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 25-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 8, 2026, at 3:54 p.m., the Thunder Bay Police Service (TBPS) contacted the SIU with the following information

On June 6, 2026, at 4:06 p.m., the TBPS received a call to an address in the area of Frederica Street and Edward Street South for a person in crisis. The Complainant’s father had called for police assistance after his son threatened to harm himself and made suicidal comments. At 4:40 p.m., officers found the Complainant three to four blocks away from the Frederica Street address. There was an interaction between the Complainant and the officers during which the Complainant was struck in the face and fell forward hitting the ground. The Complainant was subsequently handcuffed and taken into custody. As Emergency Medical Services were not available to transport the Complainant to hospital, he was taken by police to Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (TBRHSC) for a mental health assessment and an injury to his face. Officers were advised at the time that the Complainant had not sustained a facial fracture. On June 8, 2026, the Complainant’s father attended the TBPS and advised police that his son had suffered a broken nose during his arrest on June 6, 2026.

On June 8, 2026, at 4:15 p.m., the SIU contacted the Complainant’s father. He explained that he had contacted police on June 6, 2026, as his son was in crisis. The Complainant had been drinking and had attempted suicide. He had visited his son in hospital and observed that his son’s face was swollen and scraped. Nurses advised him that his son had undergone a CT scan and was diagnosed with a broken nose and concussion.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/06/09 at 8:58 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/06/09 at 10:14 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on June 11, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between June 11, 2026, and September 9, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, 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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #1 and WO #2 were interviewed on June 24, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the parking lot at 915 Edward Street, Thunder Bay. [JM1] The parking lot was an asphalt surface with loose gravel covering its edges.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) and In-car Camera (ICC) Footage - The SO

On June 6, 2026, starting at about 4:21:25 p.m., the SO exited a black Chevrolet Tahoe SUV. He walked towards a grey SUV parked facing Edward Street in the parking lot of the West Thunder Community Centre[JM2] . An unknown older white male was captured walking away from a male - the Complainant - standing at the passenger side door of the SUV. A reusable shopping bag was on the grass area behind the Complainant.

Starting at about 4:21:41 p.m., the SO approached the Complainant. The unknown male left the area. The SO asked the Complainant if he could ask his name and told him that he was with the city police and that they were looking for a male that was “possibly distressed”. The Complainant stood facing the SO with his hands inside the pockets of his sweater and without any apparent injuries to his face. The Complainant replied, “Not me.” He said his name was “[the Complainant’s first name] and not [the Complainant’s surname]”. He told the SO that the Complainant was his cousin and that he had seen him a short time ago. When asked how he knew they were looking for the Complainant, the Complainant said because his cousin had been bothering him and asking him for alcohol.

Starting at about 4:22:24 p.m., the SO asked if the Complainant had a cellphone and was told that he did, but that it was dead. The SO asked a second time for his name and the Complainant again responded, “[The Complainant’s first name].” The SO said that he did not believe him. The Complainant became agitated and asked the SO, “Why are you detaining me?” The SO responded that he was not detaining him, but was checking on his welfare. He told the officer that he was okay and that his first name was “[the Complainant’s first name]”. When asked for his surname, the Complainant responded, “Same as that fucker cousin you are looking for. You’re not looking for me.” He provided the SO with the names of his aunt and uncle.

Starting at about 4:23:30 p.m., the Complainant continued to deny he was the Complainant that the SO was looking for. The SO said that he might have to detain him under the Mental Health Act until he was able to confirm his identity. The Complainant became agitated and picked up the shopping bag from the grass area despite the SO’s instruction that he not pick it up. The Complainant began to walk away from the SO with the shopping bag in his right hand, saying the SO was being confrontational. The SO responded to a request over his police radio for a status update on his condition, advising that he was fine.

Starting at about 4:23:40 p.m., the SO told the Complainant to approach him. He reached out with his hands and grabbed the Complainant’s arms as he continued to walk away. The Complainant reacted to being grabbed by exclaiming, “Wait!” and turning towards the SO still holding the shopping bag. The SO instructed him to “stop and put your bag down, do it now, do it now” as the Complainant attempted to pull away. The SO tried to move the Complainant’s arm behind his back. The Complainant resisted the SO’s actions. He stepped towards a light pole and grabbed it. The SO instructed him to drop the bag. The Complainant dropped the bag and asked, “What did I do?” The SO attempted to move the Complainant’s right hand behind his back. The Complainant repeatedly asked, “What did I do?” as the SO attempted to place his hands behind the back.

Starting at about 4:24:02 p.m., having been pulled to the ground by the SO, the Complainant found himself on his back with the SO standing over him. The SO said, “[Police unit number], the male is combative.” The Complainant’s arms flailed and reached towards the SO. The SO delivered one closed fist punch to the left cheek of the Complainant. There was no indication of flowing blood or lacerations after the punch. The Complainant continued swearing and demanded to know what he had done. The SO moved the Complainant to a facedown position on the parking lot and placed him in handcuffs behind the back.

Starting at about 4:25:52 p.m., the Complainant repeatedly asked for the SO’s badge number and stated that his father was a police officer as well. The SO conducted a search and located a wallet with identification in the name of the Complainant. The Complainant became increasingly emotional and screamed, “Help me, help me,” as he squirmed on the ground.

Starting at about 4:25:59 p.m., a marked TBPS SUV operated by WO #1 arrived. WO #1 told the Complainant to calm down as they were there to help him because his mother had reported that he was suicidal. The Complainant denied that he was suicidal.

Starting at about 4:26:28 p.m., the SO told the Complainant that they were going to get him up by rolling him to his knees. The Complainant did not cooperate and yelled, “Wait, wait!” He said the officers had scraped his face across the dirt when moving him.

Starting at about 4:27:16 p.m., the SO had hold of the Complainant’s left upper arm while WO #1 held his right. They lifted him to his feet. The Complainant continued to ask why he was being detained as the officers instructed him to just get up and calm down.

Starting at about 4:27:22 p.m., the officers attempted to direct the Complainant in the direction of WO #1’s vehicle. The Complainant struggled to turn to his right to look back at them. He planted his left foot and pushed back against the officers, who in turn pushed forward. The Complainant’s left foot slid out from under him in the loose gravel causing a sliding noise, after which he fell face-first onto the parking lot and turned onto his right side. The SO pulled the Complainant’s hood back exposing the left side of his face. The Complainant had blood on his left eyebrow and the bridge of his nose, which came from his nose and upper lip.

Starting at about 4:27:43 p.m., the SO used his police radio to report to TBPS communications that the Complainant had thrown himself to the ground. He requested an ambulance for lacerations.

Starting at about 4:29:13 p.m., WO #1 asked the Complainant if he wanted to get up off the ground and sit in the back of his police vehicle while they waited for an ambulance or if would prefer to just sit up.

Starting at about 4:29:17 p.m., WO #2 and WO #3 arrived. The Complainant told the officers he was slammed to the ground on his face. He asked WO #1 why he was not wearing a BWC.

Starting at about 4:37:42 p.m., the Complainant was in the rear seat of a TBPS vehicle en route to the TBRHSC.

Starting at about 4:51:26 p.m., the Complainant was at the TBRHSC. His handcuffs were removed and he was restrained to a stretcher by hospital security staff with the assistance of police officers.

Police Communications Recordings – 911

On June 6, 2026, at 4:06:16 p.m., the OPP transferred a 911 call to the TBPS regarding a suicidal man, the Complainant, in the TBPS area. The caller - CW #2 - advised that his son (the Complainant) was suicidal. The Complainant had been at a retail establishment in the area of Frederica Street and Edward Street South. His son had “a history of being suicidal” and had attempted suicide “a couple” of times in the past. CW #2 had received a telephone call from his wife, CW #1, advising that the Complainant had been drinking and was suicidal. The Complainant had texted his mother saying he had no reason to live anymore. The Complainant had been very depressed lately and isolating himself. The Complainant had previously been prescribed medication for depression. The TBPS 911 call-taker advised that the TBPS would attempt to locate the Complainant and check on him. CW #2 requested that, if possible, the Complainant be taken to hospital for assessment. CW #2 advised that it was probable that the Complainant had been drinking.

Police Communications Recordings - Radio[3]

At 4:06:30 p.m., June 6, 2026, the SO was dispatched to attend a retail establishment in the area of Frederica Street and Edward Street South to check for the Complainant. Information relayed to the SO was that the Complainant had texted his family that he was feeling suicidal. WO #1 was also dispatched.

At 4:07:57 p.m., dispatch advised the SO and WO #1 that the retail establishment had closed at 4:00 p.m., and that had been the Complainant’s last known location.

At 4:08:41 p.m., dispatch advised that no specific means of suicide had been mentioned, but that the Complainant had a history of attempting self harm. The Complainant lived in the area of Edward Street South and Walsh Street with his parents.

WO #1 advised that he was at the address in the area of Edward Street South and Walsh Street speaking with CW #1, and that the Complainant was not present. He provided information regarding what the Complainant was wearing.

At 4:22:06 p.m., the SO advised that he had located a man in the area of Edward Street South and Mary Street, who was wearing the same clothing described by WO #1, and carried a reusable shopping bag. The officer said that he would check to see if the individual was the Complainant. WO #1 advised he would attend the address in the area of Edward Street South and Mary Street.

At 4:24:13 p.m., the SO advised that the Complainant was “combative”. Several TBPS units advised that they would attend.

At 4:25:03 p.m., the SO advised that the Complainant had been detained.

At 4:27:17 p.m., WO #1 advised that he had arrived at the address in the area of Edward Street South and Mary Street, and that the Complainant had been handcuffed and was under control.

At 4:28:11 p.m., the SO advised that the Complainant had thrown himself to the ground. The officer requested an ambulance attend as a precaution. The SO further reported that the Complainant had sustained a laceration to the cheek.

At 4:36:50 p.m., WO #3 requested the ambulance be cancelled and advised that WO #1 would transport the Complainant to hospital.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TBPS between June 10, 2026, and June 17, 2026:

• CAD Report
• General Occurrence Report
• TBPS Subject Profile – the Complainant
• BWC footage
• ICC footage
• Police communications recordings
• Notes - WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between June 25, 2026, and September 9, 2026:

• The Complainant’s medical records from TBRHSC
• Photographs taken by CW #1

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 chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of June 6, 2026, TBPS officers were dispatched to locate the Complainant following a call to police from his father, CW #2. CW #2 had contacted police to report that his son had been drinking and was feeling suicidal. He asked that the Complainant be taken to hospital for assessment.

WO #1 travelled to the home of the Complainant’s parents and spoke to CW #1, his mother. She explained that her son, who had been to the house that day, had talked about harming himself. He had also previously attempted suicide. At about 4:22 p.m., while still with CW #1, WO #1 heard over the police radio that the Complainant had been located by the SO at an address in the area of Edward Street South and Mary Street. The officer left the residence and travelled to the scene.

The SO, a canine officer with the service, had found the Complainant in the parking lot of a community centre. He asked the Complainant for his name and received a false identification. As the Complainant fit the description that had been provided, the SO told the Complainant that he did not believe he had provided an accurate identification. He further explained they were looking for the Complainant to ensure he was okay. The Complainant attempted to walk away from the SO, at which point the officer took hold of his arms and attempted to control them behind the back. The Complainant struggled against the officer and the two grappled with each other for a brief period before the SO pulled the Complainant forward and to the ground on his back. The SO, positioned overtop of the Complainant’s torso, punched him once in the face, after which the officer turned him over and handcuffed his arms behind the back.

Shortly after, WO #1 arrived on scene and assisted the SO in lifting the Complainant to his feet. The officers pushed the Complainant forward towards WO #1’s cruiser as the Complainant resisted by planting his feet and pushing backward. In this process, the Complainant’s left foot slid out from under him and he fell face first to the ground. His nose immediately bled after the fall.

Officers transported the Complainant to hospital after his arrest as the paramedics’ arrival was delayed. He was diagnosed with a broken 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 17, Mental Health Act - Action by Police Officer

17 Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his apprehension by TBPS officers on June 6, 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 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 inebriated and suicidal, I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights in moving to apprehend him under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.

Though the fall that appears to have broken his nose was the result of the Complainant losing his footing as the officers pushed him forward following his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the injury was the result of unwarranted force. The Complainant was pushing back against the officers at the time, impeding what they were lawfully entitled to do, namely, place him in a cruiser for transport back to the station. The force adopted by the officers was of like kind to that which they were attempting to overcome and cannot be said to have been excessive or disproportionate in the circumstances. The takedown that preceded the fall also made sense as it would better position the SO to deal with the Complainant’s physical resistance. The punch struck by the SO shortly after the takedown is subject to legitimate scrutiny as the Complainant was on the ground on his back at the time with the SO on top of him. Here, too, however, there is eyewitness and video evidence that the Complainant was resisting the SO’s efforts to contain him by flailing his arms and even grabbing at the officer’s arms. On this record, while the punch might not have been strictly necessary to control the Complainant, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it fell afoul of the latitude of justifiable force recognized by the criminal law. Officers embroiled in physical conflicts are not expected to measure their responsive force to a nicety; what is required is a reasonable response, not necessarily an exacting one: R. v. Nasogaluak, [2010] 1 SCR 206; R v Baxter (1975), 27 CCC (2d) 96 (Ont. CA).

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

Date: September 28, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit