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 14, 2026, at 1:50 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 14, 2026, at 10:33 a.m., TPS officers were called to the emergency unit at Scarborough Centenary Hospital (SCH), 2867 Ellesmere Road, Scarborough, following a 911 call reporting that the Complainant was brandishing a knife or scissors in a threatening manner. TPS officers from 43 Division responded and directed the Complainant to put the items down. He refused and an officer discharged a less-lethal shotgun, striking and fracturing the Complainant’s sternum.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/06/14 at 1:54 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/06/14 at 2:10 p.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 July 15, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

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

CW #7 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

CW #8 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between June 14, 2016, and June 29, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on July 2, 2026.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

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 was interviewed on July 2, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the north concourse of SCH, 2867 Ellesmere Road, Toronto. More specifically, the scene was located in front of Shoppers Drug Mart and Real Fruit Bubble Tea.

SIU forensic services attended and photographed the scene.

Physical Evidence

On June 14, 2026, at 6:00 p.m., SIU forensic services attended TPS 43 Division and photographed the less-lethal (bean bag) weapon that had reportedly been discharged during the incident under investigation. There were six shotshell cases in a holder attached to the frame of the weapon.

At 7:50 p.m., SIU forensic services arrived at SCH and photographed and collected conducted energy weapon (CEW) probes and wires, along with two green bean bags and two shotshell cases. A bent fork and metal pole located at the scene were photographed and released to the TPS.

Source - SIU forensic services

Forensic Evidence

The less-lethal shotgun used by the SO was examined by SIU forensic services and believed to have discharged two rounds. Two spent cartridge cases and two green bean bag projectiles were located at the scene, and body-worn camera (BWC) footage confirmed that the SO fired two rounds.

CEW Deployment Data – WO #2

On June 14, 2026, WO #2 activated his TASER 7 at 10:38:48 a.m. Approximately five seconds later, WO #2 pulled the trigger, and Bay 1 was deployed. Electricity was discharged for approximately eight seconds. At 10:39:02 a.m., the left arc button was pressed, and electricity was discharged for approximately five seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Communications Recordings

On June 14, 2026, at 10:33 a.m., TPS received a 911 call from an unidentified caller, reporting a male person at SCH armed with scissors and threatening people.

The SO and WO #1 responded and arrived at 10:36 a.m.

A less-lethal shotgun was deployed at 10:37 a.m.

The Complainant was taken into custody at 10:39 a.m., and it was reported that a CEW had been deployed. The Complainant was admitted to hospital for treatment of a chest injury.

BWC Footage – The SO, WO #1, WO #4, WO #5, WO #2, WO #3, Officer #1, Officer #2, Officer #3 and Officer #4

At 10:36 a.m., June 14, 2026, the SO and WO #1 arrived at a hospital foyer and immediately encountered four security guards surrounding the Complainant, who was pointing an object at them. The SO pointed a less-lethal shotgun at the Complainant and ordered him to drop the weapon. One of the security guards attempted to grab the Complainant from behind, and he moved towards the SO, who discharged a less-lethal round at the Complainant. Approximately one second later, with the Complainant now on the floor, the SO discharged a second round. The Complainant continued to hold a silver object in his right hand and a black object in his left hand. He maintained possession of both items and pressed the black object against the top of his head. The SO and WO #1 again directed the Complainant to drop the knife. The Complainant picked up an object from the ground and threw it towards the SO. He then rose to his knees while still holding both objects. The Complainant did not comply with police commands to drop the weapons and get on his stomach.

At approximately 10:39 a.m., WO #2 arrived and discharged his CEW at the Complainant’s back, causing him to fall forward onto his stomach. The SO, WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3 handcuffed the Complainant’s hands behind the back as he flailed his body. Officers applied leg restraints, and the Complainant was assisted to his feet and placed in a wheelchair. He yelled at police not to touch his genitals and made religious utterances. A large red mark was observed on the right side of his chest, and two green marks were observed on the chest area of his clothing.

At 10:50 a.m., the Complainant was transported by TPS officers and SCH security staff to the emergency department.

Video Footage from SCH

At 10:31 a.m., June 14, 2026, the Complainant entered SCH holding a silver object in his hand. Shortly after, he approached and then chased a physician into the registration area before leaving the camera’s view.

At 10:33 a.m., the Complainant returned to the atrium, still holding the object, and approached the information desk.

Beginning at 10:34 a.m., hospital security guards engaged with the Complainant, who brandished the object, backed away from security, made a stabbing motion towards them, and attempted to evade capture. He then picked up another object and continued to threaten security while being surrounded.

At 10:35 a.m., the SO and WO #1 arrived.[3]

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between June 14, 2026, and August 14, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• BWC footage – the SO, WO #1, WO #4, WO #5, WO #2, WO #3, Officer #1, Officer #2, Officer #3 and Officer #4
• Notes – the SO, WO #1, WO #5, WO #4, WO #2 and WO #3
• CEW deployment data – WO #2
• TPS policies – Arrest; Use of Force

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between June 16, 2026, and July 21, 2026:

• The Complainant’s medical records from SCH
• Video footage from SCH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and other police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. The SO provided his notes related to the incident and was interviewed by the SIU.

At 10:31 a.m., June 14, 2026, the Complainant entered Scarborough Centenary Hospital to seek help with what he believed to be an attack on him by other worldly forces. The Complainant had armed himself with a fork prior to attending the hospital. While perhaps not a location bustling with activity at the time, there were people moving about the lobby in a manner normally expected of a hospital lobby during regular business hours. Once inside the hospital the Complainant moved through the lobby while carrying the fork. He briefly spoke to hospital staff at a kiosk near the entrance before appearing to follow a person from the lobby while carrying the fork. Hospital staff alerted security to the fact that the Complainant was armed and had entered the hospital proper.

The Complainant followed a physician in the interior of the hospital while holding the fork. He could be heard chanting to himself.

The Complainant returned to the lobby of the hospital approximately two-and-a-half minutes after leaving it. He attended at the kiosk where, after having a brief interaction with the hospital employee who remained at their station, the Complainant appeared to pick up the receiver of a telephone.

At this point, two uniformed security personnel entered the lobby and approached the Complainant. The Complainant put down the receiver of the phone and pointed his hand at the guards while brandishing the fork over his head. The guards attempted to de-escalate the situation, urging the Complainant to put down the fork. They followed the Complainant at a distance as he backed away from them, continuing to brandish the fork, pointing in the direction of the guards. The Complainant backed himself up against a wall and the two guards were joined by two more, bringing the total to four hospital security personnel. The Complainant continued to brandish the fork, pointing it at various security officials. Moving to his right with his back against the wall, the Complainant moved around the guards and returned the way he had initially backed up, hopping and jumping at points. The guards caught up to him near the entrance to the hospital and surrounded the Complainant, who continued to brandish the fork.

At about 10:36 a.m., the SO came into the lobby a short distance to the rear of one of the security guards, who was between the SO and the Complainant. WO #1 followed the SO into the lobby. The SO had armed himself with a shotgun loaded with less-lethal bean bag rounds. WO #1 had armed himself with a CEW. At the same time as the officers entered the lobby, one of the guards, CW #6, moved behind the Complainant. As the SO moved to his left (bringing himself between two of the guards who were facing the Complainant and giving him an unobstructed view of the Complainant), he raised and pointed the shotgun towards the Complainant and told him to drop the weapon. At about the same time, CW #6 ran up behind the Complainant and grabbed him around the waist. The Complainant resisted and attempted to jump to free himself. As the Complainant was in the air the SO discharged a bean bag round, which hit the Complainant. CW #6 and the Complainant fell forward. The Complainant fell on his right-side landing in front of the SO. CW #6 landed on the floor behind the Complainant, who was between himself and the SO. The Complainant continued to move about on the ground and the SO quickly discharged another bean bag round at him. Both of these rounds were fired within six seconds of the SO entering the lobby.

The Complainant lay on the ground holding the fork. He did not heed multiple demands by the officers that he drop the fork. Approximately 40 seconds after the second round was discharged, the Complainant moved to a seated position and threw something at the SO before maneuvering himself onto his knees. He did not comply with commands that he drop the weapon and lay on his stomach. The Complainant picked up something from the floor and threw it at the SO. For approximately one-and-a-half minutes, the Complainant continued to hold the fork. Officers attempted to engage him in conversation. The Complainant became agitated and began to scream at the officers.

At approximately 10:39 a.m., WO #2 entered the lobby, moved in behind the Complainant, who was facing the SO and WO #1, and deployed his CEW. The Complainant fell forward and officers moved in to arrest him. While the officers were attempting to secure him, the Complainant flailed and resisted their efforts.

Ultimately, the Complainant was secured in restraints and taken to the emergency department of the hospital. He was subsequently diagnosed with a fracture of his sternum and placed on a Form 1 for psychiatric assessment.

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.

The Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured sternum following his arrest by TPS officers in Toronto on June 14, 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.

I am satisfied that throughout his interaction with the Complainant, the SO was lawfully positioned. He was responding to a call about an armed male threatening persons in a hospital. He was empowered to attend the hospital to investigate and take steps to deal with the threat posed by the male to other persons at the hospital in order to guard public safety.

I am also satisfied that the SO used only lawful force in taking the Complainant into custody. The SO was dispatched to the Scarborough Centenary Hospital for a call involving a male person armed with scissors and threatening people. A hospital can be expected to be occupied by a significant proportion of vulnerable and potentially mobility-impaired individuals. Consequently, the threat posed by a single armed individual in that environment can be understood to be greater than it would be in other circumstances. In this case, the Complainant, who was of unsound mind at the time, was brandishing a weapon that could conceivably have been used to harm or potentially kill other persons. Prior to entering the hospital, the SO had taken the precaution of arming himself with a less-lethal option of a shotgun that discharged bean bag rounds. When he stepped into the lobby, he found himself immediately confronting the Complainant, who was brandishing a weapon. It is my view that the SO’s choice of weapon was appropriate for the circumstances and his quick decision to attempt to incapacitate the Complainant was equally appropriate. In this case, if the rounds fired by the SO had obtained their intended result, the threat posed by the Complainant to those in his immediate vicinity as well as other persons in the hospital could have immediately been attenuated. As it happened, while the threat was not immediately removed the result of the deployment of the bean bag rounds was that the Complainant was contained until an ultimately successful use of force, in the form of the CEW deployment by WO #2, allowed officers to take him into custody.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant was injured by at least one of the rounds fired by the SO, I am of the view that the force used by him was reasonably necessary in

the circumstances. 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