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 41-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 23, 2025, at 1:53 p.m., Kingston Police (KP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 22, 2025, at about 7:20 p.m., KP responded to a call about an injured child at an intersection in the area of Princess Street and Westbrook Road, Kingston. Arriving officers established that the child was injured by their sibling during a fight. While the officers were tending to the injured child, an intoxicated male - the Complainant - walked up and began to yell at the child. The Complainant identified himself as the child’s father. The officers decided to take the child home and turn him over to his mother [now known to be Civilian Witness (CW) #1]. At the residence, the Complainant continued his disruptive behaviour and was eventually arrested by the officers for creating a disturbance. The Complainant resisted and additional officers were asked to assist. He was wrestled into a cruiser and transported to KP Lock-Up. He was booked at 8:39 p.m. and, a short time later, complained of pain to his leg. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called, and they transported the Complainant to Kingston Health Sciences Centre (KHSC). At 10:45 p.m., Witness Official (WO) #4 of the Custody Unit released the Complainant pursuant to a Promise to Appear and Recognizance. The Complainant contacted KP’s Professional Standards Office the following day, reporting that he had suffered a fractured leg during his interaction with the police. A Professional Standards Supervisor attended the Complainant’s residence and verified the reported injury.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/06/23 at 2:41 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/06/23 at 3:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on June 23, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between June 23, 2025, and June 24, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject officials were interviewed on July 14, 2025.

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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between June 27, 2025, and July 14, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the street in front of a residence in the area of Princess Street and Westbrook Road, Kingston.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

KP Communications Recordings – Radio

On June 22, 2025, 911 dispatch received a call from an unidentified male reporting

that a boy, bleeding from the head and shirt, was claiming his sibling had assaulted him. The call was transferred to ambulance dispatch.

SO #2 and SO #1 were dispatched to the area of Princess Street and Westbrook Road. Dispatch confirmed EMS was attending and identified the boy.

SO #1 proceeded to the child’s residence and requested that EMS attend a nearby residence. Subsequently, officers transported the boy to his residence and advised EMS to meet them there.

SO #2 contacted dispatch to request that an individual be documented for public intoxication and asked for additional units to attend the scene. The officers requested a full-cage cruiser due to the individual’s level of resistance. Furthermore, they advised that no lights or sirens were needed. WO #1 confirmed the situation was under control and other units could disregard.

WO #1 and WO #2 transported the Complainant to 705 Division Street, followed by WO #3.

KP Communications Recordings – 911

On June 22, 2025, at 7:19:30 p.m., a male caller reported that he and his wife were walking their dog when a boy approached them with a visibly bleeding head wound. When asked what had happened, the boy stated that his sibling had assaulted him. The couple then brought him to their residence in the area of Princess Street and Westbrook Road to wait for EMS. The boy, 11-years-old, had sustained a large gash on the left side of his head, resulting in blood covering his shirt. He also had a cut on his hand but was awake, conscious and breathing. The injuries were reportedly caused when a sibling struck him with a plastic tote. EMS communications informed the caller that both ambulance and police would be dispatched due to the nature of the call

Video Footage - Private Residence

On June 22, 2025, at 7:46:07 p.m., the Complainant was captured walking down his driveway and proceeding from right to left along the sidewalk in an easterly direction. The Complainant exhibited an unsteady gait and weaved side to side.

At 7:49:32 p.m., a marked KP cruiser entered the frame and parked in front of the Complainant’s residence in the area of Princess Street and Westbrook Road. A second marked KP cruiser followed closely and parked across the street. The first vehicle was mostly obstructed by a large tree; the second vehicle was entirely obstructed. About 22 seconds later, the Complainant jogged from left to right along the sidewalk, after which he slowed to a walk and continued towards his residence. His gait remained unsteady, and he continued to weave side to side. Upon reaching his driveway, he walked down towards the police cruiser.

At 7:50:10 p.m., the Complainant casually waved his left arm and proceeded around the front of the cruiser towards the driver’s side, becoming obstructed by the tree.[3]

At 7:51:37 p.m., an altercation occurred at the bottom left of the obstructing tree, near the cruiser across the street. A bare leg was seen flung to the ground, and an officer was observed walking around what appeared to be the Complainant lying prone. The Complainant’s legs were seen moving, but no further details were visible.

At 8:00:56 p.m., the Complainant was assisted to a standing position.

At 8:01:50 p.m., the Complainant’s son appeared from behind the tree and displayed demonstrative behaviour. Paramedics tended to him, and he entered the side door of the ambulance.

At 8:09:48 p.m., two marked cruisers departed, exiting the frame to the right. SO #1 and SO #2 remained on scene, speaking with CW #1 near the ambulance.

KP Custody Footage

At 8:32:48 p.m., June 22, 2025, the rear passenger side door of a cruiser was opened in the sally port where two officers removed the Complainant from the vehicle. The Complainant fell to his knees and audibly exclaimed, “Ah.” Subsequently, an unidentified voice was heard instructing the Complainant to stand up. The two male officers proceeded to drag the Complainant towards the booking area door. The Complainant was handcuffed with his hands behind his back. He demonstrated an abnormal gait, dragged his left leg, and appeared unable to bear weight on it.

At 8:33:06 p.m., the officers pulled the Complainant into the hallway, where he stated, “I can’t walk.” The Complainant was dropped by the officers and verbally indicated, “My leg.” The officers instructed him to stand up and placed him on a bench in the booking area. The ensuing discussion was largely unintelligible; however, the Complainant was heard stating, “The left leg really hurts.” The Complainant repeatedly told officers that he was unable to walk, and his left leg was in pain.

At 8:34:02 p.m., WO #2 stated, “You were walking perfectly fine before.” The Complainant responded, “No, I wasn’t walking perfectly fine.” WO #2 replied with, “You’re a grown man, you need to grow up.” About 15 seconds later, two officers lifted the Complainant from the bench and escorted him down the hallway. The Complainant struggled with his left leg, hopped on his right leg, and attempted to avoid placing weight on the left.

At 8:34:37 p.m., the Complainant was placed in Cell 21. An officer instructed him to get down on his knees. He limped on his right leg, and his left leg appeared non-functional. Officers removed the Complainant’s handcuffs.

At 8:35:17 p.m., two officers released the Complainant and instructed him to remain facing the wall. The Complainant collapsed onto his left leg, fell hard to the floor, and landed on his rear between the bench and the toilet. His left leg rested beneath his right leg. All officers exited the cell and WO #4 secured the door.

At 8:39:34 p.m., the Complainant pushed himself up with his arms using the bench and toilet for support, along with his right leg, to reach a standing position. He groaned in pain. About 70 seconds later, the Complainant attempted to place weight on his left leg and groaned audibly in pain. While on the cell bench, a dark blotch was visible on the Complainant’s left knee.

At 10:35:13 p.m., SO #2 engaged in verbal communication with the Complainant from outside the cell. The content of the exchange could not be discerned.

At 11:58:32 p.m., WO #4 informed the Complainant that paramedics were present and proceeded to open the cell door. EMS personnel entered the cell and engaged with the Complainant. They advised that the Complainant’s knee required an X-ray and asked if he wished to go to the hospital. The Complainant exited the cell area hopping on his right foot and laid down on the stretcher.

On June 23, 2025, at 12:03:09 a.m., WO #4 presented the Complainant with paperwork related to his arrest. She explained the charges and court appearance dates and directed the Complainant to initial and sign the release documents. Subsequently, the Complainant was transported by ambulance to KHSC.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from KP between June 25, 2025, and September 12, 2025:

• List of involved officers
• Computer-aided Dispatch Reports
• Communications recordings
• Custody video
• Notes – WO #2, WO #1, WO #5, SO #1, SO #2, WO #3, and WO #4
• Policies - Prisoner Transport; Prisoner Care and Control; and, Use of Force
• Use of force training records – SO #1 and SO #2
• Confirmation of notification to Family and Children’s Services
• Synopsis and Arrest Report
• Booking Docket Sheet
• General Occurrence Reports - historical
• Use of Force Report

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained records from the following other sources between June 26, 2025, and September 10, 2025:

• The Complainant’s medical records from KHSC
• Photographs of the Complainant’s injuries, both pre- and post-operation, from the Complainant
• Letter from Family and Children’s Services, dated July 7, 2025
• Written statement from CW #2
• Video footage from private residence
• Ambulance Call Reports

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, the two subject officials, and additional police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the evening of June 22, 2025, SO #1 and SO #2 were dispatched to the area of Princess Street and Westbrook Road following a call to police about an injured child. The caller had located the boy bleeding from the head. The injury was reportedly caused by the child’s sibling a short time before. The officers arrived on scene, spoke to the child and left him temporarily in the care of the 911 caller while they travelled a short distance to a residence in the area to speak to his parents. They did so before returning to pick-up the boy to bring him home.

The child’s father – the Complainant – had left his residence to search for his son, who had left the home following the incident with his sibling. He had consumed alcohol and was intoxicated. The officers passed him on the street in their cruisers, and the Complainant learned that his son was in the backseat of SO #1’s vehicle.

Back at the son’s residence, an angry Complainant confronted the officers. He poked SO #1 in the chest with a finger and was arrested by SO #2.

SO #1 and SO #2 escorted the Complainant to a cruiser and attempted to place him in the rear. The Complainant kicked the door of the cruiser and pressed his legs into the doorframe to prevent the officers seating him. The officers took the Complainant to the ground and kept him there pending the arrival of additional officers.

The Complainant was eventually lifted to his feet, placed in a cruiser and transported to the police station. He complained of leg pain and was eventually transported to hospital in ambulance. The Complainant was diagnosed with a fracture of the left leg.

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 31, Liquor Licence and Control Act - Intoxication

31 (1) No person shall be in an intoxicated condition in,

(a) a place to which the general public is invited or permitted access; or

(b) any part of a residence that is used in common by persons occupying

more than one dwelling in the residence.

(2) A police officer or conservation officer may arrest without warrant any person who is contravening subsection (1) if, in the opinion of the officer, it is necessary to do so for the safety of any person.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by KP officers on June 22, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1 and SO #2 the subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official 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 the Complainant was subject to arrest for public intoxication contrary to sections 31(1) and (2) of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019. He was unsteady on his feet, smelled of alcohol and, despite the officers’ efforts to calm him, had arguably committed an assault on SO #1 by pressing a finger into the officer’s chest. Once lawfully in their custody, the officers were within their rights in exercising control of the Complainant’s movements to ensure he could be safely processed according to law.

I am also satisfied that the evidence around the force used by the subject officials in the course of the Complainant’s custody, namely, a takedown, does not reasonably establish it was excessive. SO #1 and SO #2 could have continued with their attempts to force him into the cruiser, but that would have risked injury to the Complainant, who was determined to prevent that happening. Rather, they acted reasonably in choosing to wait for the arrival of additional police resources. They might have considered simply standing-by with the Complainant on his feet while they waited. After all, he was handcuffed and there were two of them. On the other hand, the Complainant’s behaviour had given the officers reason to believe that his combativeness would continue. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that a takedown was out of bounds; it would subdue a struggling the Complainant while better positioning officers to deal with any remaining resistance on the ground. Moreover, the evidence suggests the Complainant’s fracture was more likely the product of the dynamics of the takedown than the maneuver having been executed with undue force.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was incurred in the takedown, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the officers.

Date: October 21, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit