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 35-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 19, 2025, at 11:06 p.m., Guelph Police Service (GPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On October 18, 2025, the GPS received a call about a neighbour dispute at a residence in the area of Arkell Road and Gordon Street, Guelph. Officers attended and dealt with the matter. In a subsequent review of the call, it was ascertained that one of the involved parties – the Complainant – was subject to an outstanding warrant for failing to comply with a judicial release order. On October 19, 2025, police officers attended the same residence in the area of Arkell Road and Gordon Street to confirm whether the Complainant was a resident. He was located and arrested. As officers walked the Complainant to a cruiser, he tried to pull away to escape custody. Officers grounded and, possibly, injured him at that point. Paramedics were called but the Complainant refused medical attention. He was brought to the police station and paraded before an officer-in-charge. During his booking, he mentioned his knee was sore. While lodged in a cell, he later complained of knee pain and was taken to Guelph General Hospital (GGH) where he was diagnosed with a fractured left knee.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/10/20 at 6:34 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/10/20 at 8:19 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on October 20, 2025

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on October 20, 2025.

Subject Official

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

Witness Official

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between October 24, 2025, and November 6, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the front lawn of a residence in the area of Arkell Road and Gordon Street, Guelph

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On October 19, 2025, at 3:37 p.m., WO #4 was captured knocking on the front door of a residence in the area of Arkell Road and Gordon Street, Guelph, with the SO. No one responded, so a telephone call was made.

At 4:02 p.m., the door opened. A tenant of the residence allowed WO #4 into the house and to the basement apartment to knock on the door of the CW’s unit. The CW answered and they went up to the kitchen area. The CW said the Complainant was not there and might have gone back to Georgetown. WO #4 told the CW that he believed the Complainant was still living there. WO #4 indicated the Complainant would not answer the door when WO #4 was at the residence the day before. The CW continued to say the Complainant was not there, and she would not allow WO #4 and the SO to search her apartment without permission from the landlords.

At 4:12 p.m., after advising a warrant would be sought for the Complainant, WO #4 and the SO left the residence. At the front door, the CW was told she was helping the Complainant, which she denied. The CW made a telephone call to the landlord about letting the police officers enter the house.

At 4:19 p.m., the CW advised the landlord would be there in ten minutes.

At 4:36 p.m., two police officers [now known to be WO #1 and WO #2] arrived to assist and took a position at the rear of the house

At 4:38 p.m., the landlord and her husband arrived and spoke to WO #4 and the SO. They provided the officers access to the basement.

At 4:45 p.m., the Complainant was located in a storage area and directed to come out. WO #4 placed him in handcuffs behind the back without incident. The Complainant was searched once in the kitchen.

At 4:47 p.m., WO #4, with his right hand on the Complainant’s left elbow, walked towards the front door. WO #2 and the SO followed. The Complainant was walked down the driveway between the passenger side of a white vehicle and shrubbery. The Complainant tried to break the grip of WO #4 and run. WO #4 and WO #2 struggled with the Complainant and took him to the ground. WO #4’s BWC captured the Complainant on his left side, with his upper body off the ground. The SO was at the Complainant’s feet. The Complainant’s left leg appeared extended and the right leg was bent at the knee. The SO’s right leg and foot were beside and inside the left leg of the Complainant by his ankle. The SO’s right hand was on the right thigh of the Complainant and his left hand was by the right ankle of the Complainant. The SO held the right leg. Before being brought to his feet, the SO was positioned over top of both of the Complainant’s legs. The officers struggled with the Complainant and he was told to stop resisting and stop “goofing around”.

The recordings did not capture any kicks, punches, leg sweeps, or strikes to cause the injury to the Complainant’s left knee.

The Complainant agreed to walk to the police vehicle when he was brought to his feet.

At 4:48 p.m., the Complainant was placed in the rear of a police vehicle by WO #4 and the SO.

Between 4:51 p.m. and 5:03 p.m., WO #4 drove the Complainant to the GPS station.

Communications Recordings & Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report

On October 19, 2025, at 3:37 p.m., the SO broadcast he was at a residence in the area of Arkell Road and Gordon Street, Guelph, and would be doing a door knock.

At 4:21 p.m., WO #4 asked for assistance in covering the back of the house. He broadcast that they were waiting the arrival of the landlord to see if entry to the house could be made.

At 4:45 p.m., WO #4 advised they were inside and, 24 seconds later, the SO advised an arrest had been made.

The Complainant was taken to the GPS cells by WO #4.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the GPS between October 21, 2025, and October 23, 2025:

• Communications recordings
• CAD Report
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4
• Crown Brief Synopsis
• BWC footage
• GPS policies - Prisoner Care and Control; Arrest and Release; Use of Force

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from the GGH on October 21, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident in part, 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 afternoon of October 19, 2025, GPS officers attended at a residence in the area of Arkell Road and Gordon Street, Guelph. They were there to arrest the Complainant, whom they had reason to believe was present in the basement of the house in violation of a judicial release order. WO #4 and the SO knocked on the door and eventually met with the CW. The CW rented the basement. She was reluctant to allow the officers to enter the basement to search for the Complainant without the consent of the landlords. The CW contacted the landlords and subsequently escorted the officers downstairs after permission was provided by the landlords.

The Complainant was hiding in a storage space in the basement. He was located and handcuffed without incident by the officers.

Additional officers arrived on scene and joined WO #4 and the SO on the main floor with the Complainant. The Complainant was taken outside by WO #4 with other officers following. As the parties walked down the front lot of the home, the Complainant jerked away from WO #4 and was subsequently forced to the ground. A brief struggle ensued between the Complainant and the officers, after which the Complainant was brought to his feet and placed in a cruiser.

The Complainant complained of knee pain while in police cells. He was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left leg.

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 custody of GPS officers on October 19, 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.

WO #4 and the SO entered the basement, where the Complainant was present in violation of a release order, after receiving permission from the CW and the landlords. In the circumstances, the Complainant was subject to lawful arrest by the officers.

There is evidence in which it is alleged that the Complainant did not try to escape but, rather, tumbled to the ground because of the officers tugging him in different directions. It is contended that one of the officers grabbed the Complainant’s left leg on the ground and injured it. At no point did the Complainant resist arrest. This version is contested by the accounts of the witness officers. They say that the Complainant was grounded by the officers when he made a sudden move to his left, attempting to free himself from WO #4’s hold. Their account is confirmed by the BWC footage. The officers quickly re-asserted control over the Complainant and raised him from the ground. No strikes were delivered. On this rendition of events, the officers used only reasonable force to maintain control of the Complainant. There being no reason to believe that the incriminating evidence is any likelier to be closer to the truth than the countervailing evidence, and good reason to doubt it, there are no reasonable grounds to proceed with charges in this case.

In the result, while it may be that the Complainant fractured his leg in the altercation that marked his arrest, whether the result of the takedown or the pressure placed by the officers on his body to keep him pinned to the ground momentarily before they stood him back up, the evidence does not establish that the injury is the result of unlawful conduct on the part of the SO or the other involved officers. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.

Date: February 9, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit