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 39-year-old male (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 2, 2026, at 9:13 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 2, 2026, at about 2:00 p.m., TPS officers were investigating the Complainant in the area of Eighth Street and Lake Shore Boulevard West, Etobicoke. The Complainant was arrested for failing to comply with a release order and suffered an injury in the process. At 8:20 p.m., the Complainant was transported to the Toronto Western Hospital (TWH) where he was diagnosed with an avulsion fracture of the left ankle.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/06/02 at 9:55 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/06/02 at 10:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

39-year-old male; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on June 3, 2026

Subject Official

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on July 16, 2026

Witness Officials

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 on June 12, 2026

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the area of Islington Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard West, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Communications Recordings

On June 2, 2026, at 2:04:04 p.m., a female from 22 Division radioed dispatch that there was a person – the Complainant - in custody.

At 2:19:22 p.m., an officer directed dispatch to contact Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for a 39-year-old male – the Complainant - who was conscious and breathing but complaining of pain in his lower leg.

At 2:32:34 p.m., Officer #1 requested an estimated time of arrival for EMS.

At 4:30:46 p.m., an officer radioed that the Complainant was going to be transported to TWH aboard an ambulance.

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – Officer #1

On June 2, 2026, at 2:49:23 p.m. with his hands handcuffed behind the back, the Complainant was assisted from a seated position to his feet by two TPS officers. The Complainant stood up and said, “It’s hard to stand on this foot.” The Complainant’s handcuffs were released, and he was re-handcuffed with his hands in front of the body.

Starting at 2:50:15 p.m., the Complainant spoke to a female out of camera view [now known to be his surety]. He said, “There’s my surety,” and, “I’m going to the station.” He told her the officers said his arrest was for failing to comply with a release order. He also said that he was on his way back from [the name of a service provider]. The officers searched the Complainant. The Complainant winced in pain about his foot.

Starting at 2:52:56 p.m., Officer #2 and Officer #1 assisted the Complainant to a marked cruiser where he was placed in the rear.

At 2:55:09 p.m., Officer #2 advised the Complainant of the reason for his arrest and his legal rights.

TPS In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – Officer #1

On June 2, 2026, at 2:54:37 p.m., the Complainant was seated in the rear of a cruiser. His hands remained handcuffed in front of the body and his left leg was extended across the back seat for support. An officer advised the Complainant the cameras were recording and indicated he would remain nearby while reading his caution and rights.

At 2:55:01 p.m., the Complainant said, “Aww my foot. What a tackle, totally unnecessary.” A uniformed officer – Officer #2 - advised the Complainant he was under arrest for failing to comply with a release order. He was read his rights to counsel and legal aid information. He was also cautioned regarding making any statements. The Complainant questioned the basis for the arrest and initially indicated he did not understand why he was arrested.

At 2:58:51 p.m., the Complainant asked the officer seated in the front passenger compartment whether the conditions of his release permitted him to attend his programs without his surety present. The Complainant stated that his bail documentation indicated that he was authorized to do so.

At 3:01:11 p.m., the Complainant was observed with an abrasion on his left elbow.

At 3:05:30 p.m., an officer asked the Complainant where he was coming from. The Complainant provided the name of a service provider and an address in downtown Toronto, where he had been engaged in programming. The officer asked if he was coming back from programming, to which he responded, “Literally.” An officer said they were going to figure it all out.

At 3:06:03 p.m., the Complainant said he was standing and admiring the kids at the fire truck for five minutes before he was arrested. He was going to travel a certain route to his surety’s residence, which was when a Jeep rolled up and someone said, “Don’t move.” The Complainant did not move, and he saw a bunch of persons behind and knew something was going on.

At 3:11:44 p.m., Officer #1 spoke with the Complainant regarding his injury. The Complainant rated his pain as 10 out of 10 and indicated he believed his injury was swelling up. Officer #1 advised they were trying to get EMS there as fast as possible but explained they were busy.

At 3:17:45 p.m., the Complainant confirmed to WO #1 that he was at programming from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. The Complainant told him to call ‘[first name]’ but did not know her number. The Complainant noted that the agency was not allowed to divulge information about him.

At 3:21:35 p.m., WO #1 advised the Complainant that, if his attendance at programming could be confirmed, he could be released; however, until such confirmation was obtained, the matter remained a “fail-to-comply” investigation. The Complainant stated that he normally attended the service provider daily.

At 3:38:54 p.m., WO #1 advised the Complainant that he had attempted to contact the programming service provider but was unable to reach anyone. WO #1 further advised the Complainant that he would be transported to the hospital and then lodged in custody at 22 Division pending a bail hearing the following morning in relation to the alleged breach. WO #1 explained that he would remain in custody until it could be established that he was not in breach of his release conditions.

At 4:07:31 p.m., WO #1 advised the Complainant that he was supposed to be with his surety. Shortly after, WO #1 left a voicemail with the Complainant’s counsel.

At 4:16:57 p.m., the Complainant exited the rear of the cruiser and officers assisted him onto a stretcher.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between June 3, 2026, and August 26, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Involved Officers List
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Notes – the SO, WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3
• TPS History – the Complainant
• Release Order 9 (Form 11) - the Complainant
• TPS policies – Arrest; Use of Force
• TPS detention records – the Complainant
• Booking footage
• Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) records
• Image of arrest scene
• ICC footage – Officer #1
• BWC footage – Officer #1, Officer #2 and Officer #3

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between June 5, 2026, and July 13, 2026:

• The Complainant’s medical records from TWH
• Communiqué from program manager at programming service provider.
• Communiqué from the Complainant’s surety

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, the SO and other police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the early afternoon of June 2, 2026, the TPS officers investigated the Complainant in the area of Islington Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard West. TPS were concerned about a potential breach of release conditions that bound the Complainant at the time.

TPS officers spotted the Complainant shortly before 2:00 p.m. and tracked him for a period. The Complainant walked westward down an alleyway, emerged onto Eighth Street, some 30 metres north of Lake Shore Boulevard West, and was confronted by police. The SO was the first to reach him. He had exited his vehicle, approached the Complainant from behind and wrapped him in a bear hug, forcing him to the ground. Other officers converged on the Complainant and kept him pinned to the ground with their arms and legs. The Complainant was handcuffed to the back and escorted to a police cruiser.

The Complainant was transported to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with fractures of the left foot.

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 TPS officers on June 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 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.

Part of the explanation provided by the involved officers for the Complainant’s arrest was that he was alone outside his designated site of house arrest in violation of a release order. The officers were mistaken in this regard. The release order did not require that the Complainant be accompanied by a third-party when outside the house. There is, however, evidence that the Complainant did not take a direct route to the house, and that he delayed his travels by loitering and reversing course on occasion. This could constitute a violation of the terms of the Complainant’s release, and the officers advert to this evidence in support of their arrest decision. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the Complainant’s arrest was without legal justification.

As for the force used in the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence does not reasonably establish it was excessive. The Complainant was not armed, nor did he physically resist arrest. That said, with information at their disposal that the Complainant was armed, wrapping the Complainant’s arms and torso and forcing him down at the earliest opportunity, and applying pressure to keep him pinned to the ground during the application of the handcuffs, would appear reasonable force. It was imperative in the circumstances that the Complainant be neutralized promptly and his movements restrained until such time as he was handcuffed and searched for weapons.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s foot fractures were the result of the force brought to bear in his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injuries are 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: September 14, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit