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 48-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 5, 2026, at 11:20 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 5, 2026, at 3:40 a.m., TPS were called about a stolen e-bike that had been tracked via an AirTag to the area of Major Street and Barbara Goddard Lane, at which location the caller reported the rider was armed with a firearm. At about 4:00 a.m., officers located the Complainant on the e-bike near Cyril Lane and Borden Street and attempted to stop him. The Complainant fled on the e-bike but fell into a pile of garbage bins near 10 Borden Street, north of College Street, where he was arrested at gunpoint. He was transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to Toronto Western Hospital (TWH) and diagnosed with a fractured nose, right wrist, and left ankle.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/07/05 at 11:30 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/07/05 at 1:50 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 6, 2026.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on July 11, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject official was interviewed on July 17, 2026.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on July 17, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the east sidewalk of Borden Street, near the roadway’s intersection with Cyril Lane, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

Borden Street was residential with sidewalks on both sides and a laneway extending east from the roadway. An e-bike located within the scene displayed damage, including a detached mirror and scrape marks. Investigators observed scrape marks on the sidewalk and a small bloodstain near the southeast corner of the intersection.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Police Communications

On July 5, 2026, at 3:10 a.m., the CW called 911 to report that his e-bike had been stolen and that he had tracked its location. The call ended before police assistance was obtained.

At 3:38 a.m., the CW called 911 again and reported that when he attempted to recover the e-bike near Sussex Avenue and Harbord Street, the person in possession of the vehicle threatened him with what appeared to be a firearm.

The call was broadcast to responding officers at 3:40 a.m., with subsequent updates regarding the suspected firearm and the e-bike’s location.

At 3:54 a.m., officers met the CW and tracked the e-bike.

At 4:02 a.m., police advised that the Complainant was in custody and requested EMS. Officers subsequently reported that the Complainant had sustained a bloody nose and that no firearm had been located.

EMS arrived on scene at 4:10 a.m. and assessed the Complainant before transporting him to TWH at 4:39 a.m.

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

On July 5, 2026, starting at about 4:01 a.m., the SO and WO #1 exited their cruiser and positioned themselves on a sidewalk as the Complainant approached on an e-bike. WO #1 was heard directing the Complainant to stop. Immediately after, the Complainant and the e-bike were observed sliding along the sidewalk into a row of recycling bins, causing the Complainant to fall to the ground. The footage did not capture a clear view of the precise mechanism that caused the fall; however, it showed the Complainant losing control of the e-bike and colliding with the bins near the officers’ position. Following the collision, officers moved to arrest and handcuff the Complainant. Within seconds, the Complainant complained of injuries to his face, nose, leg, knee and right wrist, and requested medical attention. An ambulance was requested by police. Officers questioned the Complainant about a reported firearm, but none was located. EMS arrived a short time later and the Complainant was transported to hospital for treatment.

TPS In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

On July 5, 2026, starting at about 4:00 a.m., officers attempted to stop the Complainant, who was riding an e-bike on the sidewalk of Borden Street. Despite repeated commands to stop, the Complainant continued riding and passed several police attempts to intercept him. WO #1 exited the SO’s cruiser, positioned himself on the sidewalk, drew his firearm, and ordered the Complainant to stop. Moments later, the Complainant collided with garbage bins and fell from the scooter. Immediately following the collision, he cried out in pain and complained of injuries to his wrist, face and leg. Officers moved to arrest and handcuff the Complainant, who repeatedly stated that his wrist and leg were broken and requested medical attention.

At 4:02 a.m., the Complainant complained that officers had broken his leg and continued to

cry out in pain. Officers secured him on the ground, searched his belongings, and requested an ambulance. No firearm was located.

At 4:09 a.m., paramedics arrived and assessed the Complainant, who continued to complain of pain and attribute his injuries to the interaction with police. The footage showed that the Complainant’s complaints of injury began immediately after he collided with the garbage bins and fell from the scooter.

At about 4:15 a.m., the Complainant was placed on a stretcher and, at 4:33 a.m., he was transported to hospital by ambulance.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS on July 7, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Notes - WO #1, WO #2 and the SO
• Person History - the Complainant
• BWC footage - WO #1, WO #2 and the SO
• ICC footage

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between July 11, 2026, and July 12, 2026:

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

The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.

In the early morning of July 5, 2026, the SO, WO #1 and WO #2, responding to a call about a stolen e-bike, met with the vehicle’s owner – the CW – in the area of Sussex Avenue and Spadina Avenue. The CW explained that he had tracked his bike with a tag and cellphone app to a laneway off Sussex Avenue, but retreated from the area after being confronted by a male holding what appeared to be a gun.

With the SO and WO #1 in one cruiser, and WO #2 and the CW in another, the officers located the e-bike and began to pursue it as it travelled southbound on the east sidewalk of Borden Street, south of Harbord Street. The rider – the Complainant – refused to stop as the officers drove up beside him and ordered him to desist. The SO and WO #1 accelerated past the Complainant, brought the cruiser to a stop and exited in the area Cyril Lane, just north of College Street. They positioned themselves on the east sidewalk, drew and pointed their firearms at the Complainant, and ordered him to stop as he closed the distance to their location. The Complainant attempted to travel past the officers but lost control of the e-bike and crashed into a group of recycling bins at the southeast corner of Borden Street and Cyril Lane after the SO pushed him in the right shoulder.

The SO and WO #1 approached the Complainant on the ground and, with WO #2’s assistance, handcuffed him behind the back. No firearm was recovered but the Complainant was found to be in possession of a hand drill and a crowbar.

The Complainant was transported from the scene to hospital where he was diagnosed with a broken nose, right wrist and left ankle.

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 seriously injured in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on July 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 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 at his disposal that the Complainant had stolen the CW’s e-bike, I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights in moving to arrest him for theft.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO in the Complainant’s arrest was legally justified. Pushing the Complainant off a moving e-bike travelling at speeds estimated to be in the neighbourhood of about 40 km/h certainly came with risks, some of which materialized in the fractures the Complainant suffered. However, given the information about a firearm in the Complainant’s possession, which he had reportedly just used to threaten the CW, arresting the Complainant as soon as possible was imperative in the interests of public safety. The Complainant had repeatedly refused to stop for the officers and there was a real possibility that he might evade apprehension armed with a gun. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the push constituted a disproportionate and unnecessary use of force by the SO.

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

Date: October 30, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit