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 32-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On September 1, 2025, at 1:44 p.m., the Nishnawbe-Aski Police Service (NAPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On August 31, 2025, at 6:51 p.m., in Kashechewan First Nation, a young man went to the NAPS detachment and reported to Subject Official (SO) #1 and SO #2 that the Complainant was inebriated and alone at home with an infant. At 6:54 p.m., the officers arrived at the residence. As the officers approached the residence, they could hear yelling coming from inside. The officers knocked on the front door, and the Complainant came to the window and closed the blinds. She continued to scream and throw items inside the residence. A child was crying and screaming. The officers made several attempts to get the Complainant to speak with them at the front door. Concerned for the safety of the child, the officers forced open the front door and entered the residence. The Complainant was not inside; she had run to the back of the residence and jumped through a main floor window to the ground below, a distance of about two metres. At 7:00 p.m., the Complainant was located sitting on the rear porch steps of the residence, crying with her head in her hands. She was arrested and transported to the detachment, where she was lodged in a cell and held for a bail hearing. While in the cell, the Complainant complained that her right leg was sore. On September 1, 2025, at 2:46 a.m., the Complainant was transported to the Kashechewan Nursing Station by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) where she was diagnosed with a broken right ankle.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/09/02 at 10:17 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/09/02 at 10:49 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

32-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on September 4, 2025.

Subject Officials

SO #1 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 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 between September 23, 2025, and October 6, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in two locations: a private residence and the NAPS Detachment, both in Kashechewan.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

NAPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - SO #1

On August 31, 2025, starting at about 6:53 p.m., SO #1 was captured exiting a police vehicle, approaching a home, and speaking to a young man. The young man advised SO #1 and SO #2 that a child was inside the home. The officers knocked on the door.

Starting at about 6:54 p.m., screaming was heard. SO #2 stated it sounded like an adult. SO #1 knocked again, and the screaming got louder.

Starting at about 6:57 p.m., SO #2 advised dispatch that they would breach the door to ensure the safety of a child. The door was forced open and the officers entered the living room. A scream was heard coming from outside. Both officers retreated through the front door. The officers ran to the rear of the residence and located the Complainant seated on a stairway, screaming at another person. The Complainant was handcuffed with her hands behind the back and escorted to the front of the residence. She said, “Ow.” The Complainant was placed against the police vehicle and searched, after which she was placed in the rear seat.

Starting at about 7:01 p.m., the officers returned inside to check on a child’s well-being. SO #1 approached the child and determined that the child appeared in good health.

Starting at about 7:03 p.m., the officers returned to their vehicle and drove off.

Starting at about 7:05 p.m., the Complainant was removed from the vehicle and escorted into the police detachment. She was seen hopping and bearing weight on only one foot. SO #1 asked, “What’s going on with your foot, why are you jumping?” The Complainant’s response was indecipherable.

Starting at about 7:07 p.m., the Complainant was escorted to a cell where her handcuffs were removed.

NAPS Communications Recordings

SO #1 contacted dispatch to create an incident file in relation to a family dispute.

SO #1 advised they were at the home. A child was inside, and an adult could be heard screaming inside. No one was answering the door, and police were going to breach the door for the child’s safety.

SO #1 reported they were inside the home and the child was in good health.

SO #1 advised that the Complainant was in custody for outstanding warrants and would be transported to the detachment.

SO #1 advised that the child would be left with a relative until other adults arrived.

NAPS Custody Footage - Booking and Cells

On August 31, 2025, starting at about 7:04 p.m., a fully marked Ford pick-up police vehicle attended the rear parking lot of the NAPS Kashechewan First Nation Detachment. SO #1 and SO #2 exited the vehicle. The rear garage door to enter the detachment was opened and the Complainant exited the police vehicle from the rear driver side door.

The Complainant’s hands were handcuffed behind the back. She was escorted by each arm by SO #1 and SO #2 into the garage area. The Complainant favoured her right leg, on which she avoided bearing weight. She hopped on her left leg as she was brought into the detachment.

Starting at about 7:06 p.m., the Complainant was brought to the booking area of the detachment. She was processed, and personal items were removed from her prior to her placement into a cell.

Starting at about 7:07 p.m., the Complainant was placed into a holding cell by SO #1 and SO #2. She continued to hop on her left foot while keeping her right foot off the ground to avoid weight bearing.

Starting at about 7:10 p.m., the Complainant knocked on the door. She avoided weight bearing on her right leg and appeared to be in discomfort.

Starting at about 7:13 p.m. the Complainant sat back on the cell bench and removed her right sock. The Complainant was animated, appeared to be in pain, caressed her right ankle, and was unable to remain still.

Over the course of the next seven-and-a-half hours in the cell, the Complainant appeared restless. She would repeatedly get up, attend the cell door and bang on it with her hand, all the while suspending her right foot in the air and not standing on it.

Starting at about 7:50 p.m., WO #2 and WO #1 attended the Complainant’s cell. WO #1 appeared to talk to the Complainant through a sliding window of the closed cell door.

Starting at about 8:14 p.m., the Complainant stripped naked in her cell. The Complainant’s right foot and ankle appeared swollen and bruised compared to her left foot and ankle.

Starting at about 8:38 p.m., WO #1 conducted a visual check on the Complainant through the cell door window and spoke to her.

Starting at about 8:49 p.m., WO #2 stood by the Complainant’s cell door and the two appeared to talk. WO #2 did not open the window and did not conduct a visual inspection of the Complainant

Starting at about 9:21 p.m., the Complainant started to put her clothes back on.

Starting at about 10:04 p.m., the Complainant used her shirt to wrap around her right ankle, and then put her track pants back on. The Complainant would repeatedly remove her shirt from her ankle and inspect her right ankle before re-applying it to her ankle.

Starting at about 11:06 p.m., WO #2 stood at the end of the hallway to the Complainant’s cell and appeared to listen. WO #2 did not attend the door to the cell, did not open the window and did not conduct a visual inspection of the Complainant.

Starting at about 11:42 p.m., WO #2 stood by the door of the cell and appeared to talk. WO #2 did not open the window and did not conduct a visual inspection of the Complainant.

Starting at about 12:11 a.m., September 1, 2025, SO #2 attended by the door of the cell and appeared to speak. SO #2 did not open the window and did not conduct a visual inspection of the Complainant.

Starting at about 12:19 a.m., the Complainant wet her sock in the cell sink and wrapped it around her ankle.

Starting at about 12:53 a.m., the Complainant put her right foot into the cell toilet. The Complainant then lay down on the floor in front of the toilet with her leg outstretched so that her ankle and foot were submerged in the toilet water. The Complainant subsequently took her foot out of the toilet water and placed her wet sock in the toilet water, thereafter, placing it on her ankle. She alternately submerged her foot in the toilet water, removed it, and placed a wet sock on her ankle.

Starting at about 2:33 a.m., WO #2 stood at the end of the hallway to the cell and appeared to listen. WO #2 did not attend the door to the cell, did not open the window and did not conduct a visual inspection of the Complainant.

Starting at about 2:40 a.m., WO #1 and WO #2 attended and entered the cell, and checked on the Complainant. WO #2 looked at the Complainant’s foot and ankle and then departed.

Starting at about 3:00 a.m., EMS personnel arrived at the detachment. EMS were brought into the cell and assessed the Complainant’s ankle and vital signs.

Starting at about 3:13 a.m., the Complainant was on a stretcher sitting up, and being taken to the ambulance by EMS. The Complainant appeared to grimace in pain as the stretcher was brought from the detachment to the waiting ambulance.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the NAPS between September 9, 2025, and October 10, 2025.

• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• General, Supplementary and Arrest Reports
• Communications recordings
• Custody footage
• Prisoner Report
• In-car camera footage
• BWC footage
• NAPS Prisoner Care and Control Policy
• NAPS Prisoner Care Manual
• Notes - WO #1, WO #2 and SO #1

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from the Timmins District Hospital and Kashechewan Nursing Station on September 19, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and two police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU. SO #1 did authorise the release of his notes.

In the evening of August 31, 2025, SO #1 and SO #2 arrived at the Complainant’s residence in Kashechewan. They were there to investigate a domestic disturbance in which the Complainant was reportedly in an inebriated condition with a child. The officers heard the Complainant yelling from inside the home and knocked on the door to gain entry. When a period had passed with no one answering the door, SO #1 and SO #2 forced their way inside.

Aware of the police presence inside her house, the Complainant ran to the rear of the residence and jumped out a bedroom window, breaking her right ankle in the process.

SO #1 and SO #2 exited the home, located the Complainant outside and proceeded to arrest her on the strength of outstanding arrest warrants. With the Complainant favouring her right foot, the officers placed her in their vehicle and left for the detachment a short distance away.

The Complainant was lodged in a cell at about 7:07 p.m. She remained there until about 3:13 a.m. of the next day, when she was taken away by paramedics. The Complainant favoured her right leg and appeared to be in pain during her time in cells.

The Complainant was taken to the nursing clinic and diagnosed with a fractured right ankle.

Section 215, Criminal Code - Failure to Provide Necessaries

215 (1) Every one is under a legal duty

(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person

(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and

(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.

(2) Every person commits an offence who, being under a legal duty within the meaning of subsection (1), fails without lawful excuse to perform that duty, if

(b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person 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 fleeing from NAPS police officers on August 31, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1 and SO #2 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 injury.

The offences that arise for consideration are failure to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to sections 215 and 221 of the Criminal Code, respectively. Both require something more than a simple want of care to give rise to liability. The former is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. The latter is premised on even more egregious conduct that demonstrates a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is not made out unless the neglect constitutes a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable standard of care. In the instant case, the question is whether there was any want of care on the part of either or both of SO #1 and SO #2, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that endangered the Complainant’s life or contributed to her injury. In my view, there was not.

The officers were engaged in the lawful execution of their duties when they attended at the Complainant’s home to ensure everyone was okay. With information at their disposal that an inebriated Complainant had care of a child, SO #1 and SO #2 were acting within their general duty to protect life and preserve the peace. I am further satisfied that the officers harboured a genuine concern for the wellbeing of the child inside the residence in light of what they were hearing, and that their concern afforded them exigent circumstances justifying their forced entry into the residence.

It appears that the Complainant decided to jump from the window at about the same time as the officers were entering the residence. They had not seen her inside the home before they were alerted to her presence outside. On this record, there is no evidence of any reckless or wanton behaviour on the part of the officers vis-à-vis the Complainant’s jump and consequent injury.

The issue turns to the level of care the Complainant received while in custody. I understand, as there is evidence to suggest, that the Complainant might not have articulated what was wrong with her leg when asked by officers. However, an officer’s duty of care to persons in their charge, particularly those that are intoxicated, is not limited to what they are told of a person’s condition. From the moment she was arrested and through her time in cells, the Complainant gave every indication that her right foot was injured. She continually favoured the foot and attempted self-treatment. Any reasonably diligent supervision of the Complainant should have gathered that the Complainant needed medical assessment and care. Nevertheless, no such care was provided until after she had been in custody for some seven to eight hours. Despite these concerns, the evidence does not establish that any want of care by the subject officials endangered the Complainant’s life or otherwise exacerbated her self-inflicted injury, the former a required element of the offence under section 215, the latter an essential part of the offence under section 221.

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

Before closing the file, I note that the investigation gathered evidence raising questions about the adequacy of the care the Complainant received while in police custody. I will be referring this matter to the NAPS Chief of Police for his service’s review and action as they deem appropriate. Further to the SIU’s legal obligation under section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, I will also be referring the matter to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: November 14, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit