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 59-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 14, 2026, at 9:10 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 14, 2026, OPP officers from West Region obtained a Feeney warrant[2] for the Complainant at an address in the Lion’s Head area. The Complainant was wanted for failing to comply with a release condition that he not reside at that address. At 1:21 p.m., platoon officers, an Emergency Response Team (ERT) and a canine unit attended the address and breached the front door. A drone sent into the house to search the residence located the Complainant in an upstairs bedroom. He was armed with a knife and crossbow with arrow. At 1:44 p.m., an ARWEN (Anti-riot Weapon Enfield) and a conducted energy weapon (CEW) were discharged by police, and a police service dog (PSD) was deployed. The dog bit the Complainant’s right forearm. OPP officers arrested the Complainant and provided first aid for the dog bite. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) transported the Complainant to Brightshores Health System - Lion’s Head, where he was admitted for the dog bite wound. Doctors advised that the wound required surgery. The Complainant was transferred to St. Joseph’s Hospital, London, for surgery.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/04/15 at 9:19 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/04/16 at 11:15 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on April 16, 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

The witness officials were interviewed on April 29, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in a bedroom on the second floor of a residence in Lion’s Head.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data

Two CEWs were deployed in the course of the Complainant’s arrest. The first was discharged at 1:44:15 p.m. and 1:44:16 p.m. The second was discharged four times: 1:44:17 p.m., 1:44:26 p.m., 1:44:41 p.m. and 1:45:06 p.m.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

OPP Drone Footage - 1

The video began inside the main level of a house with a view of stairs leading to the second level.

OPP Drone Footage - 2

The video began with a view of the stairs leading to the second level of the house from behind ERT members positioned at the bottom. The drone moved from room to room through the main level. The Complainant was not located.

OPP Drone Footage - 4

The drone stopped at an open door to a room at the top of the stairs that was previously closed. The room was in darkness. The Complainant entered camera view holding a bow before he moved into darkness and out of camera view. A PSD entered camera view in the hallway with the SO. The dog was deployed as the SO remained at the threshold of the door.

OPP Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – WO #3

On April 14, 2026, starting at about 1:11 p.m., ERT members were captured entering onto the lands around a house. Officers approached the door and knocked on it. They announced their presence and called out, waiting for a response. The door was locked.

Starting at about 1:12:12 p.m., WO #3 ordered the breach of the front door. The door was forced open and there were additional call outs without response.

Starting at about 1:13:30 p.m., WO #3 ordered the deployment of a drone into the home.

Starting at about 1:15:70 p.m., the drone entered the residence.

Starting at about 1:21:48 p.m., WO #3 entered residence as officers cleared the first floor. A bow and arrow target was captured near the front door, which had been used.

Starting at about 1:27:43 p.m., WO #3 announced that every door and window in the house was barricaded from the inside, indicating that the Complainant was inside the residence.

Starting at about 1:30:38 p.m., a bowl full of frozen peas and an empty knife sheath were seen in the kitchen.

Starting at about 1:31:14 p.m., WO #3 ordered that the drone check the upper level.

Starting at about 1:33:36 p.m., WO #3 directed other ERT members to move up onto the second level to physically clear the floor.

Starting at about 1:39:49 p.m., WO #3 and three ERT members moved to a position at the front door.

Starting at about 1:41:17 p.m., an officer yelled, “Bow, bow. He has a bow in that room, he has a bow.” WO #3 ordered all units to hold and broadcast that they had contacted the Complainant and he had a bow in a bedroom.

Starting at about 1:42:05 p.m., WO #3, armed with an ARWEN, moved to a position at the bottom of the stairs. The bedroom door was open, but the Complainant was not visible in the room. Another officer yelled, “He has a bow and arrow.”

Starting at about 1:43:29 p.m., WO #3 ordered the SO (the canine officer) to move in. WO #3 yelled out, “(Complainant’s first name), drop the bow, drop it now, drop the bow right now and come out.”

Starting at about 1:43:52 p.m., the PSD went up the stairs with the SO.

Starting at about 1:44:11 p.m., the PSD and the SO entered room followed by WO #3. WO #3 deployed rounds from the ARWEN. A CEW was discharged. Officers appeared to be wrestling to gain control of the Complainant.

Starting at about 1:44:40 p.m., WO #3 broadcast that an ARWEN and a CEW were deployed, and that the dog had gripped onto the Complainant.

Starting at about 1:45:06 p.m., WO #3 exited the residence and told someone that, “He kept fighting the dog.”

Starting at about 1:45:39 p.m., WO #3 broadcast that the suspect was in custody. He had a knife on his hip inside a sheath and was still combative. A request was made for EMS.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between April 15, 2026, and April 24, 2026.

• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Arrest Report
• Warrant to Enter Dwelling-House
• Canine Certificates of the SO
• CEW deployment data
• BWC footage
• Drone footage
• Police communications recordings
• Notes - WO #1, WO #2, WO #4 and WO #3

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from St. Joseph’s Hospital on April 28, 2026.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses, and 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 or the release of his notes.

In the early afternoon of April 14, 2026, ERT officers and uniformed officers from the Grey Bruce OPP Detachment gathered at a house situated in the Lion’s Head area. They had reason to believe that the Complainant was present in the home in contravention of a court order and had obtained a Feeney warrant authorizing entry into the residence to take him into custody. The Complainant’s arrest was considered a matter of some risk. A year earlier, he had attacked officers entering the home to arrest him with a fire poker.

ERT officers approached the front door, knocked and announced their presence. There was no response from inside. The door was forced open and further call outs were made to the Complainant. He was informed of the warrant for his arrest. Still, there was no response from inside. The team leader, WO #3, called for a police drone to enter the residence to check for the Complainant. The drone surveyed the first floor without locating anyone. Officers entered the home, checked the first floor and confirmed it was empty. WO #3 ordered that the drone be sent to the second floor.

The Complainant was present in a bedroom at the top of the staircase, with the door closed and the lights turned off. He was of unsound mind and had with him a bow and arrow and a couple of knives. When the door was opened by WO #4, he pointed his bow and arrow at the open door. An officer yelled out that the Complainant was in possession of a bow and arrow and officers took cover on the second floor and on and around the stairs. The Complainant was asked to drop the bow and arrow and exit the bedroom but failed to do so.

Within minutes, WO #3 ordered the deployment of a police dog team on hand – the SO and his dog, the PSD. The team went upstairs and the SO let the dog into bedroom. The PSD bit and held onto the Complainant’s right arm. The Complainant struggled to release the dog’s grip. As that was happening, WO #3 fired five rounds from his ARWEN at the Complainant. Additional officers entered the room and the Complainant was subjected to multiple CEW discharges. WO #1 and WO #4 struck him two to three times each as the struggle continued. Following those strikes, the Complainant was handcuffed behind the back.

The Complainant was taken to hospital and underwent surgery for a serious dog bite wound to the right arm.

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 his arrest by OPP officers in Lion’s Head on April 14, 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 a Feeney warrant in effect naming the Complainant and the address in question, I am satisfied that the officers who attended at the property were within their rights in forcibly entering the house to arrest the Complainant.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the officers to take the Complainant into custody did not exceed the remit of authorized force in the circumstances. When the officers discovered the Complainant in the bedroom, they had reason to believe he was armed and dangerous. He was seen with a bow and arrow aimed at the open door. Sending in the dog to bite and hold the Complainant, as was the dog’s training, made sense as the use of other less-lethal options on hand – CEWs and the ARWEN – would have exposed the officers to the bow and arrow before they could be used. While the dog caused a serious bite wound that required surgery, the severity of the injury was the combined product of the Complainant fighting the dog as the dog attempted to maintain its grip. As for the ARWEN and CEW discharges, and the several strikes delivered by officers before the Complainant was handcuffed, I am unable to reasonably conclude they were excessive based on evidence that the Complainant, who was also armed with a knife at the time, physically resisted arrest until the final blow was struck and his arms controlled behind the back.

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

Date: August 6, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit