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 49-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 21, 2026, at 3:56 p.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 21, 2026, at 5:57 a.m., Civilian Witness (CW) #2 called 911 to report that the Complainant was out of control and damaging a home, located in the area of Yonge Street and Henderson Drive, Aurora. The Complainant had also assaulted CW #2 and Civilian Witness #1 (CW #1) with a sock filled with a heavy-weight ball. At 6:05 a.m., Witness Official (WO) #1 and WO #2 (WO #2) arrived as the Complainant attempted to flee the scene on a bicycle. He was informed that he was under arrest and taken from the bike. A struggle ensued and the parties fell to the ground. WO #1 attempted to discharge his conducted energy weapon (CEW); however, it was ineffective and the Complainant bit WO #1. A short time later, the Subject Officer (SO) arrived and used his CEW. His first shot was ineffective, but his second discharge proved successful. On this occasion, the Complainant fell backwards onto the driveway and was subsequently handcuffed. The Complainant was transported via Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to the Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital (CVH), where he was diagnosed with a fractured left scapula. He was admitted to hospital under the authority of the Mental Health Act.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/05/21 at 4:45 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/05/21 at 9:43 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

Interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on May 21, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses

CW # Interviewed

CW # Interviewed

CW # Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on May 22, 2026.

Subject Official

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

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on May 26, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the front driveway of a home located in the area of Yonge Street and Henderson Drive, Aurora.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – WO #1

Two deployments were delivered by pressing the arc button causing the Taser to energize for a drive-stun application.[2] The trigger was then pulled and bay one deployed. The arc button was also pressed. The trigger was pulled again and bay two was deployed. The data indicated good initial delivery of energy but dropped off after approximately one second.

CEW Deployment Data – the SO

The CEW was armed and bay one was deployed. Approximately two seconds after the initial deployment, the trigger was pulled again and bay two was deployed.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

YRP Communications Recordings

On May 21, 2026, at about 5:56 a.m., CW #2 called 911. When the 911 operator answered the phone, screams were heard in the background. CW #1 advised that she required an immediate response and stated that the Complainant had gone “berserk”. She stated that she and CW #1 had been assaulted by the Complainant, who had also damaged walls in his bedroom. The operator notified her that the police were en route, and CW #2 ended the call.

At about 5:58 a.m., WO #1 and WO #2 were dispatched to a disturbance at a home located in the area of Yonge Street and Henderson Drive, Aurora. They were advised that CW #2 had called to report that the Complainant was going crazy and screaming, and had tried to attack CW #1. The Complainant was reported to be in his room and damaging walls. He was not known to be in possession of a weapon. Officers were subsequently advised that the Complainant had beaten up CW #1 and was bleeding. An ambulance was requested. The Complainant did not have any mental health issues and had been awake all night.

At about 6:02 a.m., officers were advised that the Complainant was in possession of a sock contained something hard [a lacrosse ball], which he used to hit CW #1 in the head.

At about 6:03 a.m., Officer #17 advised the dispatcher that the Complainant could be arrested for assault with a weapon and apprehended under the Mental Health Act. Officer #17 requested containment of the residence and that a minimum of two officers would be required for approach.

At about 6:06 a.m., Officer #17 advised that no action was to be taken until the arrival of all units. The residence was to be contained if the Complainant was inside.

At about 6:08 a.m., units were advised that contact with CW #2 was re-established. Officers were informed that CW #2 and the Complainant were in the backyard and there was screaming.

At about 6:09 a.m., WO #1 arrived at the residence and announced that the Complainant was on a bicycle. Officer #17 asked for the Complainant’s direction of travel. There was no response.

At about 6:11 a.m., the SO announced the deployment of a CEW and that they were taking the Complainant into custody. The SO advised that the Complainant’s head was bleeding and he requested an ambulance.

At about 6:14 a.m., it was announced that the Complainant was in custody.

YRP In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – WO #2

On May 21, 2026, at about 6:09 a.m., WO #2 arrived on scene and stopped her cruiser facing the driveway. The officer ran to assist WO #1. WO #1 was struggling with the Complainant. The Complainant was on the ground, shirtless, fighting WO #1. WO #2 joined the struggle and got behind the Complainant. She wrapped her arms around the Complainant’s head and legs around his torso.

At about 6:10 a.m., the Complainant and WO #2 rolled over, and the officer lost her hold of him. WO #1 drew his CEW and drive-stunned the Complainant in the back. The Complainant grabbed WO #2’s right forearm and bit it. WO #1 delivered closed fist strikes and the Complainant released his bite. Both officers disengaged from the Complainant, moving about a half-metre away. The Complainant got up to his feet, took a fighting stance and swung wildly at WO #1. WO #1 deflected the strikes and also took a swing at the Complainant, which did not connect. The Complainant lost his balance and fell onto his buttocks. The SO arrived on scene.

At about 6:11 a.m., the Complainant got to his feet and was in the process of standing up. The SO deployed his CEW. The Complainant locked-up and fell backwards onto the driveway. WO #1 moved in and handcuffed the Complainant’s hands behind the back. Blood appeared on the driveway below the Complainant.

At about 6:19 a.m., EMS arrived on scene.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from YRP between May 21, 2026, and June 3, 2026:

• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• General Occurrence Report
• Arrest Report
• Show Cause Report
• Statement of CW #1
• ICC footage
• Photographs of CW #1
• CEW deployment data
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2, Officer #1, Officer #2, Officer #3, Officer #4, Officer #5, Officer #6, Officer #7, Officer #8, Officer #9, Officer #10, Officer #11, Officer #12, Officer #13, Officer #14, Officer #15, Officer #16 and Officer #17.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources

• Doorbell video footage
• The Complainant’s medical records from CVH

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

In the morning of May 21, 2026, YRP officers were dispatched to a house located in the area of Yonge Street and Henderson Drive, Aurora. CW #2 had called police to report that the Complainant had attacked her and CW #1, and caused property damage.

Moments earlier, in a fit of unprovoked rage, the Complainant had beaten CW #1 with a sock stuffed with a lacrosse ball and attempted to throw him down a staircase. When CW #2 called 911, the Complainant also struck her with the weapon. He then retrieved a bicycle from the backyard and was leaving the property when he was confronted by an officer.

WO #1 was the first officer on scene. He exited his cruiser at the foot of the home’s driveway and approached the Complainant, telling him to stop and that he was under arrest. The Complainant continued to make his way down the driveway, and WO #1 took hold of him and forced him to the ground. The two struggled for a brief period as WO #1 fought to control the Complainant’s arms behind the back.

WO #2 arrived on scene and joined in the struggle. She wrapped her legs around the Complainant’s torso and her arms around his neck. The two rolled on the ground and the officer lost her hold. With her right arm still in the area of the Complainant’s neck area, he took hold of it and bit her forearm. WO #1 drew his CEW and delivered a drive-stun into the Complainant’s back. He then discharged the weapon in probe mode. Still, the Complainant was unsubdued. WO #1 delivered two punches to the head of the Complainant, after which both he and WO #2 disengaged. The Complainant got to his feet and rushed at the officers, swinging at WO #1. WO #1 swung back but missed. The Complainant lost his balance and fell.

At about this time, the SO appeared and confronted the Complainant with his CEW. The Complainant, on his buttocks at the time, attempted to get to his feet. The SO discharged his weapon in probe mode, and the Complainant locked-up and rocked backwards, striking the back of his head on the ground. At this time, WO #1 moved in and handcuffed him behind the back.

The Complainant was taken to hospital after his arrest, diagnosed with a fractured scapula and admitted under the Mental Health Act.

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 267, Criminal Code of Canada - Assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm

267 Every one who, in committing an assault,

(a) carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation thereof, or

(b) causes bodily harm to the complainant,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by YRP officers on May 21, 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 information at their disposal that the Complainant had assaulted CW #1 and CW #2, the officers were within their rights in moving to arrest him for assault with a weapon contrary to section 267(a) of the Criminal Code.

With respect to the force used by the officers in the Complainant’s arrest, there is no evidence to reasonably conclude it was unlawful. Aware of the Complainant’s violence ahead of his arrival, and faced with an individual refusing to surrender into custody, WO #1 acted reasonably in forcing the Complainant to ground. In that position, the officer could better manage any continuing combativeness on the part of the Complainant. In fact, the Complainant strenuously resisted the officer’s efforts to control his arms on the ground and the two wrestled to what was essentially a stalemate before the arrival of WO #2. She too attempted to wrestle control of the Complainant but had to withdraw when he bit her right arm. WO #1 disengaged at about the same time but not before using his CEW in drive-stun and probe mode, neither of which seemed to have had an effect on the Complainant. He also delivered two punches, which appear to have played a part in releasing the Complainant’s bite hold of WO #2. The Complainant remained undeterred. He rose to his feet and attacked WO #1, who punched back. The Complainant fell but he was not yet done. Now confronted by the SO pointing a CEW at him, the Complainant again attempted to get to his feet. On this record, the use by the officer of the less-lethal weapon made sense. If it worked as intended, it would bring a protracted physical conflict to an end without the necessary infliction of serious harm. While it is regrettable that the Complainant fell back and struck his head, the weapon was effective in finally overcoming the Complainant’s resistance.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s fractured scapula was incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury is attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the arresting officers. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: August 24, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit