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 74-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 28, 2025, at 7:34 p.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 26, 2025, at 8:38 a.m., two LPS police officers were dispatched to the residence of the civilian witness (CW) regarding her father’s mental health. She had previously obtained a Mental Health Act (MHA) Form 2 to have her father taken to hospital for assessment. The officers were unable to locate the male – the Complainant – at the time. Subsequently, upon learning that the Complainant might be volunteering for an event in a public park in downtown London, officers attended and located a man matching the description of the Complainant, sitting in the driver’s seat of an SUV. He initially provided police a false name and indicated he wanted police called. When the Complainant attempted to start the vehicle, officers pulled him out and onto the ground. He was transported to Victoria Hospital (VH) where he was restrained in the emergency room. On July 28, 2025, the CW contacted LPS and asked how her father had suffered a broken arm. A police sergeant attended the hospital and observed the Complainant in the emergency department without a sling. VH staff would not discuss the Complainant’s injuries, but a nurse reported that he had sustained a distal clavicle fracture.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/07/29 at 9:19 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/07/29 at 9:56 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 29, 2025.

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on July 29, 2025.

Subject Official

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on August 19, 2025.

Note: A witness official is an official (whether a police officer, a special constable of the Niagara Parks Commission or a peace officer with the Legislative Protective Service) who, in the opinion of the SIU Director, is involved in the incident under investigation but is not a subject official in relation to the incident.

Upon request by the SIU, witness officials are under a legal obligation pursuant to the SIU Act to submit to interviews with SIU investigators and answer all reasonable questions. The SIU is also entitled to a copy of their notes.]

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a vehicle stopped in a public park in downtown London on July 26, 2025, shortly after 11:00 a.m.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

LPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – WO #1

On July 26, 2025, starting at about 11:02 a.m., WO #1 was captured asking an elderly male if he was the Complainant. The male advised he was “Frank Jones”, and WO #1 and the SO continued to a volunteer table.

Starting at about 11:04 a.m., WO #1 received confirmation that “Frank Jones” was the Complainant, and he had arrived in a black SUV.

Starting at about 11:05 a.m., WO #1 and the SO approached an SUV and observed the Complainant in the driver’s seat. He was asked to shut the vehicle off and did so. The Complainant was advised he would be apprehended under the MHA. WO #1 and the SO explained why he was being apprehended under the MHA. The Complainant argued with the officers and refused to step out of the vehicle.

Starting at about 11:08 a.m., WO #1 took physical control of the Complainant by grabbing his left wrist and arm before releasing his grip and continuing to talk to the Complainant.

Starting at about 11:09 a.m., WO #1 and the SO attempted to remove the Complainant from the vehicle as he grasped the steering wheel and refused to cooperate.

Starting at about 11:11 a.m., WO #1 grabbed the Complainant by his right wrist while the SO grabbed his left arm. The officers unsuccessfully attempted to remove him from the vehicle. WO #1 requested assistance over the radio.

Starting at about 11:14 a.m., WO #1 went around to the passenger side of the vehicle, leaving SO by the driver side door. Both officers grabbed the Complainant’s right arm.

Starting at about 11:15 a.m., WO #1 went back around to the driver side as the Complainant was on the ground with the SO and WO #2 standing over him. WO #1 assisted the Complainant to his feet by his left arm with WO #2 on the right. WO #1 handcuffed the Complainant behind the back while the Complainant complained about his leg hurting.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the LPS on July 29, 2025:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• General Occurrence Report
• Arrest Report
• BWC footage - WO #1
• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Policy – Arrest and Detention – Mental Health Crisis Apprehension
• Policy – Use of Force
• Notes – WO #1 and WO #2

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between July 6, 2025, and July 29, 2025:

• The Complainant’s medical records from VH
• Video footage from a public park in downtown London

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with 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.

In the morning of July 26, 2025, the SO and his partner, WO #1, were looking for the Complainant. Their intention was to apprehend the Complainant pursuant to a Mental Health Act Form 2. The form, authorizing the transportation of a person to hospital for psychiatric assessment, was obtained the day before by the Complainant’s daughter. She was concerned that the Complainant was not taking his medication and driving with a suspended driver’s licence.

The officers located the Complainant in a public park, where he was volunteering at an event. He provided a false name when first approached by the officers. He was in the driver’s seat of his vehicle with the engine running when the officers, having confirmed his identity, caught up to him a second time. The SO and WO #1 explained why they were there and indicated it was their intention to bring him to hospital. The Complainant argued with the officers and did not appear to understand what was happening. He stated he had no intention of going to hospital. The officers attempted to persuade him to exit the vehicle. The Complainant refused and even turned on the vehicle’s engine at one point, having earlier turned it off at the officers’ request.

After several minutes of back and forth between the parties, the SO and WO #1 grabbed hold of the Complainant and attempted to pull him out of the vehicle. WO #2 was on scene by this time and assisted in the effort from the open driver’s door. The Complainant struggled against the officers but was eventually removed from the vehicle and forced to the ground where he complained of leg pain. The Complainant was handcuffed, escorted to a police cruiser and taken to hospital.

At hospital following his apprehension, the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured right clavicle.

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 apprehension by LPS officers on July 26, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming the SO as 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 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 Complainant was subject to apprehension further to a Form 2 under the Mental Health Act, and the SO and WO #1 were within their rights in attempting to execute it.

Regarding the force brought to bear in the Complainant’s apprehension, I am satisfied it was no more than what was reasonable in the circumstances. The officers made a good faith effort to explain the process to the Complainant and have him surrender peacefully into their custody. The Complainant steadfastly refused even after being warned that he had no choice in the matter. When those efforts failed, the SO and WO #1 were entitled to use a degree of force to pull the Complainant out of the vehicle, particularly as the Complainant had turned the engine on again and threatened to put it in motion. The force used against the Complainant consisted of the officers grappling with him to free his hands from the steering wheel and remove him from the driver’s seat, all the while as the Complainant resisted their efforts. No strikes were delivered. As for the grounding, the tactic made sense as it would better position the officers to more effectively deal with any continuing resistance by the Complainant. Nor does the maneuver appear to have been accomplished with heavy-handed force.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s right clavicle was broken as he was forcibly removed from his vehicle, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury was the result of any unlawful conduct by the apprehending officers. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: November 6, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit