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 39-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On August 14, 2025, at 9:50 a.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On August 14, 2025, at 2:49 a.m., LPS police officers responded to the area of Trafalgar Street and Clarke Road for a reported break and enter in progress. Two males in the vicinity matched the suspects’ description and were detained. One of them – the Complainant – darted away but was captured and grounded. He was transported to Victoria Hospital and diagnosed with a broken right clavicle.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/08/14 at 10:37 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/08/14 at 1:43 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

Not interviewed (declined); medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on August 14, 2025.

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 Not interviewed; body-worn camera (BWC) reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness official was interviewed on August 20, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question occurred in and around the area of Trafalgar Street and Clarke Road, London.

The street, in the area of the events in question, was oriented in a west - east direction. The area was residential in nature. The road was a paved, single-lane, two-way street, illuminated by streetlights.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

LPS Communications Recordings

Starting at about 2:42 a.m., August 14, 2025, the LPS received a call for service regarding a break and enter at a residence in the area of Trafalgar Street and Clarke Road. Two males were reportedly involved, one of whom was carrying a backpack and wearing a baseball hat. WO #1 and the SO were dispatched to investigate.

Starting at about 2:47 a.m., WO #1 and the SO arrived in the area and began to investigate the Complainant near the residence.

Starting at about 2:49 a.m., WO #1 advised that two males were in custody.

Starting at about 3:18 a.m., the SO was said to be transporting the Complainant to LPS headquarters.

Starting at about 3:45 a.m., the SO requested paramedics as the Complainant had lost consciousness.

The Complainant was said to have regained consciousness at about 3:46 a.m.

LPS BWC Footage – The SO

Starting at about 2:47 a.m., August 14, 2025, the SO was captured approaching the Complainant and informing him of his detention. The Complainant was with another male. Both of them had backpacks and were wearing baseball hats. The Complainant ran away from the SO but was caught almost immediately, after which a struggle ensued. Both the Complainant and the SO fell to the ground as the SO instructed the Complainant to present his hands. The Complainant struggled and rolled onto his back, insisting he had done nothing wrong. WO #1 and the SO rolled the Complainant onto his stomach and handcuffed him behind the back. The SO assisted the Complainant to his feet and escorted him to his police vehicle.

Starting at about 3:45 a.m., the SO requested that paramedics attend LPS headquarters as the Complainant had lost consciousness. The Complainant had indicated a previous brain injury, to which he attributed his loss of consciousness.

Starting at about 3:48 a.m., the Complainant indicated his shoulder was injured.

LPS Custody Footage

Starting at about 3:29 a.m., August 14, 2025, the Complainant was lodged in cells.

Starting at about 3:40 a.m., the Complainant staggered backwards. He was instructed to sit against a wall because of his lack of balance.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the LPS between August 15, 2025, and September 10, 2025:

• Names and roles of involved police officers, including call signs
• General Occurrence Report
• Arrest and Booking report
• Crown Brief Synopsis
• Notes – WO #1
• BWC footage
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• Policies – Use of Force / Arrest and Detention

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from London Health Sciences Centre on August 20, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with a civilian and police eyewitness, 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 early morning of August 14, 2025, the SO and WO #1 were dispatched to an address in the area of Trafalgar Street and Clarke Road. Police had received a call about a break and enter in progress involving two males, one of whom was said to be wearing a baseball hat and a backpack. Arriving on scene at about 2:46 a.m., the officers located two males in the vicinity of the address, a short distance from the reported break and enter. They were wearing backpacks and ball caps. The officers exited their cruisers to confront the males.

The males were the Complainant and the CW. Told by the SO that he was being detained in relation to a reported break and enter, the Complainant protested and attempted to run away. He had taken no more than a few strides when the SO took him down from behind.

The SO straddled the Complainant on the ground and forced him into a prone position before handcuffing him to the back.

The Complainant was transported to the police station. He subsequently appeared unwell and was taken to hospital where he 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 detention by LPS officers on August 14, 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 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 in the vicinity of a reported break and enter and matched the description of one of the suspects. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the SO had grounds to detain him for further investigation based on a reasonable suspicion that he was implicated in criminal activity: see R. v. Mann, [2004] 3 SCR 59.

Once under lawful detention, the SO was within his rights in moving to stop the Complainant when he attempted to run away. A takedown was a reasonable tactic in the circumstances. It put an end to the escape while positioning the officer to better deal with any continuing resistance on the part of the Complainant, which the officer could reasonably expect of a fleeing suspect. Thereafter, it does not appear that the SO did anything more than wrestle the Complainant into a prone position with the help of WO #1, in order to apply the handcuffs, when he refused to do so of his own volition.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant fractured his clavicle when he was forced to the ground, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury was the result of any unlawful conduct on the part of the SO. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: November 10, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit