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 14-year-old male (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 30, 2026, at 6:53 p.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 30, 2026, at 12:25 p.m., OPS police officers were patrolling the area of the ByWard Market District in Ottawa when they observed a young male - the Complainant - who was known to be wanted for several offences, including robbery. The Complainant fled when officers approached him on foot, eastbound on Rideau Street approaching York Street. A civilian witness [CW #1] in the area of York Street Public School (YSPS)[2], fearing that the Complainant was going to approach the school yard, intervened in the chase and assisted in tackling the Complainant as officers executed the arrest. At 12:55 p.m., the Complainant was transported to OPS Headquarters. He was searched and found to be in possession of a quantity of suspected fentanyl. The Complainant also acknowledged prior consumption of fentanyl. He was transported to the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) located at 401 Smyth Road, Ottawa. During the assessment, the attending physician requested X-ray imaging after the Complainant complained of pain to his right hand. At 5:21 p.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with a buckled fracture of the right hand, which was common in children occurring after a fall.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/03/30 at 6:57 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/03/30 at 8:00 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on April 1, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between March 31, 2026, and April 7, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

SO 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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed not necessary

WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed not necessary

The witness officials were interviewed between April 8 and April 15, 2026.

Investigative Delay

There were delays in obtaining OPS custody video footage, despite an initial request letter being sent on April 1, 2026. These delays were attributed to OPS network connectivity issues.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around York Street in the area of YSPS, 310 York Street, Ottawa.

York Street ran east–west through the Lowertown and ByWard Market areas. In front of the school, there were sidewalks, trees, and a place for parents to drop off and pick up students. The school was surrounded by homes, apartment buildings, and community services.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

OPS Communications Recordings

On March 30, 2026, at 12:29:47 p.m., a police officer reported that a male [the Complainant] had fled from him. The Complainant was described as wearing all-black clothing, a single shoe, a black satchel and a balaclava. He was wanted in connection with a robbery. He was last seen at Harvard Street and Beausoleil Avenue, and additional officers were requested to flood the area after the pursuing officer lost sight of him.

At 12:30:46 p.m., it was broadcast that the Complainant could be armed. Additional police officers added themselves to the call.

At 12:31:57 p.m., WO #5 reported that he was not sure the individual was the Complainant, but after calling out “[Complainant’s first name]”, the individual turned around and fled when he saw WO #5. WO #5 confirmed that the individual fit the description of the Complainant and reported he ran between buildings. Police officers provided updates regarding the last known location of the Complainant as they searched for him.

At 12:48:05 p.m., it was reported that the Complainant had run behind YSPS. Shortly after, officers advised that the Complainant was in custody.

At 2:48:50 p.m., the Complainant was transported via ambulance to CHEO.

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage - WO #4’s Cruiser

On March 30, 2026, at 12:47:29 p.m., WO #4’s cruiser came to a stop on York Street, just west of the intersection with Beausoleil Drive.

At 12:47:52 p.m., a fully marked OPS police cruiser entered the left camera frame as it travelled eastbound towards the intersection. WO #4 ran into the right camera frame on the sidewalk towards the intersection, followed by a male officer.

At 12:48:09 p.m., an officer ran into the upper right portion of the camera frame along York Street and crossed Beausoleil Drive as a figure, appearing to be the Complainant, ran eastbound on York Street.

At 12:48:22 p.m., what appeared to be two dark figures, believed to be the Complainant and CW #1, fell from between two parked vehicles onto the street. Two officers arrived as the individuals were on the ground. The first officer made contact with them and appeared to come down onto or over them, while a second officer arrived moments later. Due to the distance of the ICC from the incident, the precise actions of the individuals could not be determined.

Video Footage - YSPS[4]

On March 30, 2026, at approximately 02:31 of the recording, the camera captured the front of YSPS. A man appearing to be the Complainant entered the left side of the camera frame as he ran across the street while approximately three uniformed police officers chased after him on foot.

At 02:40 of the video recording, movement was observed near the upper portion of the camera frame, where what appeared to be feet and lower legs entered the

roadway and a man believed to be CW #1 appeared to take a male believed to be the Complainant to the ground. A work vehicle partially obstructed the camera’s view of the roadway, limiting the visibility of events occurring near the upper portion of the frame. Due to the obstruction, the events could not be clearly observed.

OPS Custody Footage

On March 30, 2026, at 1:11:26 p.m., the Complainant arrived at OPS Headquarters via the cruiser operated by WO #3 and WO #5.

At 1:18:21 p.m., the Complainant was paraded. WO #3 relayed that he was under arrest for robbery, breach, possession of a weapon, and a 4(1). There were concerns as the Complainant admitted to having consumed drugs but was unable to identify the substance he had consumed.

At 1:22:52 p.m., a small white bag fell from the Complainant during a search. WO #5 told the Complainant that he was also under arrest for possession for the purpose of trafficking.

At 1:34:33 p.m., the Complainant said the cut to his hand was caused by the “handcuffs to the front maybe”. WO #3 was heard saying [off camera], “Stop lying.”

At 2:02:04 p.m., the Complainant was brought to the booking area and searched. During the search of the Complainant it appeared that he showed discomfort with his right arm while removing his jacket. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) assessed the Complainant approximately 25 minutes later.

At 2:27:19 p.m., the Complainant was placed in a cell for approximately two minutes before being removed and assessed by paramedics.

At 2:42:17 p.m., the Complainant was loaded onto a gurney, and an unknown special constable placed leg shackles on the Complainant’s ankles and handcuffed his left wrist to the stretcher.

At 2:45:33 p.m., the Complainant was transported through a hallway in the care of paramedics and WO #5.

At 7:21:05 p.m., the Complainant returned to the OPS station.

At 7:22:53 p.m., the Complainant advised the booking sergeant that his injury occurred during the arrest. He said the police forcefully grabbed him. He admitted that he ran away but was pushed and fell on the ground. Subsequently, the officers jumped on top of him. The booking sergeant inquired about why he did not tell him or other officers earlier. The Complainant said he did not know.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPS between March 31, 2026, and June 29, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Prosecution Summaries
• List of involved officers
• Notes and Investigative Action Reports – WO #1, WO #3, WO #2, WO #4, WO #5, the SO and WO #6
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Custody footage
• ICC footage
• Photographs
• General Broadcast
• Accused Information Sheet (Cells)
• Communications recordings
• OPS policy – Use of Force

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between March 31, 2026, and April 9, 2026:

• The Complainant’s medical records from CHEO
• Video footage from YSPS

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police witnesses, as well as 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 afternoon of March 30, 2026, while patrolling the Rideau Street area of Ottawa, WO #3 and WO #5 located the Complainant near Nelson Street. The Complainant was wanted for robbery and assault with a weapon with respect to an incident that had happened in the weeks before March 30, 2026. Upon observing the officers, the Complainant fled on foot towards Beausoleil Drive. Officers subsequently lost sight of him and requested assistance from additional units to canvass the area and re-establish his location.

After repositioning, WO #3 and WO #5 again observed the Complainant near the townhouses on Little London Private. When WO #5 called out to him, the Complainant fled, prompting a foot pursuit. Additional officers subsequently joined the pursuit, which continued through the York Street and Beausoleil Drive area, with officers intermittently losing sight of the Complainant

At 12:45 p.m., WO #4 and the SO received an update that the Complainant had been seen in the area of Beausoleil Drive and drove eastbound on York Street towards the area. Near 286 York Street, the SO observed civilians pointing out the Complainant. He then observed the Complainant standing with his back pressed against a wall. When the SO exited the cruiser and directed him to stop, the Complainant fled on foot along Beausoleil Drive, through the YSPS parking lot, and eastbound on York Street.

As the SO closed the distance on the Complainant, a civilian, CW #1, intervened. CW #1 had observed the Complainant running from the YSPS parking lot with two officers in pursuit yelling, "Stop." Believing the Complainant was gaining a lead on the officers and wanting the pursuit to end because it was occurring around children, CW #1 stepped into the Complainant’s path and bear-hugged him. As the two engaged, both men rolled onto the hood of a parked white vehicle and rolled off it, falling to the roadway and onto the street.

Within seconds of CW #1 and the Complainant going to the ground, the SO arrived and came down onto the Complainant before taking control of him and securing his arms behind the back. The SO arrested him for robbery, assault with a weapon, and (arising from his flight from police) obstruction. WO #4 arrived shortly and applied handcuffs.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to the OPS station before being transported to hospital, where he was diagnosed with a buckle fracture of his right thumb.

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 around the time of his arrest by OPS officers on March 30, 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 wanted related to criminal offenses committed in the weeks before March 31, 2026, I am satisfied that the officers were within their rights in moving to take the Complainant into custody.

I am also satisfied that the force used in aid of the Complainant’s arrest was legally justified. As captured on video and described by witnesses, the Complainant was intent on evading arrest. He fled from pursuing officers and was only stopped when a concerned citizen stepped into his path and grabbed him in a bear hug. Given the Complainant’s determined efforts to escape apprehension, including a prolonged foot pursuit, I am satisfied that it was reasonable for the SO to move quickly to gain control of him once he was on the ground. While it is not altogether clear how much force the SO brought to bear, I accept that the officer likely dropped the full weight of his body on the Complainant after the Complainant had already been brought to ground by the citizen. As there was urgency in securing the Complainant as quickly as possible – they were directly across from a school and police had credible information that led them to believe that the Complainant may have been armed – I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO comported himself unreasonably when he pinned the Complainant to the street with what was likely significant force. It should be noted that there is no evidence that the Complainant was struck at any time.

It remains unclear precisely when and how the Complainant suffered his injury. It could as easily have occurred when he was tackled by CW #1 as when he was pinned to the ground by the SO. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe the officer acted unlawfully in his dealings with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: July 24, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit