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 44-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 21, 2026, at 11:13 a.m., the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 20, 2026, at about 8:07 p.m., a marked police vehicle was parked outside 499 King Street East, Hamilton, with its doors locked and engine running. A civilian witness observed a man [later identified as the Complainant] enter the police vehicle. The witness recorded the incident on his phone and called 911. The Complainant left the vehicle and walked in the direction of Ashley Street. Officers responded and located the Complainant at the intersection of King Street East and Ashley Street. The Subject Official (SO) was the first officer to arrive at 8:18 p.m., and she arrested the Complainant for mischief. The Complainant resisted arrest. An officer announced that he had a knife and the Complainant was immediately taken to the ground, face down. The suspected knife was later determined to be a crowbar.[2] Officers sat the Complainant upright and observed a cut on his head. He was transported to Hamilton General Hospital (HGH) in a police vehicle for assessment of his injury. At 9:48 a.m., June 21, 2026, the Complainant was cleared from hospital, and officers were advised that he was fit to be held in custody. The Complainant was transported to HPS Headquarters. Upon arrival, he produced a note from HGH indicating that he had been diagnosed with a fractured nasal bone and a concussion.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/06/21 at 11:25 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/06/21 at 1:33 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on June 21, 2026.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on June 21, 2026.

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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on June 30, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the sidewalk outside 641 King Street East, Hamilton.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Video Footage from The Venue Bar and Grill – 627 King Street East[4]

On June 20, 2026, the Complainant was at WO #3’s police vehicle momentarily before he walked away out of sight. Police vehicles were subsequently captured in the area, and a sergeant [now known to be the SO] exited her cruiser and walked on King Street East in the direction that the Complainant had walked. Another police vehicle arrived and a male officer exited towards the SO’s position. The SO ran behind the Complainant, caught up to him and wrestled him to the ground. She delivered three knee strikes to the Complainant’s upper body. Two additional officers arrived to assist, followed by a fourth officer. Further details of the interaction were difficult to discern because of the camera’s distance from the action and the fact that the officers were all in a scrum with the Complainant.

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

On June 20, 2026, at 8:18 p.m., the SO got out of her police vehicle and ran after a male - the Complainant. As the officer approached him, she told him to get to the ground, which he did not do. The Complainant tried to remain upright as the SO attempted to control him. After a struggle, she moved the Complainant to the ground, causing his face to seemingly contact the sidewalk. Another officer arrived as the Complainant swore at the officers. As the officers attempted to control the Complainant, the SO told the other officer she thought he had a knife. The SO delivered knee strikes to the side of the Complainant, who was told to put his hands behind the back. Further officers arrived, including WO #1, who punched the Complainant in the back and kneed him in the torso. The Complainant was controlled and his hands placed in handcuffs behind the back.

At 8:19 p.m., the SO requested an ambulance as the Complainant was bleeding from the left side of his face. A crowbar was located underneath the Complainant as officers stood him up.

HPS Communications Recordings - 911 Calls

On June 20, 2026, at about 8:07 p.m., three 911 calls were made to police about a man [now known to be the Complainant) breaking into a police Durango after smashing a window. Nothing appeared to have been taken. The Complainant was subsequently seen walking eastbound on King Street East, away from the police vehicle.

HPS Communications Recordings – Radio

On June 20, 2026, further to the 911 calls, a police dispatcher broadcast that a man had been seen breaking into a police vehicle. A description was provided and the man - the Complainant - was said to be walking eastbound on King Street East. WO #3 broadcast that a brick had been used to smash the front driver’s side window. At 8:10 p.m., a caller believed the Complainant was in the No Frills parking lot.

At 8:17 p.m., the SO broadcast that she saw a man matching the description on King Street East near Ashley Street.

At 8:18 p.m., there was a broadcast that the Complainant was in custody in front of 641 King Street East. The SO asked for an ambulance to attend as the Complainant was bleeding.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the HPS between June 24, 2026, and June 26, 2026:

• BWC footage - the SO, WO #1 and WO #2
• In-car camera footage - the SO, WO #1 and WO #2
• HPS communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Notes and written statements - WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3
• HPS Use of Force Policy
• General Occurrence and Arrest Report
• HPS photographs of the scene

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

Between June 21, 2026, and June 30, 2026, the SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources:

• The Complainant’s medical records from HGH
• Cellphone video footage from the CW
• Video footage from

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that largely 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 evening of June 20, 2026, HPS officers were dispatched to the area of 499 King Street East following reports that a male had broken into a parked police cruiser. The male was said to have then exited the cruiser, walking eastbound on King Street East.

The male was the Complainant. For reasons unknown, he had smashed out the front passenger window of the cruiser – a Durango – with a crowbar, after which he momentarily entered the vehicle before walking away.

The SO was the first officer on scene. She stopped her cruiser, exited and chased after the Complainant on the north sidewalk of King Street East, east of Ashley Street. The officer caught the Complainant, ordered him to the ground and then forced him down front-first. The Complainant was still holding the crowbar in his left hand, which the officer mistook for a knife. The SO delivered several knee strikes to the Complainant’s right side as another officer – WO #1 – arrived to assist. The SO mentioned the knife and WO #1 punched the Complainant in the back and kneed him to the right side. Moments later, the Complainant’s arms were controlled behind the back and handcuffed.

The Complainant was seen at hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with a fractured nose and possible concussion.

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 430, Criminal Code - Mischief

430(1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully

(a) destroys or damages property;

(b) renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective;

(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or

(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.

(2) Every one who commits mischief that causes actual danger to life is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

(3) Every one who commits mischief in relation to property that is a testamentary instrument or the value of which exceeds five thousand dollars

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(4) Every one who commits mischief in relation to property, other than property described in subsection (3),

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by HPS officers on June 20, 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 injuries.

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 had just damaged a police vehicle, I am satisfied the SO was within her rights in moving to arrest him for mischief contrary to section 430 of the Criminal Code.

I am also satisfied that the force used in the Complainant’s arrest was legally justified. The SO demanded as she neared the Complainant that he lower himself to the ground. The direction was a reasonable one. Having just committed a brazen act of property damage against a police vehicle, the officer had cause to fear that the Complainant represented a threat to public safety, including the officer’s safety, and she would want to neutralize that threat by placing the Complainant in a position of disadvantage. In the circumstances, when the Complainant failed to comply, the SO was entitled to force the issue by taking him to the ground. At around the same time, it seems the SO became aware that the Complainant was possibly in possession of a knife. There is also evidence that the Complainant did not to release his arms once on the ground, although how much that was the result of the Complainant’s recalcitrance or the fact his arms were pinned underneath his torso is unclear. As it turns out, the “knife” the Complainant was thought to be holding was actually a crowbar, a serious weapon in its own right and easily mistaken for a knife in the heat of the moment. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO’s and WO #1’s strikes were unwarranted given the imperative at the time to immediately control the Complainant to prevent his being able to bring a weapon to bear in the conflict. Once the Complainant’s arms were secured and handcuffed behind the back, no further force was used.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injuries were incurred in the altercation with police that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe they are attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the arresting officers. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: October 14, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit