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 injuries of a 22-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 16, 2026, at 3:53 a.m., the Brantford Police Service (BPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 16, 2026, at around 2:48 a.m., the Subject Official (SO) was patrolling the area of King Street and Dalhousie Street when he observed two men engaged in a physical altercation. The SO requested assistance via radio and attempted to intervene. One man [now known to be the Complainant] fled on foot, cut through a laneway to Colborne Street East and entered the grounds of the YMCA. The SO followed the Complainant onto a walkway that ran between the YMCA and a parking garage. Witness Official (WO) #1 arrived and assisted the SO. The Complainant either fell from, or jumped over, a barrier overlooking Water Street, a distance of several metres to a concrete sidewalk below. The SO and WO #1 located the Complainant and rendered assistance. The Complainant was conscious and breathing. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) transported the Complainant to the Hamilton General Hospital (HGH) where he was diagnosed with an open fracture of the right arm.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/04/16 at 4:12 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/04/16 at 4:31 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on April 24, 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

The witness officials were interviewed on April 23, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the Art Stanbridge Walkway that connected the YMCA, 100 Water Street, to a parkade on the south side of Water Street, Brantford.

Physical Evidence

On April 16, 2026, at 9:50 a.m., SIU forensic services arrived on scene. The building located in the area was a large structure sandwiched between Colborne Street East, which ran east/west on the north side of the building, and Water Street, which ran east/west on the south side of the building. The northern portion of the structure (fronting Colborne Street East) was a three-story building with a breezeway that led south through the building to an open concrete area. This concrete area was actually the roof of 100 Water Street. The roof was mostly bordered with a 1.19 metre wall (half-wall). The top of the wall was covered with metal flashing. The metal flashing was wet from rain and slippery. A portion of the roof area was a patio area with a pedestrian bridge (Art Stanbridge Walkway) at the south side. The bridge passed over Water Street to the roof of a four-story tall parking garage on the south side of Water Street. The roof patio contained both gravel and grass surfaces. The Complainant would have been on the gravel area. Footwear impressions were observed on the metal flashing on top of the half-wall (which was four storeys above a sidewalk below). Blood was observed below on the sidewalk on Water Street.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Communications Recordings & Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

On April 16, 2026, at about 2:45 a.m., the SO requested a check on the Complainant, who was in the area of King and Dalhousie Streets. WO #1 broadcast that he would assist.

At 2:48 a.m., the Complainant was said to be walking on Colborne Street, near the YMCA.

At 2:49 a.m., WO #1 broadcast that the Complainant had fallen from the walkway to the sidewalk below on Water Street, and he requested an ambulance.

At 2:51 a.m., the SO broadcast that the Complainant was breathing but with difficulty, and he had a fractured wrist with a protruding bone. Two minutes later, the Complainant’s breathing was described as agonal. A photo identification card was located, and the Complainant was identified by the photograph.

At 2:58 a.m., EMS arrived, and officers secured the scene. The Complainant was taken to the HGH.

Video Footage from City of Brantford

The camera was affixed to a wall on the south side of a pedestrian bridge that spanned from 100 Water Street (YMCA) to a parking garage.

At 2:49 a.m., April 16, 2026, WO #1 and the SO were captured on the northern portion of a pedestrian bridge – the Art Stanbridge Walkway - near a half-wall on the west side of the bridge. They appeared to look over the wall (to the west), after which they backed away from the wall, proceeded north along the pedestrian bridge, and out of view.

Video Footage from YMCA

Video recordings from four different cameras were received from the YMCA. The video recordings were from motion-activated cameras, and only captured recordings when enough motion was present to record.

One of the cameras captured the Complainant as he ran east on the roof (patio area) towards the Art Stanbridge Walkway at 2:47 a.m., for two seconds. A different camera captured the Complainant as he walked towards the rear roof/patio area of the YMCA. At 2:48 a.m., the SO was seen walking towards the Art Stanbridge Walkway, joined by WO #1. They appeared to be speaking to someone out of camera range. The officers later ran towards the Art Stanbridge Walkway and left the camera view after 11 seconds.

A different camera showed the officers running towards the Art Stanbridge Walkway. A faint silhouette of the Complainant was captured on the half-wall between a roofed area and the pedestrian bridge. The video then showed the officers running back from the Art Stanbridge Walkway. The silhouette was no longer visible.

The final camera captured a shape [believed to be the Complainant] on the north sidewalk of Water Street at 2:49 a.m.

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – WO #1, the SO and WO #2

On April 16, 2026, at 2:48 a.m., the SO drove slowly for several minutes on Colborne Street East. He broadcast to WO #1 that he saw a figure, which he believed was the Complainant, walking south towards the YMCA. The SO parked on Colborne Street East in front of the YMCA and exited, and he and WO #1 ran towards the pedestrian bridge.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – WO #1, the SO and WO #2

At 2:49 a.m., April 16, 2026, the SO and WO #1 travelled towards the Art Stanbridge Walkway from Colborne Street East looking for the Complainant. Eleven seconds later, they saw the Complainant standing at the southeast corner of a flat roof (patio area) of the YMCA building.

The Complainant climbed on top of the half-wall (see depicted in images above) and stood on the top (metal flashing). He reached towards the pedestrian bridge with both hands as the SO and WO #1 ran towards him.

The Complainant made it to the top of the half-wall, using both hands and his left knee on the metal flashing of the half-wall. The conditions were rainy and wet. WO #1 yelled, “Hey, hold on,” followed by, “Hey, don’t jump.” The Complainant’s left knee came off the half-wall and he slipped down, with only his hands on the metal flashing. He was unable to grip the wet metal flashing. The SO reached out to try and grab the Complainant’s right hand, but the Complainant was already in a fall towards the sidewalk below. WO #1 could be heard saying, “Ahhh fuck.”

WO #2 arrived after the event. The officers made their way down to Water Street, and located the Complainant on the sidewalk below.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the BPS on April 17, 2026:

• BWC footage - WO #1, the SO and WO #2
• ICC footage - WO #1, the SO and WO #2
• Notes - WO #1 and WO #2
• General Occurrence Report
• BPS policy - Arrest, Security, Prisoner Care and Control
• Police communications recordings
• CAD Report

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between April 16, 2026, and April 27, 2026:

• Video footage from City of Brantford and YMCA
• The Complainant’s medical records from HGH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and a police eyewitness, and video footage that largely captured the incident, 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 morning of April 16, 2026, the SO was on patrol when he came upon a physical altercation involving two males in the area of King and Dalhousie Streets. One of the males – the Complainant – fled as the SO approached the parties. The SO followed him on foot and radioed for assistance. WO #1 arrived quickly and joined the SO.

The Complainant was intoxicated at the time. He travelled south a block towards Colborne Street East and past a building on the south side of the street onto an open concrete area. The area was also the rooftop of the YMCA that fronted onto the next road south – Water Street. A bridge – the Art Stanbridge Walkway – connected the rooftop to a parkade on the south side of Water Street. The Complainant was climbing to the top of a half-wall that bordered the southern edge of the rooftop, beside the walkway, when the SO and WO #1 arrived on scene.

As the officers closed the distance to the Complainant, he attempted to make his way onto the walkway from the top of the half-wall. The bridge and the half-wall were wet and slippery. He lost his footing and momentarily hung from the walkway’s outer railing before falling to the ground below. The SO had just managed to grab the Complainant’s right hand when it slipped through his grasp.

Paramedics arrived on scene and transported the Complainant to hospital. He had suffered serious injuries in the fall, including trauma to the head, a liver laceration and fractures of the femur, ulna, wrist and pelvis.

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 was seriously injured in a fall from height on April 16, 2026. As he was fleeing from BPS officers at the time, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The SO was identified as 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 fall and injuries.

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 fall. In my view, there was not.

The SO had come upon a physical altercation involving the Complainant and was within his rights in attempting to detain him for further investigation. Once it was apparent that he had placed himself in a very precarious position on the railing of a building, the evidence indicates that the officer properly switched his focus to doing what he could to prevent harm coming to the Complainant, consistent with his duty to preserve and protect life.

It is also apparent on the evidence that the SO and WO #1 comported themselves at all times with due care and regard for the Complainant’s safety. By the time they entered onto the rooftop and were still a distance from the Complainant, he was already attempting to climb onto the top of the half-wall at the southern edge of the building. This was never a static situation in which the officers might have opted to stand back and perhaps try to talk the Complainant to safety. Rather, events were happening quickly with the Complainant seemingly determined to make it onto the walkway from the half-wall. In the circumstances, I am satisfied the officers made a reasonable choice when they rushed towards the Complainant in an effort to grab hold of him and prevent his fall. In fact, the SO did briefly make contact with the Complainant’s right had and conceivably could have held him up, with support from WO #1, if it had not been for the wet and slippery conditions at the time.

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