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 33-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 25, 2026, at 3:59 a.m., the Windsor Police Service (WPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 25, 2026, at 12:25 a.m., WPS officers were called to Riverside Drive and Ouellete Avenue regarding a man [the Complainant] who had reportedly assaulted a woman. The Subject Officer (SO) arrived on scene, followed the Complainant southbound on Ouellette Avenue and discharged his conducted energy weapon (CEW) at him. The Complainant locked-up and fell forward, striking his face on the ground. He was transported to Windsor Regional Hospital (WRH) – Ouellette Campus and diagnosed with two fractures to his right orbital bone.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/05/25 at 9:33 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/05/26 at 12:09 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on June 12, 2026.

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on May 25, 2026.

Subject Official

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

The Scene

The events in question transpired on Ouellette Avenue in and around its intersection with Pitt Street, Windsor.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – The SO

On May 25, 2026, at 12:30:08 a.m., the SO armed his CEW. There were two live cartridges in their respective bays. At 12:30:09 a.m., a cartridge was deployed, and electricity was discharged for 1.255 seconds. At 12:30:11 a.m., the CEW was rendered safe.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Cellphone Footage from the CW

On May 25, 2026, at 12:24:15 a.m., the CW stood inside a building and recorded the Complainant and a woman outside on Ouellette Avenue through a pane of glass.

At 12:31:03 a.m., the CW recorded two people at the corner of Pitt Street and Ouellette Avenue. One person – the Complainant - was in a prone position while the other – the SO - stood over him. The SO handcuffed the Complainant behind the back.

Video Footage from Holiday Inn – 33 Riverside Drive East

A police vehicle [the SO] was captured travelling through the rear parking lot of the Holiday Inn [on the south side of the building]. The SO exited the parking lot and turned east onto Pitt Street East. A man – the CW - ran through the parking lot in between vehicles towards the SO’s police vehicle. The CW and the vehicle then disappeared out of camera frame. Twenty seconds later, the SO and the Complainant walked into camera frame along the south sidewalk before crossing to the north sidewalk. The Complainant seemed to walk away westbound from the SO. The CW walked back into camera frame along the north sidewalk. Suddenly, the Complainant sprinted away westbound from the SO. The SO ran after him. There did not appear to be anything in the SO’s hands. The CW also ran westbound after the SO and Complainant. All three disappeared from camera view.

Video Footage from City of Windsor

On May 25, 2026, at 12:30:50 a.m., the Complainant and the SO ran southwest across Pitt Street East towards the southeast corner of Pitt Street East and Ouellette Avenue. The SO held a reflective object [a CEW] in his hands, which were outstretched in front of him. The Complainant reached the south side of Pitt Street East.

At 12:30:53 a.m., the Complainant’s body suddenly stiffened and he fell face first onto the concrete sidewalk. His head appeared to bounce off the ground when he landed. The SO arrived at the location the Complainant had fallen within a second and stood over the Complainant. Briefly placing his CEW on the ground, the SO picked it back up and handcuffed the Complainant behind the back.

At 12:31:57 a.m., two additional police officers arrived.

At 12:39:42 a.m., paramedic services arrived.

WPS Communications Recordings - 911

On May 25, 2026, at 00:25:10 a.m., the CW called 911. He reported there was a man [the Complainant] on Ouelette Avenue dragging an older woman. The Complainant had knocked something out of the woman’s hands. A police vehicle [the SO] arrived while the Complainant was on the phone with the dispatcher. He told the SO what had happened and told him to look for a white guy with a particular tattoo.

WPS Communications Recordings - Radio

On May 25, 2026, at 12:27:21 a.m.,[3] the dispatcher broadcast a physical description of the Complainant.

At 12:28:28 a.m., the SO was dispatched to the call and was marked as having arrived at the same time.

At 12:30:48 a.m., the SO advised that the Complainant was walking away from him.

At 12:31:17 a.m., the SO advised he had deployed his CEW and the Complainant was in custody.

At 12:31:35 a.m., paramedic services were requested to attend because the Complainant had struck his head on the pavement.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from WPS between May 28, 2026, and May 29, 2026:

• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Call Summary Report
• CEW deployment data – the SO
• Use of Force training records – the SO
• WPS Use of Force Policy
• Video footage from City of Windsor
• Scene photographs
• WPS communications recordings
• Witness Statement – CW

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between May 25, 2026, and July 8, 2026:

• Cellphone footage from the CW
• Video footage from Holiday Inn
• The Complainant’s medical records from WRH
• Canadian Police Information Centre record – the Complainant

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and a civilian eyewitness (the CW), and video footage that captured the incident in part, 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 25, 2026, WPS officers were dispatched to the area of Ouellette Avenue and Pitt Street following a call to police about an assault. The CW had observed a male – the Complainant – knocking something out of a woman’s hands and dragging her with him.

The SO arrived on scene and spoke with the CW, who pointed out the Complainant and the woman. The officer spoke to the woman and told the Complainant to stay put. The Complainant fled from the officer in a southwest direction across Pitt Street. The SO gave chase and discharged his CEW at the Complainant. The probes met their mark. The Complainant fell face first onto the concrete sidewalk at the southeast corner of Pitt Street and Ouellette Avenue, a distance of about 100 metres from where the chase began.

The Complainant suffered facial fractures in the fall and was transported from the scene to hospital in ambulance.

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 seriously injured in the course of his arrest by a WPS officer on May 25, 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 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.

With information to believe that he had just assaulted a woman, I am satisfied the SO was within his rights in moving to arrest the Complainant for assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the officer, namely, a single discharge of his CEW, was lawful. The Complainant ran away in an effort to avoid custody. He continued to run despite being told to stop by the officer. In the circumstances, as the pursuit neared the 100 metre mark, I am satisfied that the officer’s decision to use his CEW constituted a reasonable exercise of force. If it worked as intended, the weapon would temporarily incapacitate the Complainant, bringing his flight to an end and, with it, an opportunity to take him into custody, without the necessary infliction of serious injury.

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

Date: September 8, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit