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 an 11-year-old female (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 8, 2026, at 9:32 p.m., the Waterloo Regional Police Service (WRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 8, 2026, at 6:48 p.m., officers were dispatched to an address in the area of Franklin Boulevard and Can-Amera Parkway, Cambridge, for a female youth [the Complainant] in crisis following a call to police from the principal of the Complainant’s school expressing concerned about her wellbeing. Officers attended at the location - a residential complex - and located the Complainant hiding in an outside stairwell. At 6:50 p.m., she was apprehended as a child in need of protection. In the process of being handcuffed, she pulled away and dropped to the ground, causing an injury to her arm. The Complainant was transported to Cambridge Memorial Hospital (CMH) by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) where she underwent X-rays. At approximately 9:05 p.m., officers were advised that the Complainant had a clean break to her left humerus.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/06/09 at 7:55 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/06/11 at 2:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

11-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on June 11, 2026.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on June 11, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Official (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on June 15, 2026.

Service Employee Witness (SEW)

SEW Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The service employee witness was interviewed on June 15, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the area of an external staircase to an office building within a townhouse complex in the area of Franklin Boulevard and Can-Amera Parkway, Cambridge. The staircase consisted of a set of concrete stairs with a metal handrail leading to the basement of the building.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

WRPS Communications Recordings & Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

Starting at 4:02:26 p.m., June 8, 2026, the WRPS received a call for a child [the Complainant] who had not embarked on her pre-arranged transportation after her school day ended.

Starting at 4:26:21 p.m., the WRPS received information that the Complainant had been located at an address in the area of Franklin Boulevard and Can-Amera Parkway.

Starting at 4:27:21 p.m., the SO and the SEW arrived on scene.

Starting at 5:00 p.m., the WO attended the scene to assist.

Starting at 6:33:55 p.m., the WO requested EMS as the Complainant was complaining of shoulder pain.

Starting at 6:54:46 p.m., EMS arrived on scene and transported the Complainant to CMH.

WRPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The SO & The WO

Starting at 4:34:38 p.m., June 8, 2026, the SO introduced herself to the Complainant, who sat at the bottom of a stairwell. The SO spoke with the Complainant and tried to convince her to go back to her current residence.

Starting at 6:14:17 p.m., the SO spoke with the WO on the phone and advised they had spent over an hour talking with the Complainant and they needed to physically move her.

Starting at 6:26:01 p.m., the SO grabbed the Complainant under her left armpit with both hands and communicated with the WO to lift her up.

Starting at 6:28:50 p.m., the WO took hold of the Complainant’s right arm under the armpit while the SO took hold of her left arm under the armpit. They attempted to stand her up, but the Complainant slumped down and refused to cooperate.

Starting at 6:29:49 p.m., the SO stated that the Complainant needed to be handcuffed after the Complainant had tried to bite her. There was a struggle to apply the handcuffs but eventually the Complainant was secured with two sets of handcuffs.

Starting at 6:31:30 p.m., the SO and the WO attempted to stand the Complainant up, but she refused to cooperate. The SO stated, “One thing I am going to tell you, because you are cuffed, if we pull, you are really going to hurt your shoulders okay and I do not want you to be hurt. I know this is awful and this is not what you want but you are going to really hurt your shoulders.”

Starting at 6:31:42 p.m., the SO and the WO attempted to bring the Complainant up the stairs. The Complainant grabbed the SO’s pants and refused to cooperate.

Starting at 6:32:45 p.m., the Complainant reached the top of the stairs and screamed with shoulder pain. The SO had hold of the Complainant’s left arm under the armpit when she was lifted to the top of the stairs.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the WRPS between June 10, 2026, and June 12, 2026:

• Names, roles and call signs of involved police officers
• General Occurrence Report
• BWC footage
• Police communications recordings
• CAD Report
• WRPS Arrest and Detention Policy
• Notes - the WO and the SEW

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from CMH on June 12, 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 her legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of her notes.

In the late afternoon of June 8, 2026, WRPS officers, including the SO, attended at a residential complex in the area of Franklin Boulevard and Can-Amera Parkway, Cambridge. The Complainant, reported missing after failing to return to her residence following school, had been located at the bottom of an external staircase beside an office building at the complex. The SO, partnered with the SEW, took the lead in speaking to the Complainant. Unhappy and frustrated with her circumstances at her current residence, the Complainant had returned to the residential complex where she had previously resided.

Over the course of about two hours, the SO tried to verbally engage with the Complainant from the top of the stairs. The officer attempted to persuade her to come up the stairs so they could return her to her current residence. The Complainant steadfastly refused. The WO attended at the scene to assist and also met with no success. Eventually, it was decided that the officers would have to physically remove the Complainant from the staircase.

The Complainant physically resisted the officers’ efforts to lift her to her feet. She dropped her weight, kicked out with her legs, pulled away and attempted to bite the SO. The Complainant’s hands were ultimately wrestled behind her back and handcuffed, after which the officers again attempted to stand her up. When the Complainant continued to resist, the officers grabbed her arms and began to pull her up the stairs. As they reached the top of the stairs, the Complainant cried out in pain.

The Complainant was transported to hospital from the scene and diagnosed with a fractured left arm.

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.

Sections 81(7) and (12), Child, Youth and Family Services Act – Commencing Child Protection Proceedings

81 (7) A child protection worker who believes on reasonable and probable grounds that,

(a) a child is in need of protection;

(b) the child is younger than 16; and

(c) there would be a substantial risk to the child’s health or safety during the time necessary to bring the matter on for a hearing under subsection 90 (1) or obtain a warrant under subsection (2),

may without a warrant bring the child to a place of safety.

81 (12) Subsections (2), (6), (7), (10) and (11) apply to a peace officer as if the peace officer were a child protection worker.

The Complainant – an 11-year-old girl – was seriously injured in the course of her apprehension by WRPS officers on June 8, 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.

The Complainant was feeling hopeless and frustrated with her current living conditions. She had sought refuge at her previous residence instead of attending at the residence where she was currently living. Despite the protracted efforts of the SO and other officers, the Complainant refused to willingly accompany them to her current residence. On this record, I am satisfied that the Complainant was a child in need of protection and that her apprehension by police was authorized under sections 81(7) and (12) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The evidence indicates that the SO and the other officers comported themselves reasonably through their dealings with the Complainant, including with respect to the force that was used in the course of her apprehension. With clear regard for her age and feelings, the SO and, after her, the WO, attempted with patience and compassion to persuade the Complainant to come with them. The SO spoke with persons in authority at her current residence and allowed a neighbour with whom the Complainant had a relationship to speak with the Complainant, hoping they could assist. As time passed and they were approaching the two-hour mark, it made sense to adopt a more proactive posture. The SO and the WO did so cautiously, placing their hands on the Complainant to prompt her to stand up and cooperate. The Complainant reacted by lashing out at the officers, who decided, understandably, to restrain her in handcuffs. Every step of the way, the Complainant was encouraged to stop resisting and to cooperate, even as she struggled against the officers’ efforts to transport her up the stairs. Because of the confined space in the stairwell and the dynamics of the struggle that unfolded as she was forced up the stairs, the Complainant’s left arm appears to have been forced into an awkward position, fracturing in the process. That was a highly regrettable consequence of the officers’ interventions, but not, I am satisfied, the result of any excessive force on the part of the officers.

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

Date: October 2, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit