in relation to the knees and punches.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s leg was fractured at some point in the dynamic sequence of events that culminated in his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury is attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the arresting officers. The file is closed.

Date: July 9, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit