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 26-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 6, 2026, at 8:30 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 5, 2026, at 10:21 p.m. the Subject Official (SO) and Witness Official (WO) #1 stopped a vehicle on Steeles Avenue and Orchard Drive, Brampton, removing and detaining an occupant - the Complainant - under the authority of the Cannabis Control Act (CCA). The Complainant fled the area through nearby yards, discarding a firearm and clothing on a property situated in the area of Kennedy Road South and Steeles Avenue East, Brampton. Officers pursued him on foot and discharged a conducted energy weapon (CEW), as a result of which the Complainant fell on the patio of a residence located nearby. Officers arrested the Complainant at approximately 10:45 p.m. and returned him to the police cruiser for transport to the station. The Complainant began to vomit and appeared to slip in and out of consciousness, prompting a response by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). The Complainant was transported to Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH) and diagnosed with a fractured right wrist.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/06/06 at 9:01 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/06/06 at 9:33 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on June 6, 2026.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Not interviewed; declined

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

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 #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #1 and WO #2 were interviewed on June 10, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the backyard of a residence situated in the area of Kennedy Road South and Steeles Avenue East, Brampton.

Physical Evidence

The residence had a driveway and garage with a walkway on the side of the garage that led along the side yard and into the rear yard. There was a fence that ran from the garage, with a closed gate at the sidewalk. The panels of the gate were forced, allowing entry into the rear yard. CEW wire was located along the sidewalk. In the rear yard was a patio area with table chairs and an ottoman. The ottoman was turned over onto its side.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data - The SO

On June 5, 2026, the SO carried a Taser 10 model CEW. Commencing at 10:19:24 p.m. and ending at 10:21:46 p.m., a total of eight cartridges were deployed and there were seven attempts at neuromuscular incapacitation. The following is a summary of the connected and unconnected energizers:

• Total duration of energizers was 13.424 seconds
• Duration of connected energizers was 3.225 seconds
• Duration of unconnected energizers was 10.199 seconds

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

PRPS Communications Recordings

The SO requested assistance after taking the Complainant into custody following a foot pursuit. The recordings document the recovery of one firearm and information suggesting that a second firearm might be outstanding. As a result, police dog units were deployed to search the area associated with the pursuit. During the search, officers located items believed to have been discarded along the pursuit route. Following his arrest, the Complainant vomited, exhibited fluctuating levels of consciousness, and responded inconsistently, raising concerns that he might have ingested an unknown substance. EMS were dispatched. Subsequent updates indicated that the Complainant was alert, breathing, and sweating heavily, although he declined further assessment by EMS. The Complainant was transported by paramedics to BCH under police escort.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – WO #1, the SO, WO #2 and Officer #1

On June 5, 2026, starting at about 10:15 p.m., WO #1 and the SO conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle containing the CW (driver) and the Complainant (passenger). The officers detected an odour of cannabis, and the Complainant disclosed that he possessed cannabis, which was not in government-issued packaging.

Starting at about 10:17 p.m., the CW and the Complainant were detained under the CCA and directed to exit the vehicle. The Complainant refused to be searched.

Starting at about 10:19 p.m., the Complainant fled on foot, jumped a fence, and entered a residential subdivision. The SO pursued him and drew his CEW.

Starting at about 10:20 p.m., the SO entered the backyard of a residence in the area of Kennedy Road South and Steeles Avenue East. The Complainant was on the ground with a black firearm directly behind him. The Complainant stood and continued to flee. The SO discharged his CEW, making contact. The Complainant tripped and used his right arm to break his fall. He continued running but fell again, this time onto his right side. The SO placed his left foot on the Complainant’s left hand. The Complainant rolled onto his stomach, placed his hands above his head, and stated, “I’m done.” The SO handcuffed the Complainant and advised him that he was under arrest for possession of a firearm. The officer subsequently recovered a firearm. The Complainant denied ownership of the weapon.

Starting at about 10:31 p.m., additional officers arrived and the Complainant was escorted to a police cruiser.

Starting at about 10:32 p.m., WO #2, Officer #2 and Officer #1 conducted a pat-down search of the Complainant with the Complainant pressed against the side of a police cruiser. At one point, Officer #2 said, “Stand up,” and grabbed the Complainant’s hat and struck his head once against the cruiser. A drug utensil was located in the Complainant’s front pocket and the search was concluded. The Complainant was placed in the rear of a police cruiser and immediately complained of severe pain, stating that something was “stabbing me on my ass”. He was removed from the cruiser, after which officers removed CEW probes from his person before placing him back inside. The Complainant reported that he believed his shoulder was dislocated and requested medical attention. He subsequently reported nausea, requested water, vomited and stated that he felt he would pass out.

Starting at about 10:41 p.m., EMS were requested. The Complainant reported a dislocated right shoulder and displayed significant physical distress.

Starting at about 11:02 p.m., a paramedic assessed the Complainant.

Starting at about 11:25 p.m., the Complainant was transported to BCH.

Video Footage from Private Residence

Starting at about 9:27 p.m., June 5, 2026, the footage captured the front door, patio, and lawn of the residence, as well as a fence that separated the backyards of the residence and its neighbour. The Complainant ran up to and through the fence with the right side of his body into the backyard of the residence. The SO ran after the Complainant with his CEW in his right hand.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PRP between June 8, 2026, and June 10, 2026:

• Occurrence Report
• Persons Detail Report – the Complainant
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• BWC footage - WO #1, the SO, WO #2 and Officer #1
• Notes – WO #3, WO #1, WO #4, WO #5 and WO #2
• CEW deployment data – the SO
• PRP policies – Incident Response; Criminal Investigations

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between June 6, 2026, and June 8, 2026:

• The Complainant’s medical records from BCH
• Video footage from private residence

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses, and video footage that largely 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 evening of June 5, 2026, the SO was on patrol operating a marked cruiser westbound on Steeles Avenue East in Brampton. With him was his partner, WO #1. Believing he had observed an eastbound driver talking on a cellphone, the SO executed a U-turn, pulled in behind the vehicle and signalled it to stop.

The CW was driving the vehicle. He came to a stop by the south curb. The Complainant was his front seat passenger. There was an open bag of cannabis in the vehicle. The CW and the Complainant were ordered out of the vehicle and complied. The SO searched the CW without incident. The Complainant took issue with the officers and stated he would not consent to a search. The officers explained they had authority to search the occupants of the vehicle under the Cannabis Control Act. The SO was in the process of pulling up the legislation on his cellphone to show the Complainant when the Complainant ran away.

The SO chased after the Complainant on foot into a subdivision, across the front yards of several residences and into the backyard of a property, where the officer discharged his CEW at the Complainant. The Complainant locked-up and fell to the ground. The SO approached the Complainant and handcuffed him behind the back.

The Complainant was escorted back to the scene of the traffic stop and eventually placed against a cruiser to be searched. The Complainant went into and out of consciousness. Paramedics attended the scene and transported him to hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured right wrist.

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 12, Cannabis Control Act, 2017 – Transporting Cannabis

12(1) No person shall drive or have the care or control of a vehicle or boat, whether or not it is in motion, while any cannabis is contained in the vehicle or boat.

(2)Subsection (1) does not apply with respect to cannabis that,

(a) is in its original packaging and has not been opened; or

(b) is packed in baggage that is fastened closed or is not otherwise readily available to any person in the vehicle or boat.

(3) A police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that cannabis is being contained in a vehicle or boat in contravention of subsection (1) may at any time, without a warrant, enter and search the vehicle or boat and search any person found in it.

Section 129, Criminal Code - Offences Relating to Public or Peace Officer

129 Every one who

(a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer,

(b) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or

(c) resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure,

is guilty of

(d) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(e) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by PRP officers on June 5, 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 their disposal that the vehicle they had stopped contained an open bag of cannabis, the SO and WO #1 were within their rights in moving to search the Complainant under section 12 of the Cannabis Control Act, 2017. When the Complainant fled his lawful detention, the SO had further cause to arrest him for resisting a police officer in the course of his duties under section 129(a) of the Criminal Code.

As for the force used in the Complainant’s arrest, there are no reasonable grounds in the evidence to believe it was excessive. In particular, the use by the SO of the CEW made sense. The Complainant was in full flight from arrest, with no indication that he was about to give up his escape effort. If it worked as intended, the CEW would bring the Complainant’s flight to an end without the necessary infliction of serious injury. It would also provide the officer a safe window in which he could control and take the Complainant into custody. With the Complainant on the ground, the SO did intentionally step on his left hand as he approached the body. The contact was presumably intended to control the hand before the officer could grab hold of it with his hands – a reasonable objective in the circumstances - and was not performed with undue force.

It remains unclear at the end of the investigation when precisely the Complainant fractured his right wrist. It could have happened when he crashed through a wooden fence during his flight from the SO. It could also have happened when he was felled by the CEW discharges. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury was the result of unlawful conduct on the part of the SO, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.

Before closing the file, I note for the record evidence of potential police misconduct, in possible violation of section 11 of the Police Code of Conduct, with respect to the amount of force used by Officer #2 in the course of the Complainant’s search following his arrest by the side of a police cruiser. I will be referring this matter to the police service for their review and action as they deem appropriate. Further to section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, I will also be referring the matter to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: October 2, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit