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 34-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 7, 2026, at 11:55 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 7, 2026, at 3:54 a.m., TPS received a call regarding a domestic disturbance at an address in the area of Woodbine Avenue and Danforth Avenue, Toronto. At about 5:00 a.m., officers from 55 Division attended the location and spoke with a woman [now known to be CW #1], who denied that anyone else was in her apartment. The officers entered the basement apartment and located the Complainant, who was on condition not to be at that address. The Complainant put his hands up, and was arrested without incident and transported to the police station. During the booking process, he reported that his hand was broken and that the injury might have happened prior to his arrest or during handcuffing. He was transported to Michael Garron Hospital (MGH) where, at 10:15 a.m., he was diagnosed with a fracture of the fourth metacarpal on his right hand.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/05/07 at 12:39 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/05/07 at 1:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on May 7, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on May 8, 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 May 14, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the kitchen area of an apartment located in the area of Woodbine Avenue and Danforth Avenue, Toronto

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Communications Recordings

On May 7, 2026, at 3:53 a.m., CW #3 called the TPS to report an ongoing disturbance. She informed the police dispatcher that the residents of an apartment were fighting. The caller did not know the parties but heard a man and woman quarreling.

At 3:54 a.m., CW #2 called 911 and requested that police attend an apartment due to an ongoing domestic dispute. CW #2 reported that a male and a female were fighting. He stated that he heard items being thrown and screaming.

The dispatcher reported the situation over the radio and requested that police officers attend the address. She also requested an ambulance as a precautionary measure.

At 3:57 a.m., TPS dispatched Officer #1 and Officer #2 to the address.

At 3:59 a.m., Officer #1, who had arrived at the scene, radioed that he could see someone [CW #1] coming to the door.

At 4:02 a.m., Officer #2 and an unknown officer arrived at the scene.

At 4:10 a.m., an officer broadcast, “One in custody, all in order.”

At 4:17 a.m., an officer notified Emergency Medical Services that an ambulance was not required.

At 4:30 a.m., Officer #2 radioed he had a 34-year male [the Complainant] headed back to 55 Division. They arrived at the station five minutes later.

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On May 7, 2026, at 3:59 a.m., Officer #1, WO #2, the SO, Officer #2 and WO #1 attended an apartment in the area of Woodbine Avenue and Danforth Avenue and spoke with CW #1. CW #1 was advised of 911 calls reporting screams from her apartment. She said that she was alone in her apartment playing Xbox online. Officer #2 asked CW #1 if she had become upset while playing the game. CW #1 replied she was not in danger. The officers asked several times to enter her apartment; however, CW #1 continuously declined and stated she was not in danger. The officers left and spoke out front of the residence.

At 4:05 a.m., WO #2 conducted a records check in his cruiser. The officer learned that the Complainant was listed as living at the address and that he had a bench warrant.

At 4:08 a.m., Officer #1, WO #2, the SO, Officer #2 and WO #1 returned to the basement apartment of the home to enter and see if the Complainant was present in the unit.

At 4:09 a.m., the SO knocked on the door. CW #1 answered and refused entry into her apartment. CW #1 was physically removed from the residence. WO #2, the SO, Officer #3 and WO #1 entered the apartment and called out for the Complainant. Officer #1 explained to CW #1, “When people call 911, we don’t know who is in danger. We have multiple people saying there is a male and female voice. I don’t know if there is a man in there, I don’t know if you’re hurt. So, we’re going to go in there and make sure there is no one else in there. 911 gives us the exigency. We have multiple calls to 911 hearing a male and female yelling.”

At 4:10 a.m., the Complainant emerged from the bedroom with his hands up. WO #2 grabbed the Complainant’s left hand and the SO grabbed his right wrist. The Complainant’s hands were handcuffed behind the back. The Complainant was told he was under arrest for failing to comply with a release order and a bench warrant.

At 4:11 a.m., Officer #3 said, “So obviously don’t say anything and answer to the alleged offence. You know the drill, I’m sure. We’ll read you your rights to counsel once we have everything in order.”

At 4:13 a.m., the Complainant was brought out of the residence without issue. The Complainant’s hands did not hit anything as he was brought to a cruiser.

At no point during his arrest did the Complainant complain or indicate he was in pain. At no point during his arrest did the Complainant indicate he had any fracture or injury to his right hand.

TPS In-car Camera (ICC) Footage - Officer #2

On May 7, 2026, at 4:13 a.m., the Complainant was escorted to a cruiser. He was handcuffed with his hands behind the back and had a jacket draped over his shoulders.

At 4:15 a.m., the Complainant slowly sat down in the rear driver’s side of Officer #2’s cruiser. As the Complainant sat down in the cruiser, his hands did not hit the door frame of the cruiser.

At 4:17 a.m., the Complainant repositioned himself in the seat, groaned loudly, and proceeded to breathe heavily.

At 4:20 a.m., the Complainant said, “I don’t mean to breathe so loud. Just, position of my arms. It’s not like [inaudible] wrong or anything.” The Complainant continuously adjusted his position while in the cruiser.

At 4:23 a.m., the Complainant asked, “Is this absolutely necessary?” The officer said, “It is because you’re not allowed to be around her and you have a bench warrant.”

At 4:31 a.m., an officer advised the Complainant of his right to counsel. The Complainant asked him to write down the number for duty counsel.

At 4:40 a.m., the Complainant said that he might experience alcohol withdrawal symptoms.

TPS Booking Footage

On May 7, 2026, at 4:56 a.m., the Complainant was escorted into the booking area by the SO and Officer #2. The SO informed the staff sergeant that the Complainant was arrested on an endorsed bench warrant and for failure to comply with a release order.

At 4:59 a.m., the staff sergeant asked the Complainant if he was injured, and the Complainant reported he believed his hand was broken as he raised his right elbow out to the side. The Complainant said, “It’s been re-activated, re-broken.” The Complainant advised the staff sergeant that he had a boxer’s fracture not too long ago to his right hand.

At 5:00 a.m., the Complainant told the staff sergeant, “It got re-hurt tonight.”

At 5:01 a.m., the Complainant reported he had previously broken his hand about four times. In relation to how he sustained the injury to his right hand, the Complainant stated, “I feel like how it was handled, may have had a major impact. It started to fuckin hurt again.” The staff sergeant said that handcuffs tend to irritate things.

The Complainant reported he experienced alcohol withdrawal and the last time he consumed alcohol was about three hours ago. The staff sergeant asked if he had ten beers before, to which the Complainant replied, “Likely.”

At 5:07 a.m., the Complainant faced the wall, and a frisk search was carried out.

At 5:13 a.m., the Complainant said, “Just to be clear, I’m blaming you guys, not for anything that happened.”

At 5:18 a.m., the Complainant stood with his right hand raised and the staff sergeant said, “We’ll get you to the hospital.” The Complainant reported he broke his hand last a couple of months ago but declined to answer the staff sergeant’s question whether or not he sought medical treatment.

At 7:58 a.m., while in the booking area, the staff sergeant advised the Complainant that he would be transported to MGH for assessment of his hand.

At 3:43 p.m., the Complainant stood at the booking desk; his right hand was in a soft cast. The Complainant spoke to the booking officers about his medications and was led from the booking hall by two uniformed police officers.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between May 7, 2026, and August 5, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Civilian Witness and Involved Officers Lists
• Bench Warrant – April 27, 2026
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Notes – WO #1 and WO #2
• TPS policies – Arrests; Use of Force; Intimate Partner Violence
• Prisoner Record – 55 Division
• BWC footage - Officer #1, Officer #4, WO #2, WO #1, the SO, Officer #3 and Officer #2
• ICC footage – Officer #2, Officer #4 and WO #1
• Custody footage

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from MGH on May 19, 2026.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and additional police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that 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 May 7, 2026, TPS officers, including the SO, arrived at an apartment in the area of Woodbine Avenue and Danforth Avenue. Police had received 911 calls reporting a disturbance involving a male and a female in the apartment. The officers knocked on the apartment door and a woman – CW #1 – answered.

CW #1 resided in the apartment. With her at the time was the Complainant. The Complainant was in breach of a release order prohibiting his presence at the address, the result of assault charges involving the pair from 2025. CW #1 indicated she was alone in the apartment with her kittens and that she might have raised her voice playing Xbox. Asked if the officers could come in to check on her safety, CW #1 refused them entry in the absence of a warrant. CW #1 returned inside while the officers regrouped to consider their options.

Minutes later, the officers knocked on the door again and advised CW #1 that they would enter her apartment notwithstanding her objections to ensure she was okay. By that time, the officers had conducted a records check and spoken to the 911 callers. They learned that there was a bench warrant in effect for the Complainant’s arrest and that he was prohibited from being at the address.

The officers entered the basement apartment and located the Complainant. He was handcuffed without incident, placed in a cruiser and transported to the police station. In the course of his booking, the Complainant revealed that he believed his right hand was broken. He was subsequently taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fracture of the fourth metacarpal of the right hand.

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 diagnosed with a serious injury following his arrest by TPS officers on May 7, 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.

I am satisfied that the officers lawfully entered the apartment against CW #1’s wishes. With information from multiple sources to believe that CW #1 was presently at risk of harm from a male in her apartment, I am satisfied that the officers had authority at common law to briefly enter the residence to ensure her safety: see R v Godoy, [1999] 1 SCR 311. Once inside, the officers were within their rights in taking the Complainant into custody. There was a warrant in effect for his arrest, and he was in breach of a term of his release.

With respect to the force used by the SO in the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence does not reasonably establish it was excessive. On the contrary, aside from taking hold of the Complainant’s right hand and bringing it behind the back, the officer used no force at all. The Complainant suggests that the SO caused his injury by the manner in which he applied the handcuffs. The video footage, however, gives the appearance of the handcuffing being very routine. There is no suggestion of any needless force being brought to bear.

At the end of the investigation, it remains unclear when exactly the Complainant’s injury was incurred. There is evidence that it might have pre-existed his arrest on the day in question. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe it was the result of unlawful conduct on the part of the SO, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: August 20, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit