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 30-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 25, 2026, at 6:29 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 25, 2026, at approximately 2:41 a.m., the Subject Official (SO) stopped a suspected impaired driver in the area of Hotel 6, 2935 Argentia Road, Mississauga. The driver [later identified as the Complainant] became violent with the SO and struck the police officer before fleeing on foot into the lobby of Hotel 6, where he continued to be combative and resisted arrest. The SO deployed his conducted energy weapon (CEW). Several other officers arrived to assist and the Complainant was handcuffed. Peel Emergency Medical Services (EMS) responded and eventually sedated the Complainant. EMS transported the Complainant to Trillium Health Partners - Credit Valley Hospital (THP-CVH) as a precaution. He was assessed by the emergency room physician, who determined he had sustained only minor injuries. The Complainant remained at the hospital until the results of his blood work came back. At 12:00 p.m., a second doctor diagnosed the Complainant with rhabdomyolysis, the result of the CEW deployment.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/04/25 at 7:48 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/04/26 at 2:05 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on April 26, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on April 26, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on May 8, 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

The witness officials were interviewed on April 29, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the parking lot on the west side of the building located at 2935 Argentia Road, Mississauga, and the vestibule, front lobby area and north-south main floor hallway of the same building.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data - The SO’s Taser 10

At 2:44:29:215 a.m.,[2] April 25, 2026, the trigger was pulled and Cartridge 1 was deployed.

At 2:44:30:241 a.m., the trigger was pulled and Cartridge 2 was deployed.

At 2:44:31:017 a.m., the trigger was pulled and Cartridge 3 was deployed.

The total length of time the weapon attempted to cause neuromuscular incapacitation was 5.893 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

PRP Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On April 25, 2026, at about 2:39:21 a.m., the SO was in his police vehicle on the west side of the property located at 2935 Argentia Road, Mississauga. He exited his police vehicle and walked up to the passenger side of a blue, 4-door Jeep Cherokee. The Jeep was backed into a parking space and oriented in an easterly direction with the rear taillights and headlights on. He requested via dispatch a licence plate check and subsequently shone his flashlight into the vehicle and knocked on the driver’s window. In the driver’s seat was a person - the Complainant. The Complainant’s hands were visible in front of his body, and he was motionless.

At 2:42 a.m., the Complainant exited the driver’s door of the Jeep and walked away. The Complainant asked the SO what the problem was, and the SO explained that he wanted to make sure that the Complainant was okay. The SO asked the Complainant what he was doing, and the Complainant replied (inaudible) and then walked away from the SO southbound towards the front of the building. The SO followed the Complainant, requested assistance over his radio, and then broadcast that the Complainant had fled from him. The SO ran towards the Complainant, who ran through the front doors of the building into a vestibule. The SO followed directly behind.

At 2:43 a.m., the SO grabbed hold of the Complainant with both hands as the Complainant reached an interior set of doors that led to the building’s foyer. The Complainant held a phone in his left hand. The SO grappled with the Complainant and repeatedly told him to stop. The Complainant repeatedly asked why. The SO used his right hand and grabbed the Complainant’s right wrist, as the Complainant grabbed onto the interior set of doors. The SO pointed his CEW at the Complainant and told him to stop and get on the floor. The Complainant did not do as instructed and said he wanted to call his wife. The Complainant lowered himself to the floor and onto his knees. The SO grabbed a hold of the Complainant’s right arm with both hands, told him to get on the floor, and attempted to manipulate the Complainant’s right arm. The Complainant pulled his right arm away, broke free of the SO’s grip and stood up. The SO told the Complainant that he (the Complainant) was being investigated and detained. The SO used both hands and grabbed the Complainant’s left arm. The Complainant broke free and moved away from the SO. The SO told the Complainant to put his hands behind his back and tried to get him under control. The Complainant moved towards the doors that led to the lobby. There was close contact between the SO and the Complainant, and the SO’s BWC detached from his vest and dropped to the floor. The Complainant ran through the doors into the front lobby.

At 2:46 a.m., WO #1 parked in the front driveway of 2935 Argentia Road, exited his cruiser and went inside the building. WO #1 ran down a main floor hallway and met up with the SO, who stood with his CEW in his hand, pointed at the Complainant. The Complainant was seated on the floor with his back against a wall; his hands were handcuffed in front of his body. Also present was CW #4. WO #1 asked the SO if he was okay, and the SO made a gesture to the left side of his head. WO #1 spoke to the Complainant.

At 2:50 a.m., the Complainant attempted to stand up and WO #1 held him down on the floor. WO #2 arrived and helped to control the Complainant. WO #1 knelt on the Complainant’s left side and pinned him down. The Complainant was re-handcuffed with his hands behind the back. He was stood up and escorted down the hallway by WO #1 and WO #2. The Complainant did not walk freely and resisted forward movement.

At about 2:51 a.m., a security guard picked up the BWC from the floor in the vestibule and turned it over to Officer #1. The Complainant struggled with the police officers and dropped to the floor. A small amount of blood was visible on the palm of his right hand. The Complainant was assisted up from the ground and led outside.

At 2:55 a.m., the rear door to the prisoner compartment of a police vehicle was opened. The Complainant resisted being put into the vehicle and would not put his legs inside. A struggle ensued and he was eventually lodged in the rear.

The SO walked down a main floor hallway towards a room of the building. The SO was with Officer #2. He said that the Complainant had taken off from him for no reason and jabbed him in the head. Officer #3 asked the SO the reason he stopped the Complainant. The SO explained that the Complainant was in his vehicle alone and asleep, and that he knocked on the window. He explained that he knocked on the window for approximately 20 seconds before the Complainant exited the vehicle. He described the Complainant as being unsteady on his feet and then running away. He struggled with the Complainant in the vestibule.

WO #1’s In-car Camera (ICC) Interior Footage

The video started on April 25, 2026, at 2:55 a.m., as the Complainant sat in the back passenger seat of WO #1’s police vehicle. The camera was located above the rear driver’s side window and pointed towards the rear passenger door. The Complainant sat with his hands handcuffed behind the back. He kept moving and continually struck the inside of the rear passenger door with his hands.

At 2:56 a.m., the door was opened by a police officer, and the Complainant turned to face the open door. The Complainant conversed with WO #1. He started to get out of the vehicle but was pushed back in. The Complainant stuck his legs out and blocked the closing of the door. A police officer said something to him and he said, “No, sir.” The officer then said, “You will hurt yourself, just relax.”

At 3:04 a.m., the Complainant was pushed back into the rear seat, after which he banged on the door.

At 3:19 a.m., the door was opened by an unknown police officer and, at 3:20 a.m., the Complainant was removed from the police vehicle.

Video Footage from 2935 Argentia Road

On April 25, 2026, at 2:36 a.m., the driver of a fully marked, PRP vehicle [now known to be the SO] entered the driveway of 2935 Argentia Road and drove northbound on the east side of the building. The SO proceeded to the west side of the building, where a blue Jeep was backed into a designated parking space and oriented towards the east. The front headlights and rear taillights were illuminated. The SO exited his police vehicle and walked to the rear of the Jeep and then over to the driver’s door of the Jeep, where he shone his flashlight into the vehicle.

At 2:42 a.m., the occupant of the Jeep [now known to be the Complainant] exited the driver’s side door. The Complainant walked away from the vehicle and the SO, who followed. The Complainant walked south and then ran towards the front of the building. The Complainant entered the building through the front doors and the SO followed him in. The Complainant and the SO struggled with one another at the interior doors of the vestibule. The SO repeatedly told the Complainant to, “Get on the floor.”

At about 2:43:15 a.m., the SO stepped back from the Complainant, removed his CEW, and pointed it in the direction of the Complainant, who pulled on the locked door that led to the foyer. The Complainant then sat down on the floor. The SO grabbed the Complainant’s wrist and the Complainant stood up. The Complainant separated himself from the SO and both went back and forth in the vestibule.

At about 2:44:06 a.m., a security guard - CW #2 - opened the door to the foyer. The Complainant attempted to go through the door, but the SO restrained him. The SO and the Complainant grappled until the Complainant broke free from the SO. The Complainant shoved aside CW #2 and ran through the foyer and down a corridor. The Complainant shouted, “Fuck you,” while he was pursued by the SO, who held his CEW in his right hand. The Complainant stopped and repeatedly knocked on the door of a room.

At about 2:44:46 a.m., the SO deployed his CEW and the Complainant fell to the floor. Two security guards - CW #2 and CW #1 - walked down the hallway towards the Complainant and the SO. The SO grabbed hold of the Complainant’s left arm and the two struggled with one another.

At about 2:45:25 a.m., the Complainant tried to get up from the floor. The SO grabbed him and threw him into the wall, after which the Complainant stood up. The SO instructed the Complainant to get on the ground and broadcast that he had the Complainant in custody. The Complainant was handcuffed with his hands in front of his body, and the SO stepped backwards. The SO had his CEW drawn. He told the Complainant to get on the ground or he would be “tased”.

At about 2:47:17 a.m., WO #1 ran down the corridor towards the Complainant and the SO. WO #1 spoke to the Complainant. Additional uniformed PRP officers arrived and walked down the corridor. The Complainant’s hands were handcuffed in front of his body. He attempted to get up from a seated position on the floor, and several police officers restrained him.

At about 2:51:44 a.m., with his hands handcuffed behind his back, the Complainant was escorted down the hallway towards the front of the building. The Complainant was escorted out of the front door and placed in the rear of a police vehicle.

Police Communications Recordings

On April 25, 2026, at 2:41 a.m., the SO requested a registration check on an Ontario licence plate, which was at 2935 Argentia Drive, Mississauga. The licence plate was shown to be registered to CW #4 with a Barrie address, and the vehicle was a Jeep Cherokee. The vehicle was flagged with the Complainant having been charged with impaired driving.

At about 2:42:52 a.m., the SO broadcast that a man was walking away from the Jeep and was in the process of fleeing.

At 2:43 a.m., a “10-3” (request for radio silence) was broadcast.

At about 2:44:53 a.m., the SO broadcast, “10-33 [known to mean that a police officer has requested assistance].”

At 2:46 a.m., the SO broadcast that he was in the lobby and his BWC had fallen off.

At about 2:46:16 a.m., the SO broadcast that he had one person in custody, and that he had deployed his CEW. WO #1 broadcast that the other police officers could slow down.

At 2:53 a.m., Officer #1 broadcast that an ambulance was not required; however, Officer #3 broadcast that the arrested person was irate in the back of the police vehicle, and an ambulance would be required for sedation.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PRP between April 15, 2026, and May 12, 2026:

• Police communications recordings
• BWC footage
• Video footage from 2935 Argentia Road
• ICC footage
• General Occurrence Details
• Incident Details Report
• Person Details Report – the Complainant
• CEW deployment data - the SO’s Taser 10
• Notes - WO #2, WO #1, the SO and WO #3
• PRP policies - Incident Response (Use of Force); Impaired Operation Offences (Arrest)

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between May 26, 2026, and July 20, 2026:

• Cell phone videos from CW #4
• The Complainant’s medical records from THP-CVH
• Ambulance Call Report from Peel EMS

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

In the early morning of April 25, 2026, the SO was on patrol operating a marked cruiser when he travelled to the parking lot of a shelter located at 2935 Argentia Road, the former site of a Motel 6. He knew the area had a history of criminal activity and was on the lookout for anything suspicious. He came across a blue Jeep backed into a parking space on the west side of the shelter. Its headlights and rear lights were on, and the driver was reclined and seemingly asleep in the driver’s seat. The SO exited his cruiser, called in the vehicle’s licence plate and knocked on the driver’s window to get the his attention.

The Complainant was the driver. He was alerted to the officer outside his driver’s door and sat up in his seat. He fiddled with his phone for a period as the SO continued to knock on the window and eventually exited the vehicle. He appeared groggy but was able to move on his own power. He asked the officer what he wanted and was told by the officer that he wanted to know what he was doing and ensure he was okay. The Complainant said he was fine and walked away from the SO southwards towards the front doors of the shelter, ignoring the officer’s requests that he stop.

The SO radioed for assistance and followed the Complainant into the vestibule of the shelter; the Complainant had been unable to access the locked interior door. The two grappled with each other. The SO told the Complainant he was being detained for investigation. The Complainant repeatedly asked why and resisted the officer’s efforts to bring him under control. The SO momentarily drew his CEW but quickly put it away and attempted again to physically subdue the Complainant. The two re-engaged and the Complainant punched the officer in the head. Shortly after, a security guard from inside the building opened the interior door. The Complainant broke free of the SO’s grasp and ran inside and down the main corridor. He was attempting to enter his room when he was tasered by the SO. The Complainant locked-up and fell to the floor. The SO re-engaged the Complainant physically and, following a further brief struggle, handcuffed him to the front.

Answering the SO’s call for assistance, WO #1 and WO #2 arrived on scene. The Complainant was seated on the floor and complained that his handcuffs hurt. The officers placed the Complainant flat on his front and re-positioned the handcuffs to the back. The Complainant was escorted outside and lodged in a police cruiser.

Paramedics arrived on scene and transported the Complainant to hospital where he was diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis[4] as a result of the CEW deployment.

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 a PRP officer on April 25, 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.

The Complainant was lying in the driver’s seat of the Jeep, which was parked with its lights on. He was initially unresponsive to the officer’s presence and then delayed acknowledging the officer when he appeared to wake and sat up in his chair. The SO had also asked for a check of the Jeep’s licence plate and learned that it was associated with a past incident of impaired driving. On the totality of these circumstances, I am satisfied that there were grounds to reasonably suspect the Complainant was in care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired, and that the SO was therefore entitled to do what he purported to be doing, namely, detain the Complainant for investigation: R v Mann, [2004] 3 SCR 59. When the Complainant resisted detention and struck the SO in the head, he also rendered himself subject to arrest for assault.

As for the force used by the SO, I am unable to reasonably conclude it was more than was necessary to detain and, ultimately, arrest the Complainant. The Complainant objected vociferously to his apprehension and struggled against the SO’s efforts to secure him in handcuffs. The officer responded in kind, attempting to wrestle the Complainant under control, but was unsuccessful. The Complainant punched the SO in the head and fled through the interior door of the vestibule once it was opened by a security guard. The SO could not have known where the Complainant was going or whether he even lived at the shelter. In the circumstances, there was some urgency to taking him into custody. The Complainant had proven a formidable physical challenge and seemed intent on escape. The use of the CEW seems a reasonable escalation of force by the officer. If it worked as designed, it would temporarily incapacitate the Complainant, allowing the officer an opportunity to handcuff him. In essence, that is what occurred.

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

Date: August 7, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit