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 34-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 25, 2026, at 7:27 p.m., the OPP contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 25, 2026, at 8:25 a.m., the OPP received a 911 call from a Civilian Witness (CW), reporting a male slumped on the steering wheel of a Toyota Sienna on a residential street in the area of Wigle Avenue and Main Street East, Kingsville. The Subject Official (SO) from the Kingsville Detachment responded at 8:26 a.m. and located the Complainant in the driver’s seat, slumped over. The SO observed evidence of drug consumption inside the vehicle. The Complainant woke up, and the SO advised him he was under arrest for impaired driving. The Complainant attempted to put the vehicle in motion. The SO reached over and turned the engine off. A short struggle ensued and the Complainant exited the vehicle and attempted to run away. The SO discharged his conducted energy weapon (CEW), stopping the Complainant and causing him to fall to the ground. The Complainant lost consciousness, and the SO requested Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Paramedics attended and transported the Complainant to Erie Shores Healthcare (ESH). He underwent a CT scan and, at 5:56 p.m., was diagnosed with a fractured cervical spine at the C5 level.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/05/26 at 10:26 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/05/26 at 10:30 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on May 27, 2026.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on May 27, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on June 4, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around a residential street in the area of Wigle Avenue and Main Street East, Kingsville.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data - The SO’s Taser 7

At 8:30:44 a.m., May 25, 2026, the trigger was pulled and a cartridge was deployed from Bay 1. Electrical discharge began at 8:30:44 a.m. and continued for about five seconds, ending at 8:30:49 a.m.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPP Communications Recordings

On May 25, 2026, at 8:25 a.m., the CW contacted police and reported a silver Toyota minivan parked in the area of a residential street near Wigle Avenue and Main Street East, Kingsville, with a male occupant [the Complainant] reclined in the driver’s seat who appeared to be asleep or unconscious. The CW advised the man was non-responsive despite attempts to talk to him, although his eyes were moving. The driver’s window was down, and a grocery bag was visible on the passenger seat. The SO was dispatched to investigate.

At 8:31 a.m., the SO advised that a CEW had been deployed and the Complainant was in custody.

At 8:41 a.m., EMS were requested after officers reported that the Complainant was unconscious but responsive to light stimulation.

EMS arrived on scene at 8:52 a.m.

At 9:03 a.m., officers advised that the Complainant would be transported by EMS to ESH, with police accompanying the ambulance.

OPP Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

Starting at about 8:29:10 a.m., the SO was captured standing at the driver’s door of a Toyota Sienna. The Complainant was slumped over in the driver’s seat. After opening the driver’s door, the SO spoke with the Complainant and asked what was going on. The Complainant was asked to provide his driver’s licence and replied that he did not have it with him, explaining he had left it at home.

Starting at about 8:29:51 a.m., the Complainant identified himself with a false name.

Starting at about 8:30:09 a.m., the SO directed the Complainant to exit the vehicle.

Starting at about 8:30:19 a.m., the Complainant started the vehicle. The SO reached into the vehicle, removed the keys from the ignition and physically pulled the Complainant from the driver’s seat by his left arm, telling him that he was under arrest. A struggle ensued in which the Complainant broke free of the SO’s grasp. After requesting assistance over the radio, the SO again attempted control the Complainant. A second struggle occurred, though the proximity of the Complainant to the camera made it difficult to clearly discern details of the interaction.

Starting at about 8:30:47 a.m., the Complainant again broke free and began to run away. As he fled, the SO deployed his CEW. The CEW probes struck the Complainant in the back, causing him to fall onto the roadway. The Complainant lay face down on the roadway with his head near the curb while the CEW cycled. Once the cycle ended, the SO instructed him to place his hands behind the back. The Complainant’s hands were handcuffed behind the back by the SO. The officer advised the Complainant that he was under arrest for resisting arrest, possession of illicit substances, and drug-impaired operation of a vehicle.

Starting at about 8:33:52 a.m., with the assistance of the WO, the Complainant was helped to his feet, escorted to a cruiser, searched, and placed in a rear seat.

While speaking with the WO, the SO explained that the Complainant had been passed out in the vehicle, there was evidence of drug use, and he could barely get out of the vehicle. He further stated that when the Complainant attempted to start the vehicle, he removed him from it, a struggle followed, and the Complainant was ultimately subjected to a CEW deployment.

Starting at about 8:40:30 a.m., Officer #1 arrived. The SO and Officer #1 discussed the Complainant’s condition, and the SO requested EMS.

EMS arrived at 8:54:26 a.m. and, about a minute later, paramedics removed the Complainant from the cruiser and placed him on a stretcher. The SO told paramedics that the Complainant had been found passed out in a vehicle and struggled with police when officers attempted to arrest him, resulting in the CEW deployment.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP on May 27, 2026:

• CEW deployment data - the SO
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report / Event Chronology
• Arrest, General and Supplementary Reports
• BWC footage - the SO, Officer #2, the WO and Officer #1
• Notes - the WO
• Occurrence Report - May 21, 2026

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from ESH on June 2, 2026

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that 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 morning of May 25, 2026, the OPP received a 911 call about a male - the Complainant - slumped over in the driver’s seat of a vehicle. The CW, in the area of the vehicle doing some work, had observed the male and contacted the police. Though his eyes moved, the CW reported that the male was unresponsive when he attempted to get his attention.

The SO arrived on scene within minutes and approached the vehicle – a Toyota Sienna. He opened the driver’s door and asked the Complainant how he was doing. The centre console of the vehicle contained a vial with a white powder and burnt tin foil, leading the SO to believe the Complainant had recently consumed illicit substances. The Complainant was unable to produce his licence when asked and provided the officer a false name. The SO asked the Complainant to step out of the vehicle. A sluggish Complainant seemingly attempted to comply for a moment before he reached for the ignition and started the vehicle. The officer immediately shut the ignition off. He told the Complainant that he was under arrest and grabbed him by the left arm, removing him from the vehicle.

Once outside, the Complainant was able to break free of the SO’s hold and ran away a few metres before he locked-up and fell forward onto the ground, his upper body striking a curb in the process. The SO had drawn and discharged his CEW, whose probes struck the Complainant in the back and caused neuromuscular lock-up.

The SO approached the Complainant, handcuffed his arms behind the back and lifted him to his feet. The Complainant was lodged in the back seat of a police cruiser.

Paramedics arrived on scene and transported the Complainant to hospital where he was diagnosed with a fracture of the C5 vertebral body.

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 diagnosed with a fractured neck following his arrest by an OPP officer in Kingsville 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 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.

With information at his disposal that the Complainant was in possession of illegal substances and had care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs, I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights in moving to arrest him for offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and Criminal Code.

I am also satisfied that the SO used only lawful force in taking the Complainant into custody. The Complainant physically resisted arrest by attempting to drive away and then, when that option was foreclosed by the SO, struggling against the officer’s efforts to secure him in handcuffs. The SO responded by attempting to wrestle control of the Complainant without the use of strikes. However, when the Complainant broke free of the officer’s hold, the SO was entitled to escalate his force. He did so, in my view, reasonably when he resorted to his CEW. If it worked as intended, it would temporarily immobilize the Complainant, end his flight and provide the officer 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 16, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit