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 death of a 28-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 25, 2026, at 1:17 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 24, 2026, at 6:44 p.m., the OPP received a call from Civilian Witness (CW) #2 requesting a welfare check of the Complainant. The Complainant had made a FaceTime call to CW #2, who observed that he had obvious facial injuries, including swollen black eyes and blood on his face. The Complainant had no memory of the previous two days and told WO #2 that he had fallen. The injuries to his face appeared much more significant than would be expected from a fall, and CW #2 was concerned about his welfare. The Subject Official (SO) and Witness Official (WO) #1 attended a residence in Cramahe Township, at 7:46 p.m., where the Complainant was staying. They met CW #3 at the address. He was initially uncooperative with the officers but eventually allowed them inside to conduct the welfare check of the Complainant. The Complainant was wanted on a “fail to comply” warrant and was placed under arrest. The officers requested Emergency Medical Services (EMS) at 7:52 p.m. because of his facial injuries. EMS attended and transported the Complainant to Northumberland Hills Hospital (NHH). At 11:44 p.m., the Complainant was released from the hospital, medically cleared for police custody, and prescribed two medications. The Complainant was transported to the OPP Cobourg Detachment and held in custody for a bail hearing. He was placed in a cell and monitored every 15 minutes or less. There were no concerns overnight. Breakfast was provided to the Complainant at 9:58 a.m. At 10:18 a.m., the Complainant was observed on video falling from his bed and writhing on the ground. WO #2 and three other officers rushed to his cell and immediately requested EMS. Paramedics arrived at 10:32 a.m. and transported the Complainant back to NHH at 10:40 a.m. The Complainant was pronounced deceased by NHH physicians at 12:09 p.m.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/05/25 at 1:51 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/05/25 at 4:18 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

28-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

CW #7 Not interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between May 26, 2026, and June 23, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview, 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

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #7 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #8 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between May 25, 2026, and June 23, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a cell of the OPP Cobourg Detachment.

Physical Evidence

SIU forensic services attended at the detachment and observed that the lock-up area was comprised of a main booking area with two holding cells. The cells contained a full-width concrete/metal bench and a standard stainless steel institutional toilet.

The cell block was monitored via a closed-circuit video system. The cell featured a surveillance camera enclosed in secure, exterior protective housing.

SIU forensic services collected and documented the personal effects belonging to the Complainant, and noted medical debris and equipment left on the cell floor [likely by EMS personnel].

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPP Communications Recordings

At 6:41 p.m., May 24, 2026, the OPP received a call from CW #2 requesting a welfare check of the Complainant and reporting a possible breach of his release conditions. CW #2 advised that during a FaceTime call, the Complainant appeared to have significant facial injuries.

At 6:49 p.m., officers were advised that the Complainant was inside a residence.

At 7:16 p.m., officers were advised that the Complainant was no longer at the residence and were provided with a description while searching the area.

At 7:46 p.m., officers returned to the residence and located the Complainant. EMS were requested to attend.

An officer advised that the Complainant was arrested at 7:52 p.m., for failing to comply with a release order.

At 7:58 p.m., EMS arrived and were said to be transporting the Complainant to NHH for further medical evaluation.

At 11:44 p.m., officers were advised that the Complainant had been medically cleared and discharged from the hospital.

At 11:46 p.m., officers arrived at the Cobourg OPP Detachment with the Complainant in custody.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – WO #1, the SO and WO #2

Starting at about 7:02 p.m., May 24, 2026, WO #1 and the SO attended an address in Cramahe Township. Two paramedics were on scene. WO #1 knocked on the basement door and CW #3 appeared. He stated that the Complainant had had a seizure in the garage. He bled from the mouth and had cuts on his arms. CW #3 further indicated that the Complainant had left the residence, and that he was also searching for him. WO #1 and the SO told CW #3 to give them a call if the Complainant returned, after which they left the residence. The officers then spoke to a neighbour, CW #4, who provided information that she had spoken with the Complainant and observed his injuries. She further noted that CW #3 had escorted the Complainant back to his residence.

Starting at about 7:39 p.m., officers returned to the residence and advised CW #3 that they were going to enter the residence as they believed the Complainant was inside and that exigent medical circumstances existed. The officers entered and found the Complainant inside with visible facial injuries. The Complainant confirmed he was on house arrest with conditions to reside at his mother’s house.

At 7:47 p.m., the Complainant was arrested for failing to comply with a release order. The SO conducted a pat-down search. The Complainant said that he had fallen and denied any recent drug or alcohol use. He advised that he had not taken his prescribed medications that day. EMS attended and assessed the Complainant.

Following medical clearance at NHH, the Complainant returned to OPP custody and was lodged in a cell at the Cobourg OPP Detachment. A second pat-down search prior to lodging also yielded no contraband. No use of force was observed beyond routine arrest, search, and custody procedures.

At approximately 10:21 a.m., May 25, 2026, the Complainant experienced an apparent seizure in his cell. Officers attended, provided care and requested EMS. Although initially responsive, the Complainant’s condition deteriorated and he suffered a further seizure at 10:31 a.m.

EMS arrived at 10:32 a.m. and transported the Complainant to NHH at 10:42 a.m.

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage - The SO

On May 24, 2026, starting at about 7:47 p.m., the Complainant was sat in the rear seat of the SO’s cruiser. He was observed with a fresh laceration to his left temple and a cut on the bridge of his nose. He was calm and cooperative throughout the interaction. The Complainant explained that he had suffered a seizure, fallen, and struck his face on the ground, but had limited memory of the event. He advised that he had experienced seizures in the past, although not frequently. The Complainant denied consuming any alcohol or drugs that day. He further advised that he was prescribed medication but had not taken it because it was at his mother’s residence. Paramedics attended and assessed the Complainant. He told paramedics that he had a seizure in the garage of CW #3’s residence and stated that previous seizures had been associated with sleep deprivation and drug use. Although he initially denied drug use, he later admitted to using cocaine the previous night. The paramedics advised that there was a risk of further seizure and recommended hospital assessment.

OPP Custody Footage

The Complainant was escorted into the booking area at 11:46 p.m., May 24, 2026, and processed. He underwent a pat-down search and was lodged in a cell at 11:59 p.m. Regular detention checks were conducted through the night.

The cell video did not contain a time or date-stamp. The Complainant was observed apparently sleeping on the bench for over nine hours. He got up and used the toilet at nine hours and 43 minutes into the recording.

At nine hours and 50 minutes, the Complainant turned his back to the camera. It appeared as though he reached into the toilet bowl and his actions appeared curious.

At ten hours and 15 minutes, the Complainant lay on the bench. Four minutes later, he began exhibiting signs of a seizure, falling from the bench to the floor and convulsing. Officers immediately entered the cell and provided care. At one point, the Complainant became combative and was briefly restrained. He appeared to further deteriorate and suffered another apparent seizure.

EMS arrived at ten hours and 33 minutes, entered the cell, and assumed medical care. About four minutes later, officers and paramedics removed the Complainant on a stretcher.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following records from the OPP between May 29, 2026, and June 16, 2026:

• Occurrence Report
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Custody Report / Detainee Security Check Sheet
• Custody footage
• BWC footage – WO #1, the SO and WO #2
• ICC footage – the SO
• Probation Order – the Complainant
• Notes – WO #7, WO #4, WO #6, WO #8, WO #5, WO #3, WO #2 and WO #1
• OPP policies – Arrest; Detainee Care & Control; Search & Seizure; In-custody Deaths

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between May 29, 2026, and June 16, 2026:

• The Complainant’s medical records from NHH
• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police eyewitnesses 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 evening of May 24, 2026, OPP officers were dispatched to an address in Cramahe Township to search for the Complainant. CW #2 had called police to request a wellbeing check of the Complainant. Earlier that day, during a FaceTime conversation, the Complainant had appeared with facial injuries. WO #2 also noted that the Complainant was in possible breach of a house arrest order mandating he reside with his mother.

The SO and WO #1 attended at the address in Cramahe Township and arrested the Complainant without incident at about 7:50 p.m. The officers learned that cuts to the Complainant’s face were the result of a fall during the course of a seizure. Paramedics attended at the scene, treated the Complainant’s cuts and transported him to hospital given his seizure history.

The Complainant was seen at hospital where he underwent a CT scan. He was medically cleared, discharged back to police and taken to the Cobourg OPP Detachment.

The Complainant was lodged in cells at about midnight, May 25, 2026. He slept for most of the night as guards checked on him at regular intervals. At about 10:20 a.m., the Complainant experienced a seizure and fell from his cell bench. Officers in the detachment responded promptly to the cell and rendered care. Paramedics were summoned and arrived on scene at about 10:30 a.m.

The Complainant was transported back to hospital where despite resuscitative efforts he was pronounced deceased at about 12:09 p.m.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy did not identify any injuries that would account for the Complainant’s death. His cause of death remains pending as of the time of this report.

Section 215, Criminal Code - Failure to Provide Necessaries

215 (1) Every one is under a legal duty

(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person

(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and

(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.

(2) Every person commits an offence who, being under a legal duty within the meaning of subsection (1), fails without lawful excuse to perform that duty, if

(b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.

Sections 219 and 220, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Death

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

The Complainant lapsed into acute medical crisis while in the custody of the OPP on May 25, 2026. He was taken to hospital and subsequently passed away. 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 or any of the Complainant’s police custodians committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s death.

The offences that arise for consideration are failure to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing death contrary to sections 215 and 220 of the Criminal Code, respectively. Both require something more than a simple want of care to give rise to liability. The former is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. The latter is premised on even more egregious conduct that demonstrates a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is not made out unless the neglect constitutes a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable standard of care. In the instant case, the question is whether there was any want of care on the part of the Complainant’s police custodians, including the SO, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that endangered his life or caused his death. In my view, there was not.

The Complainant was in breach of a term of a release order by residing at an address in Cramahe Township. He was clearly subject to arrest by the SO and WO #1.

It is also apparent that the SO and the other officers who had a hand in the Complainant’s custody comported themselves with due care and regard for his health and wellbeing. The Complainant was properly taken to hospital after his arrest because of his facial injuries and seizure risk. He was assessed at hospital and deemed fit to be released back to police. While in cells he was regularly monitored and asleep for most of the time. During this time, arrangements were made to pick up his prescription medication. There is a suspicion in the evidence that the Complainant accessed and consumed cocaine he had on his person in cells, and that this may have precipitated the seizures he experienced. Shortly before his medical crisis, the Complainant exhibited some curious behaviour by reaching into the toilet. Whether there is any substance in this speculation is yet to be determined. Be that as it may, I am satisfied it would not make a difference to the liability analysis. The Complainant had been subjected to two pat-down searches, with negative results, prior to being placed in cells. In the circumstances, if he did have an illicit substance on his person, it might well be that only a strip search would have detected it. Strip searches, however, are highly invasive and only permissible as an exceptional law enforcement technique where there are reasonable grounds to believe they are necessary: R v Golden, [2001] 3 SCR 679. It was not clear that the police had the grounds to justify a strip search. The Complainant had not, for example, been arrested for a drug offence. Once the Complainant fell from his bench, police officers promptly responded to his cell to render care pending the arrival of paramedics.

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

Date: September 15, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit