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 46-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 2, 2026, at 7:06 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 2, 2026, the Complainant was in the rear custody area of a prisoner transport van. Subject Officer (SO) #2 (an OPP Constable) drove and a Service Employee Witness (SEW) [an employee of the St. Thomas Police Service (STPS)] was the front passenger. SO #2 was transporting the Complainant from a court appearance at the STSP station to the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre (EMDC). The OPP received a 911 call from a civilian, who reported that he was behind the OPP prisoner transport van when the Complainant escaped from it while in transit. The civilian was near the intersection of Talbot Line and Wellington Road, St. Thomas, at the time. Attempts were made to contact SO #2 and the SEW; however, they could not be reached. A search was initiated, which included the OPP aviation unit, a canine unit, and a tactical unit. The Complainant was located at a construction site at 41107 Major Line, St. Thomas, and was arrested by SO #1. The Complainant was assisted in his escape from lawful custody by Civilian Witness (CW) #2, who had removed his handcuffs in between his escape from the van and his re-arrest by SO #1. The Complainant was transported to the St. Thomas-Elgin General Hospital (STEGH) and diagnosed with two fractured ribs on his left side. The OPP prisoner transport van had been taken to the Elgin County OPP Detachment to be held for the SIU.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/05/02 at 7:17 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/05/02 at 10:10 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on May 2, 2026

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between May 4, 2026 and May 6, 2026

Subject Officials

SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject official was interviewed on June 9, 2026

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on May 9, 2026

Service Employee Witness

SEW Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The service employee witness was interviewed on May 9, 2026

The Scene

The events in question transpired in two locations: inside an OPP prisoner transport van, which had been secured for the SIU at the Elgin County OPP Detachment at 42696 John Wise Line, St. Thomas, and a construction site at 41107 Major Line, St. Thomas.

Physical Evidence

OPP Prisoner Transport Van

The van was a 2019 Chevrolet Express, which was fully marked with OPP logos. In the front of the vehicle was a driver’s seat and a passenger seat with a divider immediately behind the seats to separate the front from the rear prisoner compartment. There was no window to view the prisoner compartment from the front. There was a tablet computer affixed to the centre console to monitor the cameras in the rear prisoner compartment.

Inside the rear prisoner compartment was a divider that ran the entire length of the rear prisoner compartment from front to back, separating the left side and the right side into two compartments. There were benches along each side of the van, so seated prisoners would face towards the middle divider of the van. There were cameras mounted on the centre divider facing the benches. There were signs indicating the rear prisoner compartment was video-monitored.

SIU forensic services examined the inside of the rear prisoner compartment to assess how the Complainant had escaped. If the inner cage doors were not properly secured, a prisoner could potentially manipulate the exterior doors to open them. In order for the inner door to be opened from the inside, a portion of the designed locking system would have to be left unsecured.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

STPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On May 2, 2026, at 12:39:52 p.m., the SEW activated his BWC. He was in the passenger seat of a vehicle [OPP prisoner transport van]. The van stopped on the side of the road. The SEW exited the van. The driver [SO #2] referenced a log sheet for a property bag [the Complainant’s property bag] and confirmed there was a cell phone inside. At 12:44:27 p.m., the SEW deactivated his BWC.

At 2:58:31 p.m., WO #2 was captured running across an open muddy field towards a mound of dirt. A man [the Complainant] was on top of the dirt mound. There were two other people [SO #1 and WO #1] running towards the Complainant to the left of WO #2.

At 2:59:01 p.m., the audio on WO #2’s BWC kicked-in. WO #2 yelled at the Complainant to get his hands up and drop the phone. SO #1 reached the bottom of the mound of dirt and pointed his firearm at the Complainant. The Complainant faced towards WO #2 with his hands in the air. There was a bag [property bag] in his left hand. SO #1 and WO #2 walked towards the Complainant. The Complainant did not follow commands to lie down on the ground. WO #2 ran towards the Complainant and grabbed his right arm. WO #2 spun the Complainant around and brought him to his knees. SO #1 arrived and grabbed the Complainant by the shoulders. WO #2 brought the Complainant’s right arm out to his side and forced him into a prone position. As WO #2 did this, he said, “Stop resisting”. The Complainant’s left arm was underneath his body.

At 2:59:25 p.m., SO #1 grabbed the Complainant’s right elbow and the back of his neck. The officer delivered three knee strikes with his right knee to the Complainant’s left side. The Complainant cried out in pain. SO #1 placed his left knee on the Complainant’s upper back, and grabbed the Complainant’s left arm and brought it behind his back. WO #2 handcuffed the Complainant’s hands behind his back.

At 2:59:41 p.m., WO #1 arrived and secured the Complainant’s ankles.

At 3:00:30 p.m., WO #2 asked the Complainant if he had any injuries. He said his ribs were broken when he fell in the back of the van, the result of a roadway bump during transport.

OPP BWC Footage

On May 2, 2026, at 12:40:25 p.m., SO #1 pulled alongside the driver’s side of an OPP van [prisoner transport van] and called out through his passenger side window to the unseen driver [SO #2] of the vehicle. SO #2 said, “Fuck! I forgot … (description of omission related to securing the inner rear door of the prisoner transport van),” when SO #1 interrupted him and shushed him to silence.

At 12:43:15 p.m., SO #1 reported he was unaware of the Complainant’s last known location.

At 12:43:33 p.m., SO #1 called CW #1. CW #1 said the Complainant escaped from the prisoner transport van at Highway 3 and Wellington Road, after which he walked southbound.

At 12:46:06 p.m., SO #2 said, “Fuck! (description of omission related to securing the inner rear door of the prisoner transport van).” SO #1 tried to interrupt him and told him his camera was activated as SO #1 pointed to the ICC.

At 12:50:03 p.m., SO #2 sat in the driver seat of the prisoner transport van. He spoke with an unknown person on his personal cell phone. He said, “I’m kinda fucked, I’m fucked. We were taking this guy to EMDC …, in the back for (description of Complainant’s charges), bad dude. When I put him in the back, (description of omission related to securing the inner rear door of the prisoner transport van). He jumped out of the van at Wellington and Talbot…I am in big trouble….I’m going to lose hours for this.” His conversation continued and he said he was not aware the prisoner had escaped until he was near Costco [3140 Dingman Drive, London]. He said he had done 200 prisoner escorts in the past and was embarrassed by his mistake. He said he could not find his work cell phone.

At 12:57:34 p.m., SO #2 exited the van and approached the rear doors. He opened the exterior van doors. He manipulated the interior doors and security mechanisms in different ways, then slammed the exterior van doors shut.

At 1:41:12 p.m., SO #1 stopped his vehicle. He deactivated his BWC.[3]

At 3:01:07 p.m., Officer #1 arrived on a dirt mound where there a man [the Complainant] was on the ground. Three police officers [WO #2, SO #1 and WO #1] stood around him and appeared out of breath. Officer #1 and SO #1 escorted the Complainant to a police vehicle. The Complainant complained he had fallen out of the back of the van because the transport officer [SO #2] did not lock the doors. He said he waited on the side of the road for five minutes and SO #2 just drove away. The Complainant was placed in the back of Officer #1’s vehicle.

At 3:18:08 p.m., the Complainant was escorted to an ambulance.

OPP In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage

The footage captured police officers as they drove around and searched for the Complainant.

The prisoner transport van was equipped with an interior ICC with a tablet in the driver’s compartment to view prisoners. The camera did not record at the time of the incident. Officer #2 of the Detainee Transportation Unit confirmed that the record function had never been used since the van had been in service since 2019 because no videos were stored on the device.

OPP Communications Recordings

On May 2, 2026, at 12:05:51 p.m., SO #2 advised he was at the STPS station and was about to transport the Complainant to EMDC with the SEW.

Subsequently, there were multiple broadcasts indicating that the prisoner transport van was not responding to radio requests.

At 12:22:06 p.m., an OPP dispatcher called the STPS dispatcher and asked if STPS could contact their officer [the SEW] in the prisoner transport van. The STPS dispatcher was unable to contact him.

At 12:25:46 p.m., there was no answer on SO #2’s cell phone.

At 12:27:32 p.m., a STPS dispatcher contacted an OPP dispatcher and advised they were able to contact the SEW, who advised “everything was good” and they still had their prisoner.

There were multiple radio broadcasts indicating that the Complainant was considered violent, armed and dangerous, and was believed to have access to a firearm, which was never recovered when he was arrested. The OPP canine unit, OPP ERT officers, the OPP air unit, and London Police Service officers would respond.

At 12:32:46 p.m., the prisoner transport van was pulled over on the side of the road near Costco. The Complainant was not inside the van.

Cellphone Footage from CW #2

The video showed the same events as WO #2’s BWC but from a different angle.

The Complainant had just been grounded into a prone position when SO #1 delivered a single closed-fist strike to the Complainant. Where exactly the strike connected with the Complainant could not be determined.

STPS Custody Video

On May 2, 2026, an OPP prisoner transport van arrived in the STPS sallyport. A police officer [SO #2] exited and entered the STPS station. He returned approximately six minutes later with a prisoner – the Complainant - and a STPS special constable – the SEW. The Complainant’s hands were handcuffed in front of the body. He climbed inside the right rear prisoner compartment. SO #2 attempted to secure the interior door but omitted a necessary step.

SO #2 returned inside the STPS station and retrieved a property bag. He placed the property bag in between the perforated inner metal doors and the exterior van doors. He opened the perforated metal door and offered the Complainant a small brown paper bag [a sandwich], which the Complainant declined. SO #2 closed the perforated metal door but omitted a necessary step to secure the interior doors before closing the exterior door.

After several minutes, the SEW entered the front passenger seat and SO #2 entered the driver’s seat. The van left the STPS station.

Materials Obtained from Police Services

The SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between May 4, 2026, and June 22, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report
• Mobile Data Terminal messages
• Arrest Report
• Use of Force Policy
• Offender Transport Program (OTP) Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)
• Use of Force Training Record – SO #1
• BWC footage
• ICCS footage
• Notes – SO #1
• Police communications recordings
• Air Unit footage

The SIU obtained the following records from the STPS between May 4, 2026, and May 7, 2026:

• Notes and written statements – WO #1, WO #2 and the SEW
• Police communications recordings
• Custody footage
• BWC footage

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources on May 4, 2026:

• The Complainant’s medical records from STEGH
• Cellphone footage from CW #3

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, SO #1 and additional police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, SO #2 chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of May 2, 2026, the Complainant, in custody on criminal charges, was seated alone in the back of an OPP prisoner transport van. He was being taken from the STPS station to the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre. SO #2 was operating the van and the SEW of the STPS was his front seat passenger. Shortly after their departure from the police station, while the van was stopped for a red light on Wellington Road at Talbot Line, the Complainant opened the interior metal doors of the prisoner compartment and the exterior doors of the van, and exited the vehicle. He took with him a bag containing his personal property. Unaware of what had happened, SO #2 and the SEW continued to make their way to the detention centre. A motorist behind the prisoner van on Wellington Road observed what had happened and contacted her husband to call the police. The time was about 12:20 p.m..

The police organized a search for the Complainant. A helicopter was deployed to survey the grounds from the air as personnel from both the OPP and STPS patrolled in their cruisers. The Complainant’s phone was “pinged”, indicating he was nearby on Talbot Line. Shortly before 3:00 p.m., a motorist travelling on Major Line, a short distance south of Talbot Line, came across the Complainant in front of his vehicle and called police. He was on foot in the area of railway tracks.

SO #1 and WO #2 arrived on scene, located the Complainant and began to chase him on foot. The officers pursued the Complainant across a muddy field and up onto a dirt mound. At the top of the mound, the Complainant stopped, faced the officers and put his hands up. WO #2 was the first to reach him. He took the Complainant by the right arm and forced him to the ground. SO #1 positioned himself by the Complainant’s left side and delivered a punch and three to four knee strikes to the left side. The Complainant’s arms were controlled behind the back and handcuffed.

The Complainant was transported to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with two left-sided rib fractures.

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.

Section 145(1), Criminal Code of Canada – Unlawfully at Large

145(1) Every person who escapes from lawful custody or who is, before the expiration of a term of imprisonment to which they were sentenced, at large in or outside Canada without lawful excuse, is guilty of

o (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or

o (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by OPP and STPS officers on May 2, 2026. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1 and SO #2 subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s arrest and injuries.

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 had escaped lawful custody from the prisoner transport van and was subject to arrest under section 145(1) of the Criminal Code.

As for the force brought to bear in the Complainant’s arrest, namely, a takedown followed by a punch and several knee strikes, I am unable to reasonably conclude it was unlawful. The Complainant was on the lam and fled from police when discovered. He was also flagged in police records for weapons possession and violence. In the circumstances, it made sense for WO #2 to ground the Complainant at the earliest opportunity. Doing so would help the officers deter and better manage any continuing resistance by the Complainant, which they could reasonably expect, and neutralize the possible presence of weapons on his person. The punch and knee strikes were delivered at a time when there was some resistance by the Complainant to being forced flat on the ground and a struggle to control his left arm behind the back. Given the exigencies of the moment – the need to secure a potentially violent individual as quickly as possible in handcuffs – I am satisfied the force fell within the ambit of justified force. Following the last knee strike, the Complainant’s left arm was freed from under his body and handcuffed behind the back.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s rib fractures were the result of the force used by SO #1, there are no reasonable grounds to attribute the injuries to unlawful conduct on the part of the subject official.[4] As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.

I note possible violations by SO #2 of sections 19 and 27 of the Police Code of Conduct based on evidence that he failed to adequately secure the prisoner transport van, operate the prisoner transport van cameras, and respond to repeated radio and telephone communications to reach him about his missing prisoner. I will be referring this matter to the OPP Commissioner for review by his service. 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 11, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit