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 66-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 5, 2026, at 9:20 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 5, 2026, at 1:59 p.m., TPS 51 Division, Major Crime Unit (MCU) investigators executed a Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) warrant at an apartment in the area of Sherbourne Street and Bloor Street East, Toronto. Two individuals were arrested - a male visitor, who was released from the scene, and the female resident, the Complainant. The Complainant resisted arrest and was met with a level of force by police. After the Complainant was secured, she made a complaint of pain to her right shoulder. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were requested, and the Complainant was transported to the Toronto General Hospital (TGH) where she was diagnosed with a fracture to her right shoulder

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/04/06 at 8:46 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/04/06 at 11:11 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

66-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on April 6, 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

WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #7 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between April 16, 2026, and July 22, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the doorway of an apartment in the area of Sherbourne Street and Bloor Street East, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - WO #7

On April 5, 2026, at 2:07 p.m., the Complainant was captured sittings on a walker in the hallway outside an apartment.

At 2:19 p.m., the Complainant told WO #7 that she was sore.

At 2:28 p.m., paramedics were in the hallway. The Complainant was assessed, placed on a stretcher and later removed from the hallway by paramedics.

Booking Footage

On April 5, 2026, at 10:09 p.m., the Complainant exited a police vehicle parked in a police station sally port. She used a walker to assist her in walking inside the police station. The Complainant entered the booking hall and sat on the bench in front of the booking desk. The booking sergeant - WO #6 - asked the Complainant if she had any other injuries. WO #6 acknowledged that the Complainant had a fractured shoulder.

Communications Recording

On April 5, 2026, at 1:39 p.m., WO #1 broadcast that he was on a search warrant call.

At 1:44 p.m., WO #7 advised he was on the call.

At 2:06 p.m., Officer #1 broadcast that he was at the building in the area of Sherbourne Street and Bloor Street East. He requested an ambulance to examine a 66-year-old woman - the Complainant - who had been arrested and was experiencing pain to her right arm.

At 2:48 p.m., WO #7 advised the Complainant was going to be transported to the TGH and he would follow the ambulance.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between April 6, 2026, and April 22, 2026:

• Booking footage
• BWC footage
• Communications recordings
• Event Details Reports
• TPS History – the Complainant
• General Occurrence Report
• Involved Officers List
• Notes – WO #3, WO #4, WO #2, WO #5, WO #7, WO #6 and WO #1
• CDSA search warrant – the Complainant
• TPS policies - Arrest and Incident Response (Use of Force/De-escalation)
• Training records - the SO

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between April 8, 2026, and July 16, 2026:

• Ambulance Call Report from Toronto EMS
• The Complainant’s medical records from TGH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, police witnesses and a civilian witness, 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 afternoon of April 5, 2026, a team of TPS MCU officers readied to execute a search warrant for drug crimes at an apartment in the area of Sherbourne Street and Bloor Street East. The team, led by WO #1, met at 51 Division to discuss the warrant execution and subsequently travelled to the scene. The SO was to lead a stack of officers to the front door of the apartment carrying a ram, which he would use to force entry into the residence if necessary.

The Complainant was the target of the search warrant and present in the apartment as the officers approached. She was in and around the open doorway of the residence preparing to take refuse to the garbage chute when she was confronted by the SO. The officer told her she was under arrest, indicated they had a search warrant and grabbed her by the right wrist, bringing her to the floor in the hallway. The Complainant was handcuffed by the SO as other officers proceeded past them into the apartment.

The Complainant was transported to hospital after her arrest and diagnosed with a fractured right shoulder.

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 her arrest by TPS officers on April 5, 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.

As the target of a search warrant obtained under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Complainant was subject to arrest for drug offences at the time of the events in question.

Regarding the force brought to bear by the SO in the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was excessive. This consisted of the Complainant being yanked forward, once or twice, onto the hallway floor. The situation was a dynamic one and there was reason to believe from cautions in the Complainant’s record that police could be faced with violence as they moved to execute the warrant. On this record, it was imperative that the Complainant be arrested as soon as possible. When the SO was confronted by the Complainant by the open apartment door, telling her she was under arrest, he acted reasonably in promptly placing her in a position of disadvantage by forcing her to the floor. A yank or two of the Complainant’s right arm would not appear a disproportionate use of force towards this end, particularly in light of witness evidence that the Complainant struggled against the officer’s first attempt to force her forward.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s right shoulder was fractured as she was forced to the floor by the SO, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury is attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the officer. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: July 31, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit