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 40-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 10, 2026, at 4:11 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 9, 2026, at 1:51 p.m., the Civilian Witness (CW) called 911 from a relative’s residence in the area of B Line and Town Line, Orangeville (Residence #1). The CW reported she had fled her residence, located a short distance away (Residence #2), after an argument with her husband, the Complainant. When she attempted to leave in her vehicle, the Complainant stood in front of it and struck it with a baseball bat. She indicated the Complainant had a history of mental health and substance abuse issues. He remained in the home after she fled. She reported that the Complainant said he “would drink himself to death if they ever separated”. At 2:20 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) and Witness Official (WO) #2, WO #4, WO #6, WO #3 and WO #1 arrived at Residence #2 to arrest the Complainant for assault with a weapon. The Complainant refused to exit the residence or allow police entry. Six OPP officers attended the scene because of previous interactions with the Complainant in which he had fought with police officers. The SO spoke with the Complainant through a closed door, which he refused to open. Given concerns for his welfare, the OPP officers forced entry. The Complainant was found inside to be “groggy” though he conversed without issue and there was no apparent concern for his welfare. Again, the Complainant refused to exit the home to be arrested, so the OPP officers retreated to obtain a Feeney warrant[2] to facilitate the arrest. The OPP officers had been inside the home for about two minutes. At 2:45 p.m., the SO applied for the Feeney warrant. OPP officers continued observation of the residence to ensure the Complainant’s containment. At 4:47 p.m., OPP officers entered the residence with the approved Feeney warrant and the Complainant was arrested without incident. The Complainant was belligerent and showed signs of intoxication. He was taken to the Orangeville OPP Detachment and processed. The Complainant indicated he had ingested substances but refused to disclose what or how much he had consumed. He was lodged in a cell to await a bail hearing. At 6:10 p.m., Officer #1 and WO #5 observed the Complainant in his cell. The Complainant vomited. He disclosed that at around 4:00 p.m., he had consumed anti-freeze [now known to be windshield washer fluid] inside his residence. At 6:13 p.m., WO #5 called paramedic services. The Complainant was transported to the Headwaters Health Care Centre (HHCC) for examination. Sometime later, the CW contacted the OPP and reported she had found an empty jug of windshield washer fluid on the floor inside the garage, and this information was subsequently passed on to hospital staff. At 8:59 p.m., the Complainant was admitted under a Form 3 of the Mental Health Act (MHA). At 10:15 p.m., paramedic services transported the Complainant to the Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH). At 10:53 p.m., OPP officers released the Complainant unconditionally at the direction of Officer #2.

On April 10, 2026, at 6:45 p.m., the OPP notified the SIU that the Complainant was conscious, alert and communicating without issue. It was reported that the Complainant had a significant history with the OPP, which included MHA-related matters and allegations of violence.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/04/11 at 9:56 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/04/13 at 8:04 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on April 11, 2026.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on April 14, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on May 14, 2026.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

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

The witness officials were interviewed on April 27, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around Residence #2.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

BWC Footage - WO #2, WO #5, WO #6, WO #3, WO #1, Officer #1, Officer #3, Officer #4, Officer #5 and the SO

On April 9, 2026, at 2:05:59 p.m., WO #6 and WO #4 attended Residence #1, and spoke with the CW. The CW recounted how she had reversed from her driveway and her husband [the Complainant] followed her out onto the road. He held the door handle of her driver’s side door and tried to get inside the vehicle. He struck the vehicle with a baseball bat somewhere on the driver’s side. She explained that her husband had substance abuse issues with prescribed medications and was on a new medication to prevent withdrawals. She advised that the Complainant had undiagnosed mental health issues and became angry whenever it was suggested to him that he had mental health issues. WO #6 indicated that the Complainant had been apprehended in the past. The CW said that when she argued with the Complainant at their residence, he had said he would “go to the hotel and drink himself stupid and kill himself”. The CW said he had overdosed in the past. She provided the garage door code to enter the garage.

At 2:21:04 p.m., WO #6 and WO #4 arrived at Residence #2. WO #6 knocked on the door repeatedly. There were large windows on the front of the house which WO #6 looked through to a living room inside. No one was visible and no one responded to the door knocks.

After several minutes, WO #6 called the CW and obtained the Complainant’s phone number. WO #3, WO #2 and WO #1 arrived. WO #6 advised the newly arrived officers of the grounds for the arrest and the utterance of self-harm. WO #2 said, “Same thing as last time.” WO #1 said, “So last time he got arrested for this, he tried to commit suicide.”

At 2:34 p.m., the SO arrived. WO #6 was inside the garage. The SO opened the unlocked inner garage door and entered the residence. WO #1 followed him inside. The SO called out to the Complainant and announced their presence.

At 2:35:06 p.m., the SO was on the stairs leading to the upper floor with WO #1 directly behind him. The SO spoke to an unseen person [the Complainant] who was on the upper floor. The SO advised the Complainant that he had made some comments to his wife, which were “frightening”. The Complainant said, “I’m okay.” The SO advised there were grounds to arrest the Complainant and said, “Why don’t you put on some clothes and then come deal with this.” The Complainant said, “No, that’s okay.” The SO advised they would go obtain a warrant and then return. The Complainant said, “Okay, go get a warrant,” and then walked slowly into another room. The SO followed him and said, “Hey, what have you been taking? I’m not satisfied that you’re not going to hurt yourself with the way you’re walking.” WO #1 and WO #2 followed the SO. The Complainant said, “She hit me with a candle.” The SO appeared to notice a bump on the Complainant. The SO then said, “Alright, we’ll go get a warrant then, we’ll be back. You’re not going to hurt yourself,” to which the Complainant replied, “No.” The SO said, “Fair enough,” and then turned to leave the residence at 2:36:11 p.m.

The SO exited the residence and spoke with the other OPP officers. He said there were “no grounds to grab him in there right now”. The SO indicated he would apply for a Feeney warrant but said he did not think it would be approved. He directed the OPP officers to continue to monitor the residence.

At 3:08:29 p.m., WO #6 called the CW. They discussed the conditions the Complainant had been placed on after his previous arrest for a domestic assault and how the conditions had been varied to allow the Complainant to be at the residence but the CW had “revocable consent”. WO #6 asked the CW if she wanted to revoke her consent to allow the Complainant to be at the residence. The CW said, “Yea, absolutely.”

At 4:42:22 p.m., the SO arrived at the residence. The inner garage door was locked. There was a jug of windshield washer fluid on the barbecue inside the garage.

At 4:43:59 p.m., the SO tried to wedge a breaching tool between the door and the frame. The Complainant banged on the door from the inside. The SO called out and told the Complainant to open the door or they would have to damage it to get inside. The Complainant yelled, “Jihad, motherfucker.” The SO said to the other OPP officers, “Sounds like he’s been drinking.” WO #3, who was at the front door, entered the garage and advised that the Complainant had made a gesture with a lighter and then run downstairs.

At 4:45:22 p.m., the SO breached the inner garage door with the breaching tool and a kick to the door. The OPP officers entered the residence. There was a couch propped up on its armrest against the front door. The Complainant was located in the basement wearing only a pair of grey shorts. The SO and WO #3 grabbed the Complainant, brought his arms behind his back and handcuffed him. The OPP officers asked him questions in an effort to locate clothes and shoes for him to wear outside. The Complainant did not respond appropriately to questions. He appeared to be generally confused. He saw the broken inner garage door and said, “Oh, you busted the door,” and then less than a minute later asked how the OPP officers had entered the house.

At 4:49:57 p.m., the Complainant was placed inside WO #2’s vehicle.

At 4:59:05 p.m., the Complainant arrived at the OPP Orangeville Detachment. In the booking area, he was asked to disclose if he had consumed any substances other than alcohol. He said, “Fuckin right,” and indicated he had consumed 27 Percocet, 87 Oxycontin, 27 Tylenol and 28 of something else. The OPP officers asked him to be realistic about what he had consumed. The Complainant said he had consumed everything.

At 6:32:34 p.m., the Complainant was transported by ambulance to HHCC. The Complainant told the paramedics he had vomited and fallen down.

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage

On April 9, 2026, at 4:50:50 p.m., the Complainant was placed into the rear prisoner compartment of WO #2’s police vehicle. He presented as uncooperative. He was told he was under arrest for assault with a weapon. He repeatedly stated he did not understand what he was told. WO #2 transported the Complainant to the OPP Orangeville Detachment.

Custody Footage

On April 9, 2026, at 5:13:02 p.m., the Complainant was escorted into a cell. His handcuffs were removed.

At 5:53:37 p.m., the Complainant vomited into the toilet in his cell for several minutes.

At 6:27:36 p.m., the Complainant was removed from his cell and escorted to paramedics in the booking area.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between April 15, 2026, and April 22, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Supplementary Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Feeney warrant
• Arrest Reports
• Notes – WO #2, WO #5, WO #6, WO #4, WO #1 and WO #3, and the SO
• BWC footage
• ICCS footage
• Custody footage
• Police communications recordings

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from HHCC and BCH between April 14 and April 22, 2026.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, the SO and other police officers, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the afternoon of April 9, 2026, OPP officers were dispatched to a home in the area of B Line and Town Line, Orangeville. The CW, calling from a relative’s house at another address, had contacted police to report that her husband – the Complainant – had struck her vehicle with a baseball bat as she fled their residence. She noted that the Complainant had indicated he would drink himself to death. Because of prior volatile interactions with the police, multiple officers were sent to the home, including the SO.

Concerned about the Complainant self-harming, the SO decided to enter the residence using a passcode to the attached garage provided by the CW. He and other officers encountered the Complainant on the upper floor of the home and spoke to him. One of the officers detected alcohol coming from the Complainant but he appeared coherent and in control of his faculties. He assured the officers he had no intention of harming himself. Told that he was to be arrested for assaulting the CW and offered a choice to surrender presently to police or be taken into custody later in the day when the officers had obtained a warrant, the Complainant opted for the latter. The officers exited the home at about 2:30 p.m. The SO travelled to the detachment to prepare and obtain judicial authorization in the form of a Feeney warrant, while the other officers stayed behind to ensure the Complainant did not leave.

The SO obtained a Feeney warrant and returned to the Complainant’s home at about 4:40 p.m. Finding the door from the garage to the house locked, the SO used a breaching tool to assist in forcing entry to the residence. He and other officers entered the home and located the Complainant in the basement. He appeared impaired and confused, but was able to move on his own power. The officers handcuffed him without incident and escorted him to a cruiser where he was placed in the rear compartment and transported to the detachment, arriving at about 5:00 p.m.

The Complainant was argumentative during his booking at the detachment. Asked if he had consumed any substances, the Complainant said he had ingested an incredible amount of pain killers. He failed to mention that he had imbibed a quantity of windshield wiper fluid after the SO left the residence the first time and before he had returned the second. The Complainant was lodged in a cell at about 5:13 p.m.

At about 5:50 p.m., the Complainant began to vomit into the cell toilet for several minutes. Guards monitoring him in cells went to check on him. He admitted he had consumed windshield wiper fluid. Advised of the situation, the SO directed that paramedics be summoned.

The Complainant was removed from his cell at about 6:30 p.m. and escorted to paramedics in the booking area. He was transported to a health care facility and treated for overdose.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code - 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.

The Complainant became ill while in the custody of the OPP on April 9, 2026, and was subsequently treated for methanol overdose in hospital. 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 overdose.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s medical event. In my view, there was not.

The SO and the other police officers who dealt with the Complainant were engaged in the lawful exercise of their duties through the sequence of events culminating in his medical event. They had spoken to his spouse and developed grounds to arrest the Complainant for assault. Acting pursuant to their duty to protect and preserve life, they were also motivated to check on his welfare to ensure he was okay after coming into information that he was intent on hurting himself.

I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself at all times with due care and regard for the Complainant’s wellbeing. The only real issue that arises in this context is whether the officer ought to have acted sooner to arrest the Complainant, thereby preventing his consumption of windshield wiper fluid. The evidence indicates that this occurred sometime after the officers’ first left the residence, that is, about 2:30 p.m., and when they returned with a Feeney warrant at approximately 4:45 p.m. Questioned about the delay, the SO explained that he did not think he was within his rights to arrest the Complainant for a criminal offence as they had entered the residence to check on his health pursuant to the Mental Health Act. The officer was probably wrong in his assessment of his legal standing but his decision-making was not reckless or wanton in the circumstances. There is evidence that the Complainant was slurring his speech and unstable on his feet, but not so impaired as to cause any immediate concern for his health and safety. In other respects, it is important to note that the SO acted promptly in obtaining a Feeney warrant and returning to the residence to arrest the Complainant, and that the officer directed the attendance of paramedics soon after the Complainant began to vomit in the cells and admitted to consuming windshield wiper fluid.

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

Before closing the file, I note possible contraventions by the SO and WO #1 of sections 10, 19 and 27 of the Police Code of Conduct. Though equipped with BWCs, neither officer had his device activated during their initial visit to the Complainant’s home. This inaction deprived the SIU of valuable evidence of the Complainant’s condition at the time of the interaction. I will be raising this matter in my reporting letter to the OPP Commissioner. Further to section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, I will also be referring the matter to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: August 6, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit