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 15-year-old female (“Complainant #1”) and a 55-year-old woman (“Complainant #2”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 27, 2026, at 2:28 p.m., the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 26, 2026, at about 10:00 p.m., members of the HPS Criminal Investigations Branch, Break and Enter Unit attended a residence in the area of Centennial Parkway North and Barton Street East, Hamilton, to arrest Civilian Witness (CW) #2 for break-and-enter offences. CW #2 exited the apartment and was arrested without incident. During the arrest, he removed his cellphone from his pocket and threw it back into the apartment. Officers entered the residence to retrieve the phone, believing evidence could be lost. Inside the apartment were Complainant #2 and Complainant #1. A reported struggle occurred between officers and Complainant #1 over possession of the phone. An officer delivered two hand strikes to Complainant #1’s arm, after which she released the device. After the arrest, officers escorted CW #2 outside. Complainant #2 followed and subsequently collapsed. Paramedics transported her to St. Joseph’s Hospital (SJH). Complainant #1 was transported to McMaster Children’s Hospital (MCH) and underwent a CT scan. She was released with no diagnosis of a serious injury and advised to return on May 28, 2026, for a follow up. On May 27, 2026, CW #1, a relative of CW #2 and Complainant #1, contacted HPS regarding the incident from the previous evening. She advised police that Complainant #1 had attended a family doctor in Hamilton to have her arm assessed and was informed that she might have suffered a concussion.

On May 27, 2026, at 5:09 p.m., the SIU spoke with CW #1, who advised that Complainant #2 remained at SJH and had reportedly been diagnosed with a concussion.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/05/28 at 3:15 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/06/19 at 8:27 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Persons (aka “Complainants”)

Complainant #1 15-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

Complainant #2 55-year-old female; not interviewed (declined); medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on August 28, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Not interviewed; declined

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between June 1 and June 22, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject official was interviewed on August 13, 2026.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between June 25, 2026, and July 17, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the kitchen and foyer of a residence in the area of Centennial Parkway North and Barton Street East, Hamilton.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

HPS Communications Recordings & Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Reports

On May 26, 2026, at 10:02 p.m., HPS received several 911 calls that reported screaming, loud voices, a male and female arguing, and someone yelling, "Give me my phone," at an address in the area of Centennial Parkway North and Barton Street East. A child caller stated his mother was lying on the floor. Dispatch advised they could hear fighting and screaming in the background.

At 10:06 p.m., uniform police officers requested an ambulance for Complainant #2, who was unconscious but breathing.

EMS arrived on scene at 10:18 p.m.

At 10:44 p.m., a call was received from CW #1 requesting to speak to a sergeant.

At 12:32 a.m., May 27, 2026, a call was received requesting an ambulance for a 15-year-old [now known to be Complainant #1], who was dizzy and unable to see straight.

At 1:01 a.m., paramedics transported Complainant #1 to MCH. Officers followed the paramedics to hospital to obtain an update regarding her injuries.

Cellphone Footage

Complainant #1 and CW #1 provided the SIU with eight short cellphone video clips recorded after the interaction in question had taken place, while officers were in the hallway outside of the apartment and Complainant #2 was on the floor.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the HPS between June 29, 2026, and July 29, 2026:

• Police communications recordings
• CAD Reports
• Body-worn camera footage – Officer #1, Officer #2 and Officer #3
• Notes – WO #1 and WO #2
• General Occurrence Report
• HPS policies - Arrest Procedures; Release of Prisoners; Search of Persons; Search of Premises and Vehicles

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between May 27, 2026, and June 19, 2026:

• Complainant #2’s and Complainant #1’s medical records
• Cellphone video footage from Complainant #1 and CW #1.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with Complainant #1, the SO and other witnesses (police and non-police), gives rise to the following scenario.

In the evening of May 26, 2026, the SO, in the company of WO #1 and WO #2, travelled to a residence in the area of Centennial Parkway North and Barton Street East, Hamilton. They were there to arrest a resident of the address – CW #2 – for break-and-enter offences. CW #2 came to the front door and was taken into custody by the officers. What happened next is the subject of significant dispute in the evidence other than that the SO and WO #1 were involved in a physical engagement with Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 over a cellphone.

Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were seen at hospital after the incident and diagnosed with concussions.

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.

Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were seriously injured around the time of the arrest of a family member, CW #2, by HPS officers on May 26, 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 Complainant #1’s and Complainant #2’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.

On the officers’ rendition of events, the SO, WO #1 and WO #2 comported themselves lawfully throughout their dealings with CW #2 and his family. With information to believe that CW #2 was implicated in a number of break-and-enter offences, the officers were within their rights in moving to take him into custody. They did so without incident and in the area of the apartment’s doorway, CW #2 submitting peacefully into custody. Moments later, CW #2 is said to have removed a cellphone from a pocket and thrown it back into the apartment through the open doorway. Understandably concerned that the cellphone, which would have been lawfully seized pursuant to a search incident to CW #2’s arrest, contained evidence of the break-and-enter offences, the SO rightfully entered the apartment to retrieve it. Complainant #1 took possession of the phone and came to rest her body on top of it on the floor, refusing to surrender it to police. The SO positioned himself on top of her and tried to pry the phone out of her hands. WO #1 entered the apartment to assist and struck Complainant #1’s left arm on a couple of occasions to have her release the phone. He also pushed Complainant #2 and CW #1 (another of CW #2’s family members) away when they attempted to physically interfere with their efforts to secure the phone from Complainant #1. The quantum of force described by the officers would not appear unwarranted in these circumstances.

In contrast, there is a version of events proffered in the evidence that the phone in question had not been thrown into the apartment by CW #2. Rather, angered by the fact that Complainant #1 was video recording her family member’s arrest with her cellphone, the SO grabbed her by the hair and forced her to the floor, her head hitting a wall in the process. The SO and another officer pinned her to the floor, and the SO struck her in the back of the head several times before they wrestled the cellphone away from her. When Complainant #2 attempted to come to her defence, WO #1 pushed her away. She fell and suffered a head injury.

If true, the proffered evidence would give rise to a reasonable case of excessive force. However, not only is it contested by the countervailing evidence of the officers, but its veracity is also called into question by a number of considerations. Principal among these is the claim it makes that Complainant #1 had video recorded the officers arresting CW #2 and, in addition, the early stages of the conflict over the cellphone. It appears, in fact, that that never happened. The cellphone video clips provided to the SIU by the family capture imagery outside the apartment in the hallway after the events inside the apartment had concluded. On this record, with no reason to believe that the proffered evidence is any likelier to be closer to the truth than that provided by the officers, and some reason to doubt it, the inculpatory evidence is insufficiently cogent to warrant being put to the test by a court.

In the result, while I accept that Complainant #1’s and Complainant #2’s injuries were incurred in the course of a physical engagement for a cellphone shortly after CW #2’s arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe they 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 17, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit