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 43-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 14, 2025, at 3:00 p.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On October 13, 2025, at 1:00 p.m., the Complainant was arrested on outstanding warrants in a rooming house in the area of Donald Street and St. Laurent Blvd, Ottawa. He was wanted for theft and breach of probation, and was to be held for a show cause hearing on October 14, 2025. Officer #1 and Officer #2 brought the Complainant to OPS headquarters. At about 2:00 p.m., he was paraded before the Subject Official (SO) and searched by special constables. The Complainant opted not to call a lawyer and was lodged in a cell. He was cooperative. Later in the evening, officers noticed the Complainant was not acting normal. Cell monitoring video recording was activated,[2] and he was monitored actively in the cell. At 11:35 p.m., Service Employee Witness (SEW) #5, while monitoring the cameras, noticed the Complainant lying on the floor. The Witness Official (WO) attended to check on his wellbeing and found the Complainant with irregular breathing. He was unresponsive and had a small amount of blood coming from his nose. Narcan was administered and paramedics were called. The Complainant regained consciousness; however, he was not speaking. He was taken to The Ottawa Hospital – General Campus (OGH). At the time of notification the Complainant remained unconscious and in the Intensive Care Unit.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/10/14 at 3:45 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/10/14 at 4:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on October 15, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on December 11, 2025.

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on November 13, 2025.

Service Employee Witnesses (SEW)

SEW #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SEW #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SEW #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SEW #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SEW #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SEW #6 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SEW #7 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SEW #8 Not interviewed

The service employee witnesses were interviewed between November 13 and 17, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a cell of the OPS police station, 474 Elgin Street, Ottawa.

The Complainant went into medical distress while confined to a cell located in the OPS Central Cellblock. It was unknown whether he ingested something during his time in police custody or prior to his arrest.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

OPS Cellblock Footage

On October 13, 2025, at 1:55 p.m., the Complainant entered the booking hall and stated he might have a seizure, noting he had no medication with him and was due for his next dose the following day.

At 1:57 p.m., a pat?down search of the Complainant was conducted by SEW #8. The special constable began by directing the Complainant to remove his shoes and place them in front of him. SEW #8 then searched the upper right quadrant of the Complainant’s body, checking all exterior and interior jacket pockets, followed by the pocket of the Complainant’s sweater. He proceeded to search the belt line and removed a shoelace being used as a belt. SEW #8 then checked the front and rear right?side pockets and completed a thorough pat?down of the entire right leg. The same search was repeated on the Complainant’s left side.

At 1:59 p.m., SEW #8 conducted a scan of the Complainant’s entire body using a handheld wand for any additional items or weapons.

At 2:00 p.m., the Complainant’s handcuffs were removed, along with his jacket. The Complainant was instructed to place his hands on the wall while SEW #8 conducted a second pat?down of the torso and abdomen, including the rear belt line and pockets. He again searched both legs, lowering the Complainant’s socks to check his ankles and the bottoms of his feet.

The Complainant was placed in a cell at 2:02 p.m.

The Complainant was escorted for fingerprinting at 3:04 p.m. and returned to his cell at 3:32 p.m.

At 11:30 p.m., the Complainant extended his left arm and leg through the cell bars, moving them up and down.

At 11:31 p.m., the Complainant’s arm and leg slowly lowered, and he appeared to collapse to the floor.

At 11:36 p.m., SEW #5 attended the cell and pressed the alarm, prompting five OPS members to respond and provide first-aid to the Complainant.

Paramedics arrived at 11:50 p.m., placed the Complainant on a gurney, and departed at 11:58 p.m. The Complainant appeared semi-conscious and resisted slightly during restraint.

There was no footage from inside the cell to ascertain whether the Complainant ingested any substances while in the cell.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPS between October 15, 2025, and November 3, 2025:

• Notes - the SO, the WO, SEW #1, SEW #2, SEW #3, SEW #4, SEW #5, SEW #6 and SEW #7
• OPS custody footage
• OPS policy – Persons in Custody
• Central Cellblock Non-Commissioned Officer Reference Manual
• Involved Officer List
• Communications recordings
• Occurrence Reports

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from OGH on November 3, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, the SO and special constables directly responsible for the Complainant’s supervision while in police custody, gives rise to the following scenario.

At about 2:00 p.m., October 13, 2025, having been arrested that day by OPS officers on break and enter, mischief and breach of probation charges, the Complainant was lodged in a police cell at the OPS station, 474 Elgin Street, Ottawa. He denied drug or alcohol use before his arrest, but mentioned he had epilepsy and might suffer a seizure. Over the course of the day, special constables regularly checked the Complainant in person and via a camera feed.

At about 7:00 p.m., the SO, the officer with ultimate responsibility for the care of prisoners, was advised of some blood on the shirt the Complainant was wearing. He attended at the Complainant’s cell and had him remove his sweater to assess for any injuries. Not seeing any and satisfied that he was okay, the SO left the area but directed that the special constables pay closer attention to the Complainant.

At about 11:35 p.m., SEW #5 observed the Complainant on the video monitor seemingly lying on the cell floor. She travelled to the cell to check on him and found he was unresponsive. SEW #5 pressed a panic strip, signalling for assistance at the cell.

A number of special constables arrived at the scene with the WO, who had relieved the SO shortly after 9:00 p.m. The Complainant was placed in the recovery position, Narcan was administered and paramedics were called.

Paramedics arrived on scene at about 11:50 p.m. and assumed charge of the Complainant’s care. He was transported to hospital and diagnosed with the toxic ingestion of an illicit substance.

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 lapsed into medical crisis while in the custody of the OPS on October 13, 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 medical event.

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 the SO, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that endangered the Complainant’s life or contributed to his medical condition. In my view, there was not.

There are no questions raised in the evidence regarding the lawfulness of the Complainant’s arrest on October 13, 2025.

Once in OPS custody, the Complainant was owed a duty of care by the SO and the other custodians assigned to look after him while in cells. I am satisfied that in the discharge of that duty, police personnel comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s well-being. The Complainant was asked about drug and alcohol use and denied both. In what appears to have been a thorough job, the Complainant was searched prior to being placed in a cell. No drugs were retrieved from his person. The Complainant was checked regularly and appeared well for the most part. The SO responded quickly when advised of blood on the Complainant’s sweater, conducting a reasonable assessment of the Complainant’s health and satisfying himself that he was fine. The Complainant appears to have advised his custodians at some point during his stay in cells that he had consumed a substance, either before he was arrested or while in custody. As he continued to appear well, that revelation did not result in any heightened measures. When the Complainant suddenly fell ill in his cell, the evidence indicates that the WO and special constables responded quickly to provide appropriate first-aid.

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

I note what appears to have been a late notification of the incident to the SIU by the service in possible contravention of section 16 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, and section 3 of the Code of Conduct for Police Officers. There is evidence that the service was aware that the Complainant was in life-threatening condition as early as 1:23 a.m., October 14, 2025, and yet the service did not notify the SIU until about 3:00 p.m. of that day. Late notifications of this nature jeopardize the integrity of SIU investigations, detract from the SIU’s independence and credibility, and undermine the public’s confidence in policing and policing oversight. I will be raising this matter in my reporting letter to the chief of police. Further to the SIU’s legal obligation under section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, I will also be referring this matter to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: February 2, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit