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 16-year-old male (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 5, 2026, at 12:29 p.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 5, 2026, at 5:03 a.m., the LPS received a call to an address in the area of Quarrier Road and Pelkey Road, London. Guarda Security had received an alarm from the property. A security guard attended the scene and observed two males inside the property. At 5:10 a.m., police officers, including a police dog handler and his dog, attended the scene and observed the Complainant and another male inside the property. Both fled from the property but the other male eventually surrendered to police. The Complainant was tracked by the police dog and handler to a nearby address. At 5:30 a.m., while attempting to climb a fence, the Complainant was bit by the police dog. The Complainant was transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) - Victoria Hospital for assessment and treatment. At 11:55 a.m., information received by LPS was that the Complainant was being admitted to hospital for surgery to repair tissue damage to the inner left thigh.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/07/06 at 8:10 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/07/06 at 9:50 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 13, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview and to provide 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

The witness officials were interviewed on July 20, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the rear yard of a property in the area of Quarrier Road and Pelkey Road, London.

The rear yard was enclosed with a large fence.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The SO

On July 5, 2026, starting at about 5:23:45 a.m., the SO was captured exiting his LPS cruiser. He opened the back door and attached his police dog to a leash.

Starting at about 5:24:07 a.m., the SO and the police dog walked towards a property in the area of Quarrier Road and Pelkey Road.

Starting at about 5:24:21 a.m., the SO was provided with the last direction of travel by a group of LPS officers standing outside the property. The SO and the police dog began a track from the property towards a grass park area.

Starting at about 5:26:03 a.m., the SO advised dispatch that they were "hard tracking southwest through the park". The track went onto a street in a residential area. The SO advised dispatch that they were heading east just outside the park area. The track continued through the residential area.

Starting at about 5:29:13 a.m., the police dog turned in between two houses in the area. The SO yelled, "Hey let me see your hands now, do not move, canine unit.”

Starting at about 5:29:20 a.m., a young male, Male #1, walked out from the back of the house with his hands up towards the front where the SO and the police dog were located. The SO asked Male #1 where his friend was located. Male #1 was taken into custody by WO #1.

Starting at about 5:29:43 a.m., the SO and the police dog returned their focus between the houses. The officer called out, "Hey, do not run."

Starting at about 5:29:46 a.m., the SO and the police dog entered through a gate into a fenced backyard. The Complainant was in the yard running away from the officer.

Starting at about 5:29:48 a.m., the police dog was deployed and taken off leash as the SO called out, "Take him, take him."

Starting at about 5:29:50 a.m., the Complainant was on the ground with the police dog latched onto his left thigh. The Complainant said he was sorry. The SO approached the Complainant, grabbed him by the back of the neck and forced him onto his stomach as the police dog continued to hold his bite. WO #2 placed the Complainant in handcuffs.

Starting at about 5:30:53 a.m., the police dog’s bite hold was released by the SO. The SO advised WO #2 to request EMS.

Starting at about 5:32:10 a.m., the SO and the police dog exited the yard and walked down the side of the house to the street out front. The SO advised dispatch that he was walking back to his LPS cruiser with the police dog and that he was turning his BWC off.

LPS Communications Recordings – 911

On July 5, 2026, at 5:03 a.m., a Garda World Security Guard called 911 to report that he had been dispatched to a property for a motion alarm. Upon his arrival he had observed two males with masks inside the property. The security guard told the 911 operator that he could see the two inside the property as they ran towards the back. He also observed the emergency lights of a LPS cruiser at the front of the property.

LPS Communications Recording – Radio

On July 5, 2026, at 5:05:38 a.m., WO #1 and Officer #1 were dispatched "Code 1" to a “break and enter” at an address in the area of Quarrier Road and Pelkey Road.

At 5:08:52 a.m., WO #1 and Officer #1 arrived at the property. Officer #1 broadcast over the radio that he had observed the two males running inside the property towards the back. Police dog handler, the SO, advised dispatch that he was still on duty and asked if he was required to assist.

At 5:10:25 a.m., Officer #1 broadcast over the radio that he observed the two males run out of the property in a southerly direction into a residential neighbourhood.

At 5:19:57 a.m., the SO requested over the radio that the officers at the property preserve the point of entry and the point last seen. WO #1 advised that the point of entry was a window on the east side of the property.

At 5:23:32 a.m., the SO arrived.

At 5:26:10 a.m., the SO advised dispatch that he had started tracking southwest through the park from the property.

At 5:27:42 a.m., the SO updated dispatch and advised that the track was now east on a nearby street.

At 5:29:43 a.m., the SO broadcast that he had contacted the two males at a nearby address.

At 5:31:31 a.m., WO #2 contacted dispatch and requested the attendance of EMS for a dog bite.

At 5:33:32 a.m., WO #2 advised dispatch that both males were in custody.

Injury Video

On July 14, 2026, the SIU was provided with a seven-second video of her the Complainant’s injury. The video showed a sutured injury to the left outer portion of the Complainant’s thigh. The video was filed with SIU.

Video Footage - Address in the Area of Quarrier Road and Pelkey Road

The footage captured the Complainant and Male #1 wandering through the property. Both parties had covered their faces with their sweaters. The footage showed the two running from the property through the property yard.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the LPS between July 6, 2026, and July 17, 2026:

• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• General, Supplementary and Arrest Reports
• Statement of civilian witness
• Police communications recordings
• BWC footage
• Notes - WO #1 and WO #2
• Training records - the SO and the police dog
• LPS policy regarding the deployment of police dogs

• Video footage - property in the area of Quarrier Road and Pelkey Road

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from LHSC on August 4, 2026.

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.

At about 5:00 a.m., July 5, 2026, LPS officers were dispatched to an address in the area of Quarrier Road and Pelkey Road, London. A security service had contacted police to report that a motion-activated alarm had been triggered and two males with masks were present inside the property.

The males were Male #1 and the Complainant. They had consumed alcohol together that morning and decided to break into the property. On becoming aware of the police emergency lights outside the building, they headed for the rear of the property, exited and fled southwest across a park towards a nearby street. They continued to flee east on the street and concealed themselves behind a structure that jutted out from the exterior wall of a house on the street.

Officers arriving at the scene had observed Male #1 and the Complainant running away from the property and broadcast that information over the radio.

The SO and his police dog arrived at the school to assist in locating the males. The police dog quickly picked up their scent and led the SO across the park towards a nearby street and then east to a property on the street. The SO observed males hiding at the side of the house and ordered them out. Male #1 emerged slowly and surrendered himself. He was taken into custody without incident by an officer accompanying the SO on the track – WO #1.

As Male #1 was being arrested, the Complainant fled through a gate into the rear yard of the property and ran towards the perimeter fence. He was knocked to the ground by the police dog, the dog biting into his left thigh.

The SO had ordered the Complainant not to run and then released the leash on his dog, ordering the police dog to get the Complainant. The officer approached the Complainant on the ground, told him to be still and released the dog’s bite after the Complainant was handcuffed behind the back.

The Complainant was transported to hospital where he was treated for his dog bite wound. He underwent surgery to clean the wound and remove damaged and infected tissue.

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 177, Criminal Code – Trespassing at Night

177 Every person who, without lawful excuse, loiters or prowls at night on the property of another person near a dwelling-house situated on that property is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Section 348, Criminal Code - Breaking and Entering With Intent, Committing Offence or Breaking Out

348 (1) Every one who

(a) breaks and enters a place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein,

(b) breaks and enters a place and commits an indictable offence therein, or

(c) breaks out of a place after

(i) committing an indictable offence therein, or

(ii) entering the place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein,

is guilty

(d) if the offence is committed in relation to a dwelling-house, of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and

(e) if the offence is committed in relation to a place other than a dwelling-house, of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) For the purposes of proceedings under this section, evidence that an accused

(a) broke and entered a place or attempted to break and enter a place is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that he broke and entered the place or attempted to do so, as the case may be, with intent to commit an indictable offence therein; or

(b) broke out of a place is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that he broke out after

(i) committing an indictable offence therein, or

(ii) entering with intent to commit an indictable offence therein.

(3) For the purposes of this section and section 351, place means

(a) a dwelling-house;

(b) a building or structure or any part thereof, other than a dwelling-house;

(c) a railway vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or a trailer; or

(d) a pen or an enclosure in which fur-bearing animals are kept in captivity for breeding or commercial purposes.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by LPS 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 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 his disposal that the Complainant had broken into a property and trespassed onto private property at night, I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights in moving to arrest him for break and enter and trespass by night contrary to sections 348 and 177 of the Criminal Code, respectively.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO in the Complainant’s arrest, namely, the use of the dog to bite and hold the Complainant, constituted lawful force. The officer had information to believe that the Complainant had broken into a property and concealed his face with a mask while inside. He then took further steps to conceal himself by trespassing onto private property before fleeing from the SO even after his acquaintance had surrendered into police custody. These circumstances no doubt elevated the danger assessment in the SO’s mind regarding the Complainant, and what he was capable of, and impressed on the officer the need to take him into custody as soon as possible. On this record, the use of the dog made sense as it increased the odds of the Complainant’s capture while at the same time mitigating the risk he posed by placing him temporarily in a compromised position as officers moved to take him into custody.

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

Date: November 2, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit