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 44-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 15, 2026, at 9:47 a.m., the Complainant contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 5, 2026, at about 9:45 a.m., Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) officers arrived with a Children’s Aid Society (CAS) worker at an address in the area of Frood Road and Kathleen Street, Sudbury. When the Complainant opened the door, the officers took him to the ground and pulled his arms, and a tactical officer placed a knee on his ribs. The Complainant was handcuffed and arrested for obstruction and resisting arrest. He was transported to Health Sciences North (HSN), where he was held under the Mental Health Act. He was released later that day.

On June 15, 2026, the Complainant forwarded an email to the SIU, which included a copy of his radiograph results. He also included links to two YouTube videos, which were recorded by the Complainant and his wife. Radiograph results confirmed that the Complainant had sustained a “healing right 9th rib fracture”.

On June 17, 2026, at 12:37 p.m., the GSPS was contacted and confirmed that GSPS officers attended the Complainant’s residence to assist the CAS. The GSPS advised they would forward additional police records related to the incident. At 2:13 p.m., the SIU received a copy of the Arrest Report and Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report.

On June 25, 2026, at 9:46 a.m., the GSPS provided a list of the involved officers and civilian witnesses.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/06/25 at 10:01 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/06/26 at 4:34 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

44-year-old male; not interviewed; declined

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on July 22, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview and release of 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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between August 10, 2026, and September 10, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a screen door at the rear and east side of a house situated in the area of Frood Road and Kathleen Street, Sudbury.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Videos Screen-recorded from YouTube

The Complainant provided the SIU links to his YouTube. On June 9, 2026, he posted two videos to his account. The videos were screen-recorded. He had also posted a summary of the incident on each video in the comments section. Screenshots were taken of the comments sections. One of the videos was recorded by the Complainant’s cellphone and the other video was recorded by his wife’s cellphone. The videos were not time or date-stamped.

The Complainant was captured inside an enclosed porch behind a screen door. There was a police officer [WO #5] on the other side of the screen door. There was another officer [WO #3] behind WO #5 at the base of a set of stairs. The Complainant struck the screen door. He insulted the intelligence of the officers and asked whether he would still be charged with obstruction. WO #5 asked if the children would come outside to speak with CAS. The children declined. The Complainant told the officers not to harass him and instructed them to leave his property.

At three minutes and six seconds of the footage, a tactical officer [WO #4] became visible at the base of the stairs. The officer had a breach tool. The Complainant opened the screen door and directed the camera towards the breach tool. He said, “Look at this shit.” WO #5 stepped behind the Complainant in between him and the screen door. WO #4 asked, “Are you [the Complainant’s first name]?” after which he took hold of his right arm and told him he was under arrest. The Complainant said, “You’re not touching me,” and his cellphone fell to the ground. The Complainant’s wife’s cellphone continued to record from inside the enclosed porch. WO #3, the SO, WO #1, WO #4 and WO #5 took control of the Complainant. The Complainant grabbed onto the railing to his right. He appeared to sit down in an upright position as the officers grabbed him and he continued to grab for the railing. WO #5 removed the Complainant’s hands from the railing. The Complainant wedged his right ankle under the railing. The camera became obscured as a dog exited the residence onto the steps. WO #5 turned around and directed the dog back into the residence. His body blocked the camera view of the struggle with the Complainant. WO #5 turned around to face the Complainant again but did not re-engage with him. The Complainant was obscured by the bodies of multiple officers. He remained in an upright sitting position. None of the officers appeared to strike the Complainant or kneel on him. The Complainant was lifted to his feet and handcuffed with his hands behind the back. WO #3 and WO #5 approached, entered the enclosed porch and requested to see the children. WO #3 advised CAS would “do their job”. The Complainant called out to his wife and instructed her not to allow the police to enter and to not speak with them. WO #5 advised he did not want to arrest anyone else for obstruction, then left to get the CAS worker.

At seven minutes and 30 seconds of the footage, the CAS worker [the CW] entered the residence and explained the reason for her visit. The CW spoke with the children separately in their bedrooms.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - WO #1, WO #4 and WO #6WO #3 and the SO, and WO #5, were not equipped with BWCs." id="fn3">[3]

On June 5, 2026, at 10:03:08 a.m., the SO, WO #1 and WO #2 stood near the street in front of a residence [an address in the area of Frood Road and Kathleen Street, Sudbury]. The SO carried a breach tool. A woman [the CW] was on the driveway. The SO and WO #1 walked down the right side of the house towards the rear of the property. As they arrived at a side door, there were police officers [ WO #3, WO #4 and WO #5] already there. The SO placed the breach tool on the ground. The complainant stepped outside with a cellphone in his hand and passed by WO #5. WO #5 was at the top of the stairs and moved behind the Complainant.

At 10:03:32 a.m., WO #4 reached out towards the Complainant. The Complainant moved away, latched onto the railing to his right side, and said, “You’re not touching me. I didn’t do anything.” The SO and WO #4 moved towards the Complainant. The Complainant immediately sat down on the stairs. He dropped his cellphone. Multiple officers told the Complainant he was under arrest. WO #4 grabbed the Complainant’s left arm as he clutched the railing. The Complainant’s hands detached from the railing. WO #4 continued to hold onto the Complainant’s left arm. The Complainant’s right arm tucked in towards his own chest in a protective fashion. The SO grabbed the Complainant’s right wrist. Multiple officers told the Complainant to place his hands behind the back. WO #3 moved past the Complainant on his left side to behind him and higher up the stairs.

At 10:03:50 a.m., the Complainant became obscured by the bodies of WO #4 and the SO. The SO stepped onto the stairs onto the Complainant’s right side. His knee was near the Complainant’s shoulder. The Complainant still sat on the stairs with his legs spread open. He held his right hand tightly to his chest while the SO struggled to control it with both of his hands. The Complainant appeared to lean backwards slightly on the stairs. The camera became obscured due to the proximity of multiple bodies. WO #1 applied a handcuff to the Complainant’s left wrist controlled by WO #4. When the camera became unobscured, there was a small glimpse of a knee in contact with the Complainant’s right ribs. Based on the orientation of officers around the Complainant, it appeared to be the left knee of the SO. The contact with the ribs did not appear to be due to any kind of strike from the SO. It was unclear if the SO pinned the Complainant or if the contact was simply due to the presence of four officers and the Complainant within the tight space of the staircase.

At 10:04:17 a.m., the Complainant was lifted to an upright position, and his hands were brought behind the back. WO #1 handcuffed the Complainant’s right wrist.

At 10:04:27 a.m., the Complainant was successfully handcuffed with both hands behind the back. He insisted the police officers required a warrant to enter his property. The officers stated they did not require a warrant. The Complainant told his wife not to allow the officers to enter the residence.

At 10:05:05 a.m., as the Complainant was escorted down the driveway by WO #2 and the SO, he stopped, turned to WO #2 and insulted the officer. WO #2 pushed him forwards to continue the escort.

At 10:05:11 a.m., the Complainant again stopped and turned as he was escorted. He directed conversation to the CW and told her his arrest would harm the children. The SO pushed the Complainant forwards against a police vehicle. The Complainant’s chest impacted the vehicle. The SO told the Complainant not to resist and to just relax. The Complainant yelled louder and said he was already relaxed because he was in handcuffs. The Complainant was searched and escorted to another nearby police vehicle [WO #2’s vehicle], where he was placed inside.

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage – WO #2’s Cruiser

On June 5, 2026, at 10:06:19 a.m., the footage began. A police officer [the SO] spoke to the Complainant about how he had struggled and tensed his muscles as he was arrested. The Complainant disputed the SO’s remarks. WO #2 read the Complainant his rights to counsel. The Complainant was told he was under arrest for obstruction.

At 10:17:02 a.m., a police officer [WO #5] spoke with WO #2 outside his police vehicle. WO #5 had learned from the Complainant’s wife that the Complainant was a military veteran with a PTSD diagnosis. WO #5 said the Complainant had disassociated and punched the air. WO #5 wanted the Complainant to go to the hospital for a mental health assessment.

At 10:21:07 a.m., WO #2 transported the Complainant to the hospital. The Complainant complained that WO #2 had likely injured “thousands” of people and then said he had been “hurt today”.

At 10:31:34 a.m., WO #2 and the Complainant arrived at the hospital.

GSPS Communications Recordings

On June 5, 2026, at 8:18:05 a.m., the CW called GSPS to request that a GSPS officer accompany her to an address in the area of Frood Road and Kathleen Street. CAS had received information that the Complainant had apparently acted in a manner that gave cause for concern related to his mental wellbeing during a virtual telephone call with another service agency and had made utterances which led the worker to have concerns for their safety and the safety of the children potentially present in the residence. The dispatcher advised someone would contact the CW to attend when GSPS officers were available.

At 8:54:49 a.m., a dispatcher called the CW and advised that GSPS officers could meet her near the address in approximately 30 minutes.

At 9:48:13 a.m., a GSPS officer [WO #2 or WO #3] advised that a man [the Complainant] was in a confrontation with them. He had denied access to the residence and told them to get a search warrant. WO #2 and WO #3, and the CW, had backed off to the road. A sergeant was requested to attend.

At 9:55:56 a.m., the Complainant called GSPS. He said police officers were at his door and threatened to break it down. He said they did not have a warrant. He yelled at the officers on scene for the majority of the call.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from GSPS between June 17, 2026, and July 23, 2026:

• Involved Officers and Witness List
• Arrest Report
• CAD Report
• Notes – WO #2, WO #4, WO #1, WO #6, WO #3 and WO #5
• Voicemail from the Complainant to Mayor
• Police communications recordings
• BWC footage
• ICCS footage
• GSPS policies – Use of Force; Child Abuse and Neglect
• Child Abuse and Maltreatment Investigations Protocol
• Child Welfare Protocol Agreement
• Children’s Aid Societies Jurisdiction

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources on June 15, 2026:

• Videos screen-recorded from YouTube
• Radiograph report received from the Complainant

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with a civilian and several police eyewitnesses, 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 morning of June 5, 2026, the Complainant was at his home – a unit of a house situated in the area of Frood Road and Kathleen Street, Sudbury – when officers and a child welfare worker arrived at the residence. Asked to identify himself, the Complainant refused from inside a screen door. Asked if they could speak to his children, the Complainant again refused. The Complainant was not persuaded to cooperate by the officers’ insistence that they were not there for any criminal investigation, and that they simply wanted to see the children.

Unable to make any progress, the officers – WO #2 and WO #3 – decided to have a sergeant attend. WO #5 arrived on scene and spoke to the Complainant through the closed screen door. The Complainant was told that they did not need a warrant to enter the residence to speak to the children and that there were grounds to arrest him for obstruction. When the Complainant responded angrily by punching the screen door, WO #5 decided to have tactical officers attend to assist.

Three tactical officers – the SO, WO #1 and WO #4 – arrived shortly and made their way to the screen door with a breaching tool. The Complainant walked through the screen door onto a set of concrete steps leading to the ground. He held a cellphone and recorded what the officers were doing. WO #5 seized the opportunity to position himself between the door and the Complainant. The officers took hold of the Complainant and told him he was under arrest. The Complainant objected to his arrest, grabbed hold of the railing to his right, and dropped himself into a seated position on the stairs. There ensued a struggle during which the officers, including the SO, wrestled to control the Complainant’s arms as he refused to release them to be handcuffed. Eventually, the Complainant was lifted to his feet and handcuffed behind the back.

The Complainant was taken to hospital for psychiatric assessment and subsequently released. A week after his arrest, the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured right rib.

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 81, 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(10) A child protection worker who believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a child referred to in subsection (7) is on any premises may without a warrant enter the premises, by force, if necessary, and search for and remove the child.

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

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 diagnosed with a serious injury on June 12, 2026, the reported result of his arrest by GSPS 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.

The SO and the other arresting officers were within their rights in moving to take the Complainant into custody. Having spoken to the CW about her immediate concerns for the wellbeing of the Complainant’s children and the need to enter the residence as soon as possible to check on them, WO #5, WO #2 and WO #3 were possessed of authority under sections 81(7), (10) and (12) of The Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, to enter the residence without warrant to apprehend the children. When the Complainant refused the officers’ entry, he rendered himself subject to arrest for resisting a peace officer in the execution of their duties under section 129 of the Criminal Code.

There is no evidence of excessive force having been brought to bear in the Complainant’s arrest. Rather, the video footage depicts the officers, including the SO, grappling with the Complainant to release his hold of the railing and to control his arms as the Complainant struggled against their efforts. At one point in the engagement, the SO is seen on BWC footage to briefly place his knee in the area of the Complainant’s upper right torso. That contact did not appear in the nature of a strike nor was it accompanied with any significant force. It could have been completely incidental or, at most, an effort by the officer to momentarily restrict the Complainant’s movement, a reasonable tactic in the context of the struggle that was then occurring.

In the result, while it may be that the Complainant’s fracture was incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury was attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the SO. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: October 9, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit