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 40-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 2, 2025, at 12:32 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 2, 2025, at approximately 1:50 a.m., TPS received a 911 hang-up call from an apartment in the area of Eglinton Avenue East and Kennedy Road. Officers were dispatched shortly before 7:00 a.m. and, following conversations with the occupants, formed grounds to arrest a male occupant - the Complainant - for breaching release conditions. The Complainant resisted arrest and was eventually grounded. The Complainant complained of pain to his face after his arrest and was taken to Michael Garron Hospital (MGH). At 11:25 a.m., he was diagnosed with a nasal fracture.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/07/02 at 1:40 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/07/02 at 4:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 2, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on July 2, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on July 21, 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 11, 2025.

Investigative Delay

Delay was incurred owing to resource pressures in the Director’s Office.

The Scene

The events in question transpired inside the bedroom of an apartment in the area of Eglinton Avenue East and Kennedy Road, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Communications Recordings - Telephone

At 1:50:01 a.m., July 2, 2025, the CW called 911. Screaming was heard in the background. The telephone call disconnected, and the police communicator called back. The CW answered, apologized and said there was no emergency; she had accidentally dialled 911. She denied there being any yelling. The CW provided her name and the address of an apartment in the area of Eglinton Avenue East and Kennedy Road.

At 7:00:24 a.m., the CW called 911 again. She mentioned the “police” but was mostly unintelligible on the recording. A male could be heard yelling, “Don’t move.”

At 7:00:34 a.m., TPS requested that an ambulance attend an apartment in the area of Eglinton Avenue East and Kennedy Road.

TPS Communication Recordings – Radio

At 1:52:20 a.m., July 2, 2025, the police dispatcher asked over the air if a unit could attend an unknown trouble call. There was no response from any units.

At 1:55:51 a.m., the dispatcher asked if a unit could attend the unknown trouble call. There was no response.

At 2:43:53 a.m., the dispatcher again asked if a unit could attend the unknown trouble call. There was no response.

At 3:30:21 a.m., a male asked the dispatcher to downgrade the unknown trouble call.[3]

At 6:23:49 a.m., the dispatcher asked the SO and WO #1 to attend the unknown trouble call. The dispatcher said the CW had called 911 but explained she called in error, and nothing was wrong. Screaming had been heard in the background.

At 7:00:11 a.m., the SO and WO #1 requested an ambulance as a male had a bloody nose.

TPS BWC Footage – The SO

At 6:51 a.m., July 2, 2025, the SO was captured walking down an apartment building hallway. He knocked on an apartment door, and announced, “Toronto Police.”

At 6:53 a.m., the CW opened the door. The SO said, “Hello, you called 911 earlier, we need to come in to ensure everything is okay.”

At 6:53 a.m., the SO and WO #1 entered the apartment. The SO asked the CW what had been going on as he walked into the living room and pulled back the curtain to view the balcony. The CW made a comment about her husband.

At 6:54 a.m., the CW opened the door to the primary bedroom and a male - the Complainant - was standing there, wearing only underwear. The SO asked him his name, and he replied “[Complainant’s first name].” As the SO stepped towards the Complainant, the CW stepped in front of him and said, “No, please.” The SO had his handcuffs in his hand as the CW and the Complainant backed into a closet. The CW yelled, “Don’t put cuffs,” as the Complainant denied he was the Complainant.

At 6:55 a.m., the SO asked the Complainant if he had anything with his name on it. The Complainant repeated he was not the Complainant. The officer then asked the CW what his name was but she would not respond.

At 6:56 a.m., the Complainant attempted to explain to the SO why he was at the apartment and identified himself with a false name. He was advised that he would be arrested if he provided a false name.

At 6:58 a.m., the SO spoke to WO #1 and advised that he had grounds to arrest the Complainant. He further advised that they could always release him unconditionally. With his handcuffs in hand, the SO then attempted to handcuff the Complainant. A struggle ensued. The SO said, “Give me your hands.”

At 6:59 a.m., the Complainant was on the floor and holding onto the handcuffs in one of his hands. The SO had the handcuffs in his right hand. The SO yelled, “Release, let go.” The SO delivered three closed fist strikes to the Complainant’s face area. The SO was subsequently able to secure one of the handcuffs to one of the Complainant’s wrists. The Complainant now had a bloody nose and continued to deny his identity. As the second handcuff was applied, the CW yelled, “You can’t do that.”

At 7:00 a.m., the SO called dispatch and advised that the Complainant had a bloody nose as he got him up from the closet floor and sat him on the bed.

At 7:01 a.m., the SO told the Complainant that an ambulance was on the way. He told him not to move and then said to him, “That’s what happens when you fight.” The Complainant responded by saying, “I didn’t fight you.”

At 7:02 a.m., an unknown male police officer entered the bedroom, the handcuffs were moved from the front to the back of the Complainant, and he was escorted out of the apartment to the elevators.

At 7:26 a.m., the recording resumed outside the apartment building with three paramedics and a stretcher.

At 7:27 a.m., the Complainant was removed from the police cruiser and brought to the stretcher. His handcuffs were relocated to the sides of the stretcher, and he was searched.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between July 2, 2025, and October 31, 2025:

• Custody footage
• BWC footage – the SO and WO #1
• In-car camera footage
• Communications recordings
• Scene photographs
• General Occurrence Report
• Supplementary Reports
• Event Chronology
• Notes – WO #1, the SO and WO #2
• TPS – Use of Force Policy

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

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

The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.

Shortly before 7:00 a.m., July 2, 2025, the SO, in the company of his partner, WO #1, arrived at the front door of an apartment in the area of Eglinton Avenue East and Kennedy Road. Earlier that morning, the resident of the apartment – the CW – had called 911. She had hung-up the call but not before the call-taker heard yelling in the background. The SO and WO #1 were following up to ensure the CW was okay. En route to the apartment, the officers had also learned that a male – the Complainant – was before the courts on a domestic assault charge involving the CW. He was prohibited from being at the address or having contact with the CW. The CW opened the door and allowed the officers entry into the apartment. Reluctantly, she led them to the bedroom where the Complainant was present.

The Complainant denied his identity and provided a false name. When the SO indicated he would be arrested for breaching his release conditions, the Complainant struggled against the officer’s efforts to secure him in handcuffs. He pulled his arms away from the SO and took hold of his handcuffs. The Complainant was forced to the floor in the bedroom and subjected to several knee strikes to the back and punches to the head area, after which the SO handcuffed his arms to the front.

The Complainant was taken to hospital following his arrest and 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.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on July 2, 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.

With information at his disposal that the Complainant was present in the CW’s apartment in violation of a term of his release, I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights in attempting to take him into custody.

I am also satisfied that the SO used no more force than was reasonably necessary in effecting the Complainant’s arrest. The takedown to the bedroom floor made sense. The Complainant was refusing to surrender his arms to be handcuffed. Forcing him to the floor would make further resistance by the Complainant more difficult. In fact, the Complainant did continue to struggle with the SO on the floor, pressing a knee against the officer’s chest and refusing to release his hold of the officer’s handcuffs. When repeated direction that the Complainant release the handcuffs and efforts to wrestle the handcuffs away from him failed, the SO delivered knee and hand strikes. These would appear a reasonable escalation of force, particularly in light of the officer’s legitimate concern that the handcuffs could be used as a weapon in the Complainant’s hands. There were no further strikes once the handcuffs were dislodged from his grasp.

In the result, while I accept that the SO broke the Complainant’s nose in the altercation that marked the arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury is attributable to excessive force by the officer. As such, there is no basis for moving forward with charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: January 9, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit