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 April 11, 2024, the Complainant notified the SIU via the SIU online complaints form that he had suffered a concussion in an interaction with the Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS).

On April 12, 2024, the SIU contacted the Complainant for further information. The Complainant explained that he had been assaulted by a NRPS officer on February 4, 2024, at 9:15 a.m., at the Richard Pierpoint Park in St. Catharines. During the altercation, his head struck the pavement, causing bleeding. He was transported to the Niagara Health System – Niagara Site (NHS) and subsequently taken for a bail hearing. Upon his release the next day, the Complainant attended Niagara Health – St. Catharines Site and was referred to a specialist. He was informed he had sustained a concussion.

The NRPS was notified of the matter.

On July 29, 2024, based on the SIU’s preliminary inquiries, the Director of the SIU determined that the investigation should be discontinued. The Complainant had refused to provide a statement to the SIU. Based on the information available at the time, including information provided by the NRPS, it was determined that the Complainant’s complaint arose from an incident on February 4, 2024, during which he was arrested and charged with offences under the Highway Traffic Act and the Criminal Code. Following his arrest, the Complainant complained of a headache and was transported to hospital, where he was assessed and released without any documented serious injuries. On the record then available, the SIU Director concluded there was an insufficient evidentiary foundation upon which to proceed with an investigation. Accordingly, the file was closed on the understanding that it could be reopened if the Complainant subsequently decided to cooperate with the SIU.

On October 9, 2025, the Complainant emailed the SIU expressing an interest in providing the SIU a statement. He was overseas at the time and did not return to Canada until December. The Complainant was interviewed by SIU investigators on December 12, 2025, on which date the investigation was reopened.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/12/12 at N/A

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/12/12 at N/A

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on December 12, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Not interviewed; declined

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

The witness officials were interviewed between February 18, 2026, and March 6, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the entrance to Richard Pierpoint Park on Oakdale Avenue, St. Catharines.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

NRPS Communications Recordings & Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

On February 4, 2024, at 9:22 a.m., the SO reported he was with a vehicle for investigation, indicating there were two occupants. The driver, the Complainant, was uncooperative, refusing to roll down his window or unlock the driver’s door. Dispatch requested additional police assistance and confirmed that no medical response was required.

At 9:33 a.m., WO #1 requested background checks on the Complainant, including licence and address. The Complainant was arrested and advised of his rights.

NRPS Booking and Custody Footage

The footage captured a police vehicle arriving in the sally port area at 10:23 a.m., February 4, 2024. The SO appeared to speak with the Complainant at the rear passenger door before guiding him out of the vehicle. The Complainant laid on the ground, and the SO and another officer attempted to lift him up. Two additional officers arrived and assisted the Complainant to his feet before dragging him to the station entrance door. The Complainant was brought into the booking area, where he remained largely uncooperative. He refused to identify himself and stayed on the floor while officers attempted to engage with him. When he refused to stand or walk voluntarily, officers dragged him along the floor from the booking area toward the cells. The Complainant was placed in a cell where he spent several hours lying prone or curled on the floor. Periodic cell checks were conducted by special constables.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the NRPS between January 28, 2026, and April 8, 2026:

• CAD Report
• Police communications recordings
• Custody Record – the Complainant
• Booking and custody footage
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3
• NRPS policies – Use of Force; Powers of Arrest

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between February 4, 2024, and December 12, 2025:

• The Complainant’s medical records from NHS

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police eyewitnesses, 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.

In the morning of February 4, 2024, the Complainant was driving a Toyota Yaris in St. Catharines. With him in the front passenger seat was the CW. They had pulled up to a gate blocking access to Richard Pierpoint Park when a marked police SUV came to a stop behind them. The SO was operating the SUV. The officer was investigating a traffic infraction and asked the Complainant to roll down the window. The Complainant rolled down his window a short distance but kept the door locked, preventing the officer opening it. There was a verbal exchange between the two regarding the Complainant’s identification. Additional officers began to arrive after the SO radioed that he was dealing with an uncooperative driver. One of the officers – WO #3 – managed to reach into the vehicle and unlock its doors when the CW lowered her window. The SO used the opportunity to open the driver’s door. The Complainant was advised that he was under arrest for having failed to identify himself.

The Complainant exited the Toyota and was forced to the ground by the officers. He was handcuffed behind the back and transported to the station. At hospital later that day, the Complainant was examined and found not to have suffered serious injury.

Following his release from custody, the Complainant sought additional medical care and was diagnosed with a concussion.

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 33(3), Highway Traffic Act - Identification on Failure to Surrender Licence

33 (3) Every person who is unable or refuses to surrender his or her licence in accordance with subsection (1) or (2) shall, when requested by a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act, give reasonable identification of himself or herself and, for the purposes of this subsection, the correct name and address of the person shall be deemed to be reasonable identification.

Section 217(2), Highway Traffic Act - Arrests without Warrant

217 (2) Any police officer who, on reasonable and probable grounds, believes that a contravention of any of the provisions of subsection 9 (1), subsection 12 (1), subsection 13 (1), subsection 33 (3), subsection 47 (5), (6), (7) or (8), section 51, 53, subsection 106 (8.2), section 130, 172 or 184, subsection 185 (3), clause 200 (1) (a) or subsection 216 (1) has been committed, may arrest, without warrant, the person he or she believes committed the contravention.

(3) Every person may arrest without warrant any person whom he or she finds committing any such contravention.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by NRPS officers on February 4, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation that was subsequently discontinued when the Complainant refused to provide a statement to investigators. The investigation was reopened after the Complainant chose to provide a statement on December 12, 2025. The SO was identified 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.

Under sections 33(3) and 217(2) of the Highway Traffic Act, a police officer may arrest a motorist who refuses to identify himself upon request by a police officer. There is a version of events proffered in the evidence that the Complainant identified himself when he provided the SO his insurance and ownership documents through the opening in the driver’s window, but that the officer ignored the records, throwing them to the ground. The officers on scene with the SO, however, maintain that the Complainant refused to identify himself despite their repeated requests that he do so. On this mixed record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO’ was without legal justification when he decided to arrest the Complainant for failing to identify himself.

With respect to the force used by the officers in the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence does not reasonably establish it was unlawful. Once out of the vehicle, according to one version of events, the Complainant was repeatedly punched and kneed by the SO (whom he did not believe was an officer at the time) and one or more of the other officers before he was handcuffed, after which he was forced to the ground and beaten some more. Specifically, it is alleged that the SO slammed the Complainant’s head into the pavement twice as he lay prone on the ground, and punched him to the back of the head and the face. The evidence further suggests the Complainant did not physically resist arrest. This rendition of what occurred, however, must be approached with a degree of caution. The claim, for example, that the Complainant was initially unaware that the SO was a police officer does not ring true. The weight of the evidence on this issue indicates that the SO was in uniform and operating a marked police cruiser at the time. This source of evidence also indicates that the Complainant was pulled out of the cruiser and thrown to the floor by the SO at the police station. Video footage of those events, however, indicates that the Complainant was not thrown down by the officer. As for the version of events proffered by the three witness officials who were present and participated in his arrest, they indicate that the Complainant struggled vigorously against the officers’ efforts to handcuff him behind the back, necessitating their taking him to the ground. Here too, they say, the Complainant flailed his body and refused to surrender his arms for a period before he was subdued by the combined efforts of four officers and handcuffed. The officers deny that the Complainant was struck in the fashion alleged, either on his feet or after the takedown. On the officers’ accounts of what happened, I am satisfied that only reasonable force was used in taking the Complainant into custody given the manner in which he physically contested arrest. As there is no reason to believe that the incriminating evidence is any likelier closer to the truth than the exculpatory evidence, and some reason to doubt it, the evidence of criminality is insufficiently reliable to warrant being put to the test by a court.

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

Date: July 23, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit