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 41-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 4, 2026, at 4:43 p.m., the Complainant contacted the SIU by email to report an injury. The SIU made further efforts to reach the Complainant and did so on May 8, 2026. At that time, the Complainant reported that, while being arrested for trespassing by mall security at Bramalea City Centre on May 2, 2026, a Peel Regional Police (PRP) officer used his knee to forcefully press his head into the ground. The Complainant was handcuffed, escorted to the mall security office and released with a Notice under the Trespass to Property Act. After returning home, the Complainant attended William Osler Health System – Peel Memorial Hospital, where an X-ray and computed tomography scan resulted in a diagnosis of a concussion.

The SIU subsequently contacted PRP. PRP confirmed that PRP officers had attended the food court at the mall in response to a firearm investigation. Officers were escorting four males from the mall when the Complainant interacted with three mall security guards. Officers attempted to arrest the Complainant for trespassing and he was uncooperative. During his arrest, the Subject Official (SO) restrained the Complainant by applying a knee to the back of the head. The Complainant was later escorted to his vehicle and released with a trespass notice.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/05/11 at 8:11 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/05/11 at 8:30 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on May 14, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Not interviewed; declined

CW #4 Not interviewed; declined

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on July 7, 2026.

Subject Official

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

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between May 19, 2026, and July 7, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the public area immediately outside the Burger King restaurant, next to the second-floor food court of Bramalea City Centre, a large shopping mall located at 25 Peel Centre Drive, Brampton.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

PRP Communications Recordings

On May 2, 2026, at 5:00 p.m., a man contacted 911 and reported that he was in the second-floor food court near the Burger King restaurant at Bramalea City Centre. The caller advised that four youths had been seated near his family and appeared to be hovering around them. He provided descriptions of the individuals involved, including one male who allegedly produced a black handgun from a pouch in the front of a hooded sweatshirt. The caller also reported hearing someone say words to the effect of, “What’s so funny now?”

At 5:13 p.m., police were dispatched to the call for service.

At 5:16 p.m., Officer #1 reported that four individuals had been arrested in connection with the investigation.

Following the arrests, the SO requested that another police unit attend the area of the Burger King restaurant within the mall.

At 5:23 p.m., WO #1 reported that he was at the Burger King and that mall security personnel were attempting to arrest a man - the Complainant.

PRP Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – The SO, WO #2, WO #3, WO #1 and Officer #2

On May 2, 2026, at 5:20 p.m., the SO was in the mall addressing the aftermath of the weapons investigation involving several youths. The footage showed the SO approaching the Complainant, who was engaged in a discussion with mall security guards. The SO asked the Complainant what the issue was, and the Complainant responded that he had advised the youths not to speak with police. Security personnel directed the Complainant to leave the mall. The recording then ended.

Separate BWC footage from WO #1 began at 5:20 p.m., and captured four youths being escorted by police officers and mall security staff towards escalators. As WO #1 reached the escalator, he became aware of a disturbance near the Burger King restaurant and moved towards the area.

At 5:22 p.m., WO #1 observed three security guards attempting to control the Complainant, who was on his knees as the guards tried to bring him to the ground. The Complainant resisted their efforts. Security personnel repeatedly directed the Complainant to stop resisting.

At 5:23 p.m., the Complainant had been taken to the ground and was lying on his stomach while being restrained by three security guards. The guards told him that he was under arrest and informed him that a police officer was directly behind him. At that time, the SO approached on the Complainant’s left side and asked if he would place his hands behind his back. The SO also assisted in pulling the Complainant’s hooded sweatshirt back over his head and again told him to put his hands behind the back.

The footage showed security personnel and police officers [WO #2 and WO #3] attempting to pull the Complainant’s arms behind the back. The Complainant appeared uncooperative during these efforts and resisted attempts to secure his arms.

At 5:24 p.m., the footage captured the SO bending down. His right knee appeared to graze the left side of the Complainant’s head before coming to rest on the floor. The officer then repositioned his lower right leg and knee on the upper centre portion of the Complainant’s back. Simultaneously, the SO used his right hand to push the Complainant’s head downward. The Complainant immediately accused the SO of assaulting him.

Two sets of handcuffs were linked together and applied to the Complainant because of his size.

At 5:25 p.m., the Complainant was brought to his feet. Upon standing, he looked at the SO and stated that he intended to pursue an assault allegation against him. The Complainant was escorted to the mall security office.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PRP between May 11, 2026, and June 8, 2026:

• Police communications recordings
• Event Chronology
• General Occurrence Reports
• BWC footage – the SO, WO #2, WO #3, WO #1 and Officer #2
• Notes - WO #1, WO #3 and WO #2
• Persons Details Report – the Complainant

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between May 11, 2026, and June 8, 2026:

• Cellphone video footage from CW #4
• The Complainant’s medical records from Peel Memorial Hospital
• Video footage from Bramalea City Centre

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and other witnesses (police and non-police), 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 afternoon of May 2, 2026, PRP officers, including the SO, attended at a food court on the second floor of the Bramalea City Centre. An individual had contacted police to report that one of a group of youths had displayed a handgun at him in a threatening fashion. The officers identified four youths sitting at a table and eventually took them into custody.

The Complainant was in the food court at the time. He approached the table and told the youths not to speak to police and to call a lawyer. Security guards turned to the Complainant and directed him to leave the area. The Complainant argued with the security guards and delayed his exit. Near the Burger King, three security officers decided to arrest the Complainant for trespassing. The Complainant resisted and was forced to the ground.

Some of the officers involved in the arrest of the youths took note of what was happening and made their way to the site of the Complainant’s arrest. He was being pinned to the ground by the three security officers and refusing to surrender his arms. Officers positioned themselves on either side of the Complainant and attempted to wrestle control of his arms. The SO was near the Complainant’s head. The officer dropped his right knee the ground, striking the left side of the Complainant’s head in the process. He then positioned his right lower leg and knee over the Complainant’s upper body, at times over the back of his head, keeping his (the Complainant’s) upper torso and head to the floor. The Complainant complained he could not breathe, and the SO stood up. Shortly after, the Complainant’s arms were handcuffed behind the back.

The Complainant was escorted to the security office, issued a trespass notice and released. He attended hospital and was diagnosed with a concussion.

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 2(1), Trespass to Property Act - Trespass an Offence

2 (1) Every person who is not acting under a right or authority conferred by law and who,

(a)without the express permission of the occupier, the proof of which rests on the defendant,

(i) enters on premises when entry is prohibited under this Act, or

(ii) engages in an activity on premises when the activity is prohibited under this Act; or

(b)does not leave the premises immediately after he or she is directed to do so by the occupier of the premises or a person authorized by the occupier,

is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000.

Section 9(1), Trespass to Property Act - Arrest Without Warrant On Premises

9 (1) A police officer, or the occupier of premises, or a person authorized by the occupier may arrest without warrant any person he or she believes on reasonable and probable grounds to be on the premises in contravention of section 2.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by PRP officers on May 2, 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.

There is evidence that the Complainant failed to leave the premises in a timely fashion when directed to do so by the security officers. At that point, he was subject to arrest by the security guards and the PRP officers under section 9(1) of the Trespass to Property Act.

The Complainant resisted arrest and was met with what, in my view, was reasonable force to take him into custody. Brought to the ground by the security officers, the Complainant attempted to lift himself as they tried to keep him on the floor. Several police officers intervened to assist the guards, including the SO. At this time, the Complainant was refusing to surrender his arms. Though in a prone position, he was also lifting his head, which was making it difficult to effect his arrest. The use by the SO of his knee and lower leg to keep the Complainant’s upper body flat on the floor seems a reasonable tactic in the circumstances. When the officer first brought his right knee down, it made contact with the left side of the Complainant’s head before it rested on the ground. Whether the blow was accidental or intentional, it was a glancing one with minimal force behind it. Thereafter, it did not appear on the video footage that the SO put an inordinate amount of pressure on the Complainant’s head and upper back with his lower leg. As soon as the Complainant said he could not breathe, the officer removed his leg and stood up. At no point was the Complainant punched or kicked.

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

Date: August 27, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit