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 25-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 10, 2026, at 4:06 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 10, 2026, at around 2:00 a.m., a staff member from an Alpha’s Shawarma restaurant, Toronto, approached patrol officers about a patron who refused to leave. Subject Official (SO) #1 and SO #2 approached the man [now known to be the Complainant]. The interaction turned physical, and officers grounded the Complainant. The Complainant continued to struggle and was struck in the face. Officers arrested the Complainant for intoxication in a public place and placed him in handcuffs with his hands behind the back. Blood was observed on the bridge of his nose, and he was taken by ambulance to Mount Sinai Hospital.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/05/10 at 5:04 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/05/11 at 8:32 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on May 15, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between May 14 and 15, 2026.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject officials were interviewed on May 22, 2026.

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on May 14, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the Alpha’s Shawarma Restaurant, 565 King Street West, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – SO #1 and SO #2

The BWC recordings began at 1:56 a.m., May 10, 2026. The Complainant was captured repeatedly questioning what he had done wrong. He refused to cooperate with police commands that he leave the restaurant. CW #1, the Complainant’s friend, was nearby. Eventually, the two officers and two men pushed and pulled each other until making it to the exit. SO #2 pushed CW #1 out of the door, and SO #1 and the Complainant also went out, with SO #1 falling on the Complainant. As SO #1 rose to his feet, he appeared to swing his right hand in the direction of the Complainant’s head. He told him to stay on the ground as the officers dealt with CW #1.

At 1:58 a.m., the Complainant stood against a wall where he was placed in handcuffs behind the back.

TPS Communications Recordings

On May 10, 2026, at 1:57 a.m., SO #2 requested assistance at an Alpha’s Shawarma restaurant. He required a car for an arrested man [now known to be the Complainant].

At 2:02 a.m., the WO requested a prisoner transport wagon, and he was told the wagon was en route.

At 2:04 a.m., there was a broadcast that another man [now known to be CW #1] was in custody.

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were requested at 2:21 a.m. for a nose injury.

At 3:20 a.m., the Complainant was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital.

Video Footage from Alpha’s Shawarma[3]

SO #1 and SO #2 were seen near the front counter. A man could be heard yelling in the background. A man in a green shirt [now known to be the Complainant] came into view. SO #1 spoke with an employee behind the counter, and SO #2 joined him. SO #1 subsequently approached the Complainant and spoke for a while, after which he grabbed the Complainant by the front of his shirt and pulled him. The Complainant resisted and stepped backwards. SO #1 and SO #2 tried to grab the Complainant by his arms, and he pulled away. SO #1 and SO #2 took control of the Complainant and moved him forward through the crowd of patrons. CW #1 got in between the officers and the Complainant, and a back and forth struggled ensued. SO #1 and SO #2 got behind CW #1, who faced the Complainant, and began to push them towards the door. The Complainant stopped at the threshold of the door and tried to break free, refusing to leave. The door became jammed with people and SO #2 pushed CW #1 in the back. The group fell out of the door and off camera.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between May 11, 2026, and June 4, 2026:

• BWC footage - SO #1 and SO #2
• General Occurrence Report
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Notes - SO #1, SO #2 and the WO
• Video footage from Alpha’s Shawarma, 565 King Street West
• TPS policies - Provincial Offences Act; Emergency Incident Response; Incident Response

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

On May 26, 2026, the SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from Mount Sinai Hospital.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, SO #1, SO #2 and civilian eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the early morning of May 10, 2026, the Complainant was with friends – CW #1 and another male – inside the Alpha’s Shawarma at 565 King Street West, Toronto. The place was crowded with customers and the Complainant soon found himself in conflict with other patrons. The disturbance caught the attention of restaurant staff.

SO #1 and his partner, SO #2, were on patrol in the area when they were waved down by restaurant staff, alerting them to the situation. The officers entered the restaurant and spoke to staff behind the counter. They identified the Complainant and indicated they wanted him removed from the premises. SO #1 directed the Complainant to leave. He refused to leave and repeatedly asked what he had done wrong. SO #1 grabbed the Complainant by the shirt and began to pull him towards the doorway. The Complainant resisted and attempted to pull free of the officer’s hold. CW #1 inserted himself in the process, coming between his friend and the officers.

The parties eventually made it to the front of the restaurant. The Complainant refused to leave willingly and had to be forced to the doorway. CW #1 continued to interfere on behalf of the Complainant. SO #1 struggled to force them out of the restaurant. SO #2 came from behind and pushed CW #1 through the door. That action suddenly cleared the jam at the door, causing SO #1, the Complainant and CW #1 to lose their footing and fall to the ground outside the restaurant.

The Complainant landed on his back with SO #1 over him. The officer quickly righted himself and delivered a right-handed punch to the Complainant’s face. Shortly after, CW #1 wrapped his right arm around SO #1 left leg. SO #1 and SO #2 pushed him away. The Complainant was subsequently lifted to his feet and handcuffed behind the back without further incident.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured jaw and nose.

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 9, 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 TPS officers on May 10, 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 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.

When the Complainant refused to leave the premises of his own volition, having been told by restaurant staff and police that he was no longer welcome, he rendered himself subject to arrest for trespass under section 9(1) of the Trespass to Property Act.

As for the force used by the officers in the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence does not reasonably establish it was unlawful. The force inside the restaurant was reasonable. As the Complainant was refusing to leave willingly, the officers were within their rights in pushing and pulling him to compel his exit. The fall outside was preceded by a chaotic scene at the restaurant doorway. With a crowd of customers and onlookers in the vicinity, the Complainant and CW #1 struggled against the officers’ efforts to push them outside. It was against this backdrop that SO #1 says he felt momentarily vulnerable to a belligerent Complainant as they fell together, and struck out with his right hand to quickly ensure he was brought under control. In the heat of the moment, the officer’s explanation is a plausible one. A single strike would not necessarily appear an excessive use of force in those circumstances.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injuries were incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, and more than likely the result of the punch to the face by SO #1, there are no reasonable grounds to believe they are attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the subject officials. There is, therefore, no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: September 2, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit