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 35-year-old man

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 31, 2026, at 4:36 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

In the evening of March 30, 2026, a male, later identified as the Complainant was observed in the area of Cameron Street and Brittania Road in Goderich. A prior investigation that evening revealed that the Complainant was wanted on a Canada-wide warrant originating in Vancouver, as well as a provincial warrant from Sudbury. Officers had made contact with the Complainant earlier in the evening, but his identity could not be confirmed at the time. At 1:28 a.m., March 31, 2026, officers from the Huron County OPP Detachment located the Complainant again. After confirming his identity on this occasion, he was arrested, transported to the OPP Clinton Detachment, and lodged in cells at 1:54 a.m.. About 15 minutes later, the Complainant was observed via cell video camera to be huddled in the area of the cell toilet where he removed his socks. At 2:17 a.m., officers attended the cell area and located the Complainant in medical distress. Officers provided medical aid, including the delivery of two doses of naloxone. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were summoned to the detachment and the Complainant was transported to Seaforth Community Hospital (SCH). Due to the severity of the overdose, the Complainant was taken to the Stratford General Hospital (SGH) for further treatment. It was later confirmed that the Complainant had been admitted for a polysubstance overdose.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/03/31 at 7:00 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/03/31 at 7:30 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on April 12, 2026

Subject Official

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials

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

The witness officials were interviewed on April 9, 2026.

Investigative Delay

SIU investigators were initially unable to speak to the Complainant, due to ongoing medical treatment.

The matter was further delayed as SIU investigators in this matter were required in Court from April 2, 2026, through to April 6, 2026. Subsequently, counsel, was only available on April 9, 2016. As such, all witness officials were interviewed on that date, and the Complainant was interviewed on April 12, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the booking area and Cell 4 of the OPP Huron County Detachment in Clinton, 325 Albert Street.

Physical Evidence

On March 31, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., SIU forensic services attended the OPP Huron County Detachment, Clinton. Cell 4 and the Complainant’s clothing were photographed.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

ICC Footage

The ICC recording from WO #1’s cruiser showed the Complainant being placed in the rear of the cruiser with his hands in handcuffs behind the back. The Complainant remained silent as he was advised of his charges. During the transport to the detachment, the Complainant appeared fidgety and made several movements consistent with attempting to get into a comfortable position while his hands were secured behind his back. He alternated between leaning forward, resting on his left side against the rear seat, and sitting back against the seat. He appeared to have a small cut, area of dried blood, or a blemish beneath and slightly adjacent to his right nostril. At times, his eyes appeared to be closed. Near the conclusion of the transport, perspiration was visible on his forehead.

The ICC footage from WO #3’s cruiser showed him following EMS from the detachment to the SCH.

BWC Footage

The BWC recordings captured the initial interaction between police and the Complainant, the confirmation of his identity, and his subsequent arrest.

At 1:27 a.m., March 31, 2026, the Complainant was placed in handcuffs with his hands behind the back, and WO #1 conducted a pat-down search. The Complainant was transported to the OPP Clinton Detachment and exited the police cruiser on his own at 1:50 a.m. During the booking process, the Complainant complied with the officers’ directions but remained silent in response to all questions. The Complainant kicked off his shoes as requested by WO #2. His handcuffs were removed, and he took off his sweater and belt. WO #1 did a frisk search by moving his hands on the outside of the Complainant’s clothing before searching his pants pockets, where he located a pencil. WO #1had the Complainant lift his left foot, and with two hands squeezed the entire foot. The right foot search was not fully captured on the footage.

At 1:54 a.m., WO #1 asked the Complainant if he had any drugs or alcohol. The Complainant appeared to respond non-verbally that he did not. The movement itself was not visible on the video recording; however, based on the officers’ comments, it appeared they observed a non-verbal gesture indicating a negative response. WO #2 gave the Complainant the drug and alcohol caution and read his charges. The Complainant was placed in cell four at 1:57 a.m.

At 2:17 a.m., police officers stood outside Cell 4, and the Complainant walked out of the cell. WO #4, WO #1, and the SO, entered the cell. What appeared to be socks could be seen on the toilet rim. WO #4 removed a plastic bag marked "Ray-Ban" from inside one of the socks. The toilet was checked for evidence of drugs, but none was found. WO #4 returned to the booking area.

The Complainant’s pants, which were pulled up to his knees, were being searched by WO #2 and WO #3. The Complainant was directed to remove his pants. As he undid his pants, he was unsteady on his feet and sat down to remove his pants. The Complainant told WO #4 that he had taken cocaine. WO #4 administered a nasal dose of naloxone. The Complainant became unresponsive, and officers assisted him to the floor. The Complainant appeared to be experiencing a seizure. He was placed in the recovery position, and a second dose of naloxone was administered. EMS arrived at 2:30 a.m.

Cell Footage

Between 1:57 a.m., and 2:05 a.m., March 31, 2026, the Complainant alternated between sitting on the bench and attending the sink and toilet area. During this time, he was observed drinking water, adjusting his blanket for comfort, and making several trips between the bench and the sink/toilet area.

At approximately 2:05 a.m., he sat on the bench and removed his socks and placed them beside the blanket on the bench. He appeared to roll up his pant legs, returned to the sink, drank more water, and went back to the bench.

At approximately 2:06 a.m., he slouched in the corner of the cell with his hands in his waistband.

At approximately 2:14 a.m., the Complainant took his socks to the sink/toilet area. His back was facing the camera, and his lower body was obscured by the privacy shading. He bent down and stood upright several times. At one point, he appeared to smooth out a sock and was later observed placing first his left hand and then his right hand inside a sock. He then appeared to fold and/or roll the socks. The Complainant subsequently returned to the bench without the socks.

At approximately 2:17 a.m., the SO, WO #4 and WO #1, entered the cell. The Complainant was removed from the cell. The cell was searched, specifically, the toilet area.

At approximately 2:19 a.m., officers exited the cell with WO #4 carrying an article in his hands [now known to be a glove turned inside out with a plastic bag inside].

Communications Recordings & CAD Report

On March 31, 2026, at 1:54 a.m., WO #1 advised the Provincial Communications Centre (PCC) that he had made an arrest. PCC advised that the Complainant had various cautions and could be arrested for assault with a weapon, withdrawal of surety, breach of release order and possession of weapons dangerous (all from the Sudbury police). There was a further outstanding charge from Vancouver for possession for the purpose of trafficking.

At 2:21 a.m., WO #1 requested that EMS attend cells for a suspected overdose.

The remainder of the communications recordings related to the Complainant’s medical care.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from OPP between April 1, 2026, and June 29, 2026:

• Notes – WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4
• General Occurrence Report
• Booking footage
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report
• Body-worn camera (BWC) footage – the SO, and WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4
• In-car camera (ICC) footage – WO # 1 and WO #3
• Arrest Warrants / Order for Committal / Release Order

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources:

• The Complainant’s medical records from SGH, SCH and LHSC Victoria Hospital

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses, and video footage that captured his time in custody, 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 early morning of March 31, 2026, the Complainant was arrested and taken into custody on the strength of outstanding warrants. A pat-down search was conducted at the scene and revealed no items of concern. The Complainant was transported to the police station and subjected to a frisk search. Nothing of note was located and he was lodged in a cell.

At approximately 2:15 a.m.,officers monitoring the cell camera observed the Complainantspending an extended period of time in the toilet and sink area. The Complainant was observed facing the toilet and hunched over. His movements suggested that he was moving something in or around the toilet, although the object itself could not be seen. He then walked away from the toilet with his hands in his pants pockets.

At approximately 2:17 a.m., the Complainant was removed from the cell, and a search of the cell was conducted. During the search, a clear plastic bag containing a trace amount of a white substance believed to be a narcotic was located inside one of his socks. The Complainant was subsequently searched again and questioned about the substance. He admitted that it was cocaine. The Complainant quickly became unresponsive. Officers assisted him to the floor, where he was observed foaming at the mouth and experiencing seizures. Two doses of naloxone were administered and EMS were called.

The Complainant was transported to the hospital and treated for a variety of serious medical issues some of which were related a multidrug overdose.

Section 215, Criminal Code of Canada - Failure to Provide Necessaries

215 (1)Every one is under a legal duty

(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person

(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and

(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.

(2) Every person commits an offence who, being under a legal duty within the meaning of subsection (1), fails without lawful excuse to perform that duty, if

(b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code of Canada - Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or

b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

On March 31, 2026, the Complainant lapsed into medical distress while in the custody of the OPP. 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 medical condition of the Complainant.

The offences that arise for consideration are failure to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to sections 215 and 221 of the Criminal Code, respectively. Both require something more than a simple want of care to give rise to liability. The former is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. The latter is premised on even more egregious conduct that demonstrates a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is not made out unless the neglect constitutes a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable standard of care. In the instant case, the question is whether there was any want of care on the part of the Complainant’s police custodians, including the SO, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that endangered the Complainant’s life or contributed to his medical condition. In my view, there was not.

There are no questions raised with respect to the lawfulness of the Complainant’s arrest. At the time of the events in question, the Complainant was lawfully in custody on the strength of outstanding arrest warrants.

With respect to the care afforded the Complainant while in police custody, I am satisfied that his custodians comported themselves with due regard for his health and wellbeing. Less than three minutes elapsed between the Complainant being observed hunched over in the sink and toilet area and officers removing him from the cell to conduct a search. Officers located a bag containing suspected narcotics residue and, upon questioning, the Complainant admitted to having consumed cocaine. Shortly after, he began to exhibit a decline in his cognitive functioning and motor coordination, and slouched on the bench. A dose of naloxone was administered. Within a short period of time, the Complainant went into medical distress and began experiencing seizures. A second dose of naloxone was administered while EMS were notified.

The fact that the Complainant was lodged in cells while in possession of drugs and subsequently able to ingest them is subject to scrutiny. However, that would not appear the result of any markedly substandard care on the part of the police. The Complainant had been searched twice - once at the scene following the arrest and then back at the detachment prior to being lodged in a cell. The frisk search conducted at the detachment was captured on video and appeared to be thorough. The Complainant was required to remove his shoes, belt and hoodie, and the officer conducted pat-downs of his waistband, pockets, legs and feet. A strip search might have located the drugs. However, the circumstances known to officers at the time did not provide grounds for such a search. The case law makes clear that strip searches are inherently degrading and cannot be justified in the absence of reasonable and probable grounds to believe they are necessary: R v Golden, [2001] 3 SCR 679. The Complainant had not been arrested on drug-related charges and did not appear to be under the influence of drugs when processed at the detachment. The search conducted over his clothing yielded negative results. He appeared coherent in his interactions with the involved officers, was able to follow instructions, and presented as being in control of his faculties. There was nothing in his presentation to suggest a need for, or grounds to justify, a more intrusive search. It is also important to note that officers acted quickly to, first, discern the fact the Complainant was in acute medical distress and, second, provide emergency medical care.

For the foregoing reasons, 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