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 30-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 31, 2026, at 3:52 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 30, 2026, at about 10:53 p.m., the TPS received a call about a disorderly male [the Complainant] at a bar located at 569 College Street [now known to be Reverie]. The Complainant was refusing to leave the premises. TPS officers arrived at the bar and attempted to remove the Complainant, who became combative. The Subject Official (SO) deployed a conducted energy weapon (CEW) in drive-stun mode,[2] but it was ineffective and the Complainant continued to struggle with the officers. Witness Official (WO) #2 deployed a CEW in drive-stun mode, which also was ineffective. The struggle continued and police officers delivered multiple strikes in an effort to gain control, at which time the Complainant was struck in the face, resulting in a fractured nose. An ambulance attended the scene and transported the Complainant to Toronto Western Hospital (TWH) where he was placed in four-point restraints by hospital staff. On May 31, 2026, at 1:55 a.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured nose.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/06/01 at 8:20 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/06/01 at 8:47 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on June 8, 2026

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between June 1, 2026, and June 2, 2026.

Subject Official

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

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on June 15, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired inside Reverie Cocktail Bar, 569 College Street, Toronto.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data

On May 30, 2026, the CEW used by the SO was deployed at 11:10 p.m., for 4.540 seconds, in drive-stun mode. Seven seconds later, the CEW was deployed for 3.436 seconds, and again three seconds later for 2.330 seconds, all in drive-stun mode.

The CEW used by WO #2 was deployed at 11:11 p.m. for 5.073 seconds, and again six seconds later for 4.562 seconds, both in drive-stun mode.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

TPS Communications Recordings & Computer-assisted Dispatch Report

On May 30, 2026, at 10:53 p.m., a woman [now known to be CW #2] called 911 and requested police attendance at a bar on College Street in Toronto. An intoxicated man [now known to be the Complainant] was acting aggressively towards people. He broke a glass, but no injuries had occurred. The staff member confirmed that the Complainant was refusing to leave and encouraged police to respond.

At 11:07 p.m., WO #1 and the SO were waved into the bar regarding the unwanted person call.

At 11:10 p.m., there was a broadcast of a CEW discharge in drive-stun mode.

At 11:11 p.m., multiple police arrived on scene, followed by a request for paramedics.

At 11:38 p.m., the Complainant was transported to TWH, where he had to be placed in four-point restraints.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On May 30, 2026, starting at about 11:07 p.m., the SO and WO #1 entered a bar. They immediately approached the Complainant, who spoke in slurred Spanish. Officers said, “Let’s go.” The SO grabbed the Complainant’s right arm and WO #1 grabbed his left, and the officers escorted the Complainant towards the front entrance. The Complainant resisted and was grounded by the officers. Because of the close quarters between the BWCs and what was happening, the details of the takedown were not entirely captured. The Complainant curled into a fetal position and spoke in Spanish. An officer ordered, “Stop it! Give me your fucking hands!”

Starting at about 11:10 p.m., a CEW was deployed [in drive-stun mode] for about five seconds [now known to be by the SO]. It was subsequently deployed again for three seconds, and then for two seconds. The Complainant continued to resist. WO #2 and WO #3 entered the bar and assisted the SO and WO #1 to gain control of the Complainant’s arms. The Complainant remained on his knees in a fetal position.

Starting at about 11:11 p.m., an unknown female voice yelled, “Stop fighting them! Listen to what they’re saying!” WO #1 controlled the Complainant’s right arm and grabbed the hair on the back of his head to force his head down to the floor. WO #2 deployed his CEW in drive-stun mode into the Complainant’s right shoulder. The Complainant lay facedown on the floor. WO #2 deployed his CEW again in drive-stun mode to the same shoulder/back of the neck area. An unknown female voice yelled, “Put your arms back, man! Stop fighting.”

Starting at about 11:12 p.m., the Complainant lay on the ground on his right side with his hands in handcuffs behind the back. His jeans were pulled below his buttocks. His face was bloody and blood leaked from his nose. Blood was spattered on his shoulder, arm and shirt. His left eye was swollen shut. Due to the close-up proximity of the BWCs, no strikes from officers were observed during the struggle. The Complainant remained conscious and continued to twitch and twist.

Starting at about 11:17 p.m., the SO requested a rush on paramedics as the Complainant remained elevated and displayed symptoms of what could be excited delirium, such as excessive energy and profuse sweating.

Starting at about 11:18 p.m., WO #2 picked up a small baggie of white powder from the floor and secured it in an evidence bag. The confiscation aggravated the Complainant. Paramedics arrived and the Complainant was transported to TWH.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between June 2, 2026, and June 30, 2026:

• BWC footage – the SO, WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Prosecution Summary
• General Occurrence Report
• CEW deployment data – the SO and WO #2
• TPS policies – Arrest; Incident Response (Use of Force/De- Escalation)

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from TWH on June 9, 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 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 evening of May 30, 2026, the Complainant found himself at Reverie, a cocktail bar at 569 College Street, Toronto. Though initially fine, he began to act out and cause a disturbance. A patron called police to report the matter and TPS officers patrolling in the area – the SO and WO #1 – were flagged down.

The officers spoke to staff at the establishment, confirmed that the Complainant had been asked to leave repeatedly but refused, and then entered the bar to remove him. They quickly located the Complainant, took hold of his arms and attempted to escort him towards the door. The Complainant physically resisted their efforts and pushed the SO to the floor. He was grounded by the officers but continued to struggle with them, kicking out with his feet and refusing to surrender his arms to be handcuffed. The SO struck the Complainant several times in the face and WO #1 delivered multiple punches to the torso. The Complainant continued to struggle against the officers’ efforts to control his arms around the back even after the SO drive-stunned him with his CEW.

WO #2 and WO #3, arriving at the bar following a radio call for assistance by WO #1, entered to find the SO and WO #1 over top of the Complainant. WO #2 struck the Complainant in the face twice with open palm slaps, after which the officer drew his CEW and drive-stunned him in the right shoulder area. The Complainant’s arms were subsequently wrestled behind his back and handcuffed by WO #3.

The Complainant was transported by paramedics to hospital from the scene and diagnosed with a fractured nose.

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.

Section 9, Trespass to Property Act - Arrest Without Warrant On Premises

9 (1) A police officer, or the occupier of premises, or a person authorized by the occupier may arrest without warrant any person he or she believes on reasonable and probable grounds to be on the premises in contravention of section 2.

(2) Where the person who makes an arrest under subsection (1) is not a police officer, he or she shall promptly call for the assistance of a police officer and give the person arrested into the custody of the police officer.

(3) A police officer to whom the custody of a person is given under subsection (2) shall be deemed to have arrested the person for the purposes of the provisions of the Provincial Offences Act applying to his or her release or continued detention and bail.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on May 30, 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 to believe that the Complainant was refusing to leave despite multiple opportunities to vacate the premises as directed by the bar’s staff, I am satisfied that the SO and WO #1 were within their rights in moving to arrest him under section 9(1) of the Trespass to Property Act.

With respect to the force brought to bear by the SO and the other arresting officers, there is no doubt that the Complainant was repeatedly punched, including in the head, by officers. It is also true, however, that the Complainant proved a formidable physical challenge to the officers, able to prevent them over a protracted period of time from controlling his arms and lashing out with his legs. Indeed, it was only with the final discharge of WO #2’s CEW into his shoulder that the officers were able to overcome the Complainant’s resistance and secure his arms behind the back. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the force used by the police was unwarranted.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s broken nose was incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the injury is attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the arresting officers, including the SO.

Before closing the file, I note for the record a possible violation of section 27 of the Police Code of Conduct with respect to the apparent failure of WO #1 to activate his BWC in a timely manner. I will be referring this matter to the police service for their review. Pursuant to section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, the matter will also be referred to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: September 21, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit