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 36-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 9, 2025, at 8:59 a.m., the Kawartha Lakes Police Service (KLPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 8, 2025, at 11:24 p.m., a woman called to report a domestic incident at a residence in the area of Queen Street and Lindsay Street North in Lindsay. A man had rammed his vehicle into her vehicle on her driveway. The man threatened to kill himself and fled the scene. KLPS officers arrived and set up a perimeter. The Subject Official (SO) parked his police cruiser in a parking lot a short distance away, activated his overhead lights and directed them at the suspect’s vehicle parked across the street, and waited for Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) canine unit officers to attend and track the male. Reportedly, the man was suicidal and possibly armed. While waiting in his cruiser, a man unrelated to the incident, the Complainant, approached the SO to ask what he was doing. The SO explained he was conducting a criminal investigation and directed the Complainant to return to his home. The Complainant complied but, about an hour later, reappeared and complained to the SO about the cruiser’s overhead lights. Witness Official (WO) #1 arrived and tried to talk to the Complainant. Eventually, the officers decided to arrest the Complainant for obstruction of justice. As the officers attempted to take him into custody, the Complainant pulled away and grabbed the SO’s leg. The officers took the Complainant down, his face impacting the ground in the process, and the SO struck the Complainant three times to get him to release his leg. The Complainant was transported to Ross Memorial Hospital (RMH) by ambulance and diagnosed with a broken nasal bone.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/07/09 at 12:00 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/07/10 at 1:10 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 10, 2025.

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 24, 2025.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on July 18, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the area of Queen Street and Lindsay Street North, Kawartha Lakes.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

KLPS Communications Recordings

On July 9, 2025, at 1:36 a.m., the SO broadcast that he had the Complainant under arrest for obstructing justice. The Complainant was requesting the attendance of a supervisor.

KLPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - WO #1

Starting at about 1:30 a.m., July 9, 2025, WO #1 approached the SO and the Complainant on the south side of a street on the sidewalk. The Complainant was wearing a hoodie and smoking a cigarette. The SO told the Complainant he could not turn out the lights on his cruiser. The Complainant asked again if he could just turn out the lights. He told the SO that the headlights were fine, just not the spotlights on top of the cruiser. The SO walked back to his cruiser. WO #1 told the Complainant he understood his concerns, but the lights were required to be on. The Complainant made a request to WO #1 for a supervisor to attend and asked the officer’s name. WO #1 provided the Complainant a piece of paper with his name on it. WO #1 told the Complainant that he was impeding an investigation. The Complainant denied the claim. The Complainant told WO #1 he was across the street earlier when the SO called him a “moron” and that was why he came across the street. The Complainant advised WO #1 that the SO had just turned on the overhead lights, and that they were not on earlier. WO #1 asked the Complainant if he had window blinds to block the light. The Complainant advised WO #1 he was going to stay in that location until the police left the area. WO #1 walked away from the Complainant towards the SO’s cruiser and asked him what he wanted him to do. WO #1 walked back to the Complainant and advised him he was obstructing him. The SO grabbed the Complainant from the front of his clothing. The SO struggled with the Complainant and told him he was under arrest for “obstruct”. Both officers told the Complainant to “stop resisting”. The SO had hold of the Complainant’s left arm and yelled at the Complainant to get down on the ground. The Complainant was subsequently captured on his stomach on the ground. The SO removed the Complainant’s hoodie from his head towards the neck area and held the Complainant’s right hand with his right hand. The SO’s left hand was placed between the Complainant’s shoulders. The SO told the Complainant to let go of his leg several times. The SO struck the Complainant in the upper back or neck area with his right elbow. The SO said to the Complainant, “Let go of my leg,” twice, and then struck the Complainant a second time in the upper back or neck area with his right elbow. The SO told the Complainant a third time to let go of his leg, after which he delivered a third strike to the Complainant’s upper back. The Complainant’s left hand was now visible and he was handcuffed to the back. The Complainant was lifted from the ground and taken to the SO’s cruiser where he was searched and placed in the right rear seat. WO #1 walked back to his cruiser.

KLPS BWC Footage – WO #2

Starting at about 1:38 a.m., July 9, 2025, WO #2 approached the SO and asked him what had happened. The SO advised that the Complainant had walked across the street and asked him to turn off his lights. The SO told the Complainant he could not turn off his lights because he was looking for a suspect. The Complainant yelled and walked towards the officer. The SO told the Complainant to leave because he was in a crime scene. The SO advised that he had already cautioned the Complainant previously for obstructing justice. The SO attempted to grab the Complainant. He pulled away and both fell to the ground, where they struggled. The SO advised he was bleeding and then walked to his cruiser, opening the right rear passenger door. The Complainant was inside and reported that the SO had assaulted him. The Complainant explained that he had walked over to the officer and asked him to dim his cruiser’s light. WO #2 called on the police radio for an ambulance and advised that the Complainant was bleeding. WO #2 advised the Complainant that the SO was doing his job. The Complainant responded that all he wanted the SO to do was turn the lights on his vehicle down. He said that the SO had called him a “moron”, after which he had walked south across the street to the south sidewalk.

WO #2 advised the Complainant there was a reason he was in custody. The Complainant responded, “Yes, because he doesn’t like me.” WO #2 told the Complainant he was in a crime scene, and he was arrested by the SO. When being arrested, he resisted and was taken to the ground.

Video Footage – Retail Business #1

On July 9, 2025, starting at about 1:27 a.m., the SO was captured exiting his cruiser and standing by the open driver’s door.

Starting at about 1:32 a.m., the SO activated his cruiser’s overhead takedown lights.

Starting at about 1:35 a.m., the Complainant walked south on the west side of a street, before proceeding towards the front of the SO’s cruiser. He stopped briefly on a patch of grass and then continued to walk onto the road towards the front of the SO’s cruiser. The SO stood at the open driver’s door, and appeared to talk to the Complainant. The SO then closed his driver’s door and walked towards the Complainant. He talked to the Complainant about three metres in front of his cruiser in what appeared an animated fashion. There was substantial glare from the bright overhead lights on the SO’s vehicle, making the interaction difficult to discern.

Starting at about 1:36 a.m., a marked KLPS vehicle approached and parked at the north curb facing west, across the street from where the SO and the Complainant were talking. WO #1 exited the vehicle and approached the front of the SO’s vehicle.

Starting at about 1:37 a.m., the SO returned to his cruiser leaving WO #1 to speak with the Complainant.

Starting at about 1:39 a.m., the SO exited and rejoined WO #1 and the Complainant. The glare of the takedown lights made it difficult to see the interaction.

Starting at about 1:40 a.m., just off the right front passenger side of the SO’s vehicle, about three metres in front of it, the SO and WO #1 were captured engaged in a struggle with the Complainant, who appeared to be resisting the officers. The officers grounded the Complainant face down on the road. The struggle appeared to continue on the ground where the SO seemed to strike the Complainant two or three strikes to the upper back.

Starting at about 1:42 a.m., the SO and WO #1 brought the Complainant to his feet and walked him with his hands handcuffed behind the back to the rear passenger door of the SO’s cruiser.

Starting at about 1:43 a.m., the SO re-entered his vehicle and WO #1 returned to his cruiser on the north side of Needham Street.

Starting at about 1:51 a.m., an ambulance arrived, and the Complainant was removed from the SO’s vehicle.

Starting at about 1:59 a.m., the Complainant was placed into the ambulance.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the KLPS between July 11, 2025, and August 11, 2025:

• General Occurrence Report
• Arrest Report
• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• List of involved officers
• BWC footage
• Video footage from Retail Business #2 and Retail Business #1
• Notes - WO #1 and
• Policies – Arrest Security and Control of Prisoners; Search of Persons; Prisoner Transportation

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from RMH on July 11, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario.

Late in the evening of July 8, 2025, KLPS were dispatched to a residence in the area of Queen Street and Lindsay Street North with respect to a domestic disturbance. A 911 call had come in about a male armed with a knife and attempting to gain entry to his estranged partner’s house. The male had reportedly used his pick-up truck to ram a vehicle parked at the address before fleeing the area.

The SO was among the officers responding to the incident. He located an empty pick-up truck parked in a lot a distance away from the residence. Believing it to be the truck in question, the SO broadcast what he had found and requested the assistance of a canine team to conduct a track of the suspect from the vehicle. In the meantime, while he waited for the canine team to arrive, which he was told would take some time, the officer parked his cruiser directly across the street from the pick-up truck, eventually turning on his cruiser’s spotlights and focusing them on the vehicle. The time was about 1:30 a.m.

The Complainant lived a short distance from the area. Shortly after the SO activated his spotlights, the Complainant walked over to the cruiser to complain. The Complainant had previously approached the SO about 45 minutes earlier in the vicinity of the pick-up truck to ask what was going on. The officer had explained that police were looking for a potentially armed suspect and that they were waiting for a police dog team to arrive. The interaction was uneventful and the Complainant had returned home at the officer’s request. On this occasion, their conversation was more animated. The Complainant asked the SO to turn off his spotlights as it was bothersome to him and others in the neighbourhood. The SO explained that they would not be turned off, and cautioned the Complainant that he was in a crime scene and needed to leave the area. The Complainant argued with the officer and refused to leave.

WO #1, east of the SO’s location, was also searching for the male. He heard the SO and the Complainant arguing and drove to the area. The officer exited his cruiser and approached the Complainant as the SO returned to his cruiser. WO #1 attempted to calm the Complainant and asked that he return home to allow the officers to continue their investigation and for his own safety. The Complainant refused to leave the area.

WO #1 consulted with the SO and the two decided to arrest the Complainant for obstructing their investigation. The Complainant struggled against the officers as they grabbed hold of him and attempted to secure him in handcuffs. The officers forced the Complainant to the ground. The Complainant landed in a prone position with WO #1 on his right side and the SO on the left, his left hand with a hold of the SO’s left leg. The officer told the Complainant to stop resisting and let go of his leg. The Complainant refused and was elbowed three times to the upper back/neck area by the SO. Following the third strike, the officers brought the Complainant’s hands behind the back and handcuffed them.

Paramedics arrived on scene and transported the Complainant to hospital. He was diagnosed with a broken nose.

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 129, Criminal Code - Offences Relating to Public or Peace Officer

129 Every one who

(a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer,

(b) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or

(c) resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure,

is guilty of

(d) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(e) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Section 139 (2), Criminal Code – Obstructing Justice

139 (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,

(a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or

(b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,

is guilty of

(c) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Every person who intentionally attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by KLPS officers on July 9, 2025. 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.

The SO and WO #1 were acting within the general scope of their duty to investigate crime and were within their rights in seeking to have the Complainant vacate the area. The plan was a reasonable one, namely, to start a dog track from the pick-up truck of a potentially armed suspect. The Complainant’s presence in proximity to the truck risked contaminating the scene and frustrating that objective. On this record, having attempted to persuade him over a period of time to take his leave, repeatedly warning him that he was interfering with their investigation, the officers had cause to arrest him for obstruction contrary to sections 129 and/or 139(2) of the Criminal Code.

As for the force brought to bear against the Complainant, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was unlawful. The takedown made sense as the Complainant resisted the officers’ efforts to handcuff him on his feet. That task would be facilitated with the Complainant on the ground, where the officers would have a positional advantage to better manage his resistance. The three strikes delivered by the SO to the upper back are subject to legitimate scrutiny, but I am unable to reasonably conclude they fell afoul of the criminal law. These were not indiscriminate blows to a person in a vulnerable position. Rather, they were intended to have the Complainant release his grip of the officer’s leg, which he had hold of at the time. Prior to each strike, the SO directed the Complainant to let go of his leg. The Complainant only did so following the third strike, after which the officers were able to handcuff him behind the back. On this record, I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights in attempting to extricate himself from the Complainant’s grip, and he did so with force that was significant but not disproportionate to the task at hand.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s nose was fractured in the altercation that marked his arrest, the result of the takedown or his face impacting the ground with the force of the elbow strikes to the back, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury was attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the SO. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.

Before closing the file, I note that the investigation revealed conduct on the part of WO #1, with respect to information he provided his police service and the SIU, that might constitute misconduct under sections 10, 19 and 31 of the Police Code of Conduct. I will be referring this matter to the Chief of Police of the KLPS. Pursuant to section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit, 2019, I will also be referring the matter to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: November 5, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit