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 injuries of a 35-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 1, 2026, at 9:37 p.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 1, 2026, the OPS was advised that two members of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Central Bail Compliance Team were in the Ottawa area conducting surveillance on a residence in which a male, the Complainant, was wanted on warrants for Fail to Comply and Fail to Attend Court. The OPP, operating in plain clothes attire, requested assistance from OPS uniform officers in the event the Complainant was located and arrested. The OPP initiated surveillance on the home in the area of Elgin Street and Somerset Street West, Ottawa, which was where the Complainant was believed to be staying. OPS uniform officers from the Warrant Apprehension Team were present in the area. At 3:39 p.m., members of the OPP communicated to the OPS officers that the Complainant was observed to have exited the residence. He was said to be on foot and walking eastbound on Street #1, then northbound on Street #2 approaching Street #3. It was there that OPS officers approached the Complainant and arrested him for the outstanding warrants, handcuffing his hands behind the body. The Complainant initially provided false identification to the officers, but further investigation confirmed his identity. At 3:49 p.m., as officers continued to search the Complainant prior to placing him in the rear of a police vehicle, he broke free and fled southbound on Street #2. Officers pursued him on foot for a short distance. As his hands were cuffed behind the back, the Complainant had difficulty moving quickly. He was observed to lose his footing and fall onto Street #2. An officer approached from behind and was believed to have also lost his footing, causing him to fall on top of the Complainant. Emergency Medical Service were summoned to the location because of a head injury to the Complainant. At 4:17 p.m., the Complainant was transported to The Ottawa Hospital - Civic Campus (OHCC) and diagnosed with a skull fracture, brain bleed and nasal fracture.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/04/02 at 7:41 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/04/02 at 9:12 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on April 2, 2026.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on April 13, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

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

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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between April 15 and 16, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around an intersection in the area of Elgin Street and Somerset Street West, Ottawa.

The scene was a busy urban commercial area with substantial pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The roadway consisted of paved asphalt with concrete sidewalks on both sides of the street.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPS Communications Recordings

At 3:44:25 p.m.,[3] April 1, 2026, WO #2 requested that patrol units attend the area of Street #2 and Street #3.

At 3:50:36 p.m., WO #2 advised dispatch that the suspect “took off from us then fell, unconscious and bleeding from the head”.

At 4:17:37 p.m., WO #2 radioed that she was transporting the suspect to hospital.

Video Footage - Retail Business on Street #2

The camera was positioned on the east side of Street #2, just south of Street #3, facing the intersection.

A large van [OPS vehicle] was captured stopped at the northwest corner of Street #2 and Street #3. For a period, the camera’s view was obstructed by a northbound OC Transpo bus. After the bus departed, a marked OPS cruiser was observed travelling north on Street #2 before turning west onto Street #3 and leaving the camera’s field of view.

At 3:23:12 p.m., the Complainant emerged from behind the van and ran eastbound before turning southbound on Street #2. He appeared to be handcuffed behind the back. Two OPS officers were immediately behind him in pursuit, with a third officer following a short distance behind. One officer caught up to the Complainant and grabbed his right arm, causing both the officer and the Complainant to fall to the ground. The video then captured the officer rolling over the Complainant as they went down. A second officer arrived moments later and assisted in gaining control of the Complainant on the roadway.

At 3:23:22 p.m., the officers lifted the Complainant from the ground and escorted him to the west side of Street #2 onto the sidewalk, where they moved out of the camera’s view.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP and OPS between April 2, 2026, and May 7, 2026:

• CAD Report (OPS)
• Communications recordings (OPS)
• Occurrence / Arrest Report (OPS)
• Notes & Will Says - WO #2, WO #1 and WO #3 (OPS)
• Warrants for Arrest - (OPP)
• Notes - WO #4 and WO #5 (OPP)
• Occurrence / Arrest Report (OPP)

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources on April 18, 2026:

• The Complainant’s medical records from OHCC
• Video footage from retail business on Street #2

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

On April 1, 2026, at the request of the OPP, members of the OPS Warrant Apprehension Team were deployed to assist in the arrest of the Complainant. The Complainant was subject to multiple arrest warrants arising in OPP territory, and was thought to be staying in Ottawa.

The SO and his colleagues, WO #1 and WO #2, were operating an unmarked white van in the area of one of the suspect residences. They were part of the apprehension team prepared to arrest the Complainant in the event he was located. On receiving word that the Complainant had been identified exiting an address on Street #1 and walking north on Street #2, the officers drove to the northwest corner of Street #2 and Street #3 and stopped. As the Complainant approached their location, the SO and WO #1 exited the van and took him into custody without incident.

The Complainant was handcuffed behind the back and escorted to the passenger side of the van. While being searched by the officers, the Complainant broke free and fled. He ran east on Street #3 around the rear passenger side corner of the van and then south on Street #2. The SO and WO #1 followed in foot pursuit, the former grabbing hold of the Complainant’s right arm just south of the Street #3 intersection. He and the Complainant tumbled to the ground.

The Complainant suffered facial fractures in the fall and a brain bleed. He was transported to hospital from the scene in an ambulance.

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 his arrest by OPS on April 1, 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 injuries.

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 subject to multiple arrest warrants, the SO and WO #1 were within their rights in taking him into custody. When the Complainant subsequently attempted to escape custody, the officers had cause to pursue him on foot to re-assert their control over his person.

There is no evidence of any unlawful force having been brought to bear in the course of the officers’ dealings with the Complainant. His initial arrest was uneventful and involved only that force necessary to lay hands on the Complainant and secure him in handcuffs. It is unclear whether the fall leading to the Complainant’s injuries was the result of an intentional tackle by the SO, or the Complainant losing his footing when the officer took hold of his right arm. If the former, I am unable to reasonably conclude that a takedown was uncalled for in the circumstances. The Complainant’s flight from police would have given the SO reason to believe he would physically resist the officers once they caught up to him. Placing him on the ground in a position of disadvantage would position the officers to better deal with that prospect. Nor does it appear on the video footage that the grounding was executed with excessive force. If the latter, the fall is best characterized as the product of the Complainant losing his balance with only minimal force applied by the SO, owing largely to his running away with his arms handcuffed behind the back.

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

Date: July 22, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit