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 38-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 18, 2025, at 4:15 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 6:13 a.m., TPS was dispatched to 25 Charles Street in front of George Hislop Park in connection with a male and female reportedly fighting. Officers responded and arrested a male – the Complainant - for assault. He was subsequently taken to Toronto General Hospital (TGH) for injuries sustained in the fight. While at the hospital, the Complainant was seen ingesting something. Officers intervened and called hospital staff to help. A bluish-coloured substance was observed. The Complainant was admitted to hospital at 3:31 p.m. and had been in and out of consciousness.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/10/18 at 4:32 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/10/18 at 4:57 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

Interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on October 26, 2025

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between October 23, 2025, and December 19, 2025.

Subject Official

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

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on October 30, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around George Hislop Park near Charles Street East, Toronto, and the Emergency Department of TGH.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Communications Recordings

At 6:13 a.m., October 18, 2025, the SO and WO #1 responded to George Hislop Park following a call from a security guard reporting that four males were fighting with metal bars. Three people had been injured.

At 6:30 a.m., the SO reported they had one person in custody at George Hislop Park. About 20 minutes later, WO #1 was said to be in the ambulance with the Complainant heading to TGH.

At 7:08 a.m., WO #3 and WO #2 relieved officers at TGH.

At 3:33 p.m., WO #3 said the Complainant had been moved to the ICU.

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – WO #1, the SO, WO #3 and WO #2

At 6:29 a.m., October 18, 2025, the SO and WO #1 were at George Hislop Park with the Complainant, who had an obvious injury to his face. Emergency Medical Services were requested and arrived about 20 minutes later. The Complainant was advised he was under arrest for assault with a weapon, and the SO began to search a bag belonging to the Complainant, locating a set of scales. The SO searched the Complainant’s pockets and clothing while WO #1 conducted a pat-down search. Paramedics told the Complainant they would take him to the hospital for assessment. The SO continued to search the Complainant’s property and said there were no drugs located.

**********

At 7:39 a.m., October 18, 2025, WO #3 removed plastic bags from a toilet bowl, including a clear plastic Ziplock bag containing white powder. Ten minutes later, WO #3 attempted to open the Complainant’s mouth. The Complainant resisted as WO #3 tried to convince him to spit it out. The Complainant was moved by hospital staff and the recording ended.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Between October 7, 2025, and October 20, 2025, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS:

• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report
• Communications recordings
• BWC footage – WO #1, the SO, WO #3 and WO #2.
• TPS policies – Arrest; Search of Person; Persons in Custody; BWCs
• Notes - WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4 and WO #5

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

Between November 14, 2025, and December 19, 2025, the SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources.

• Incident Report from Toronto EMS
• The Complainant’s medical records from TGH

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 morning of October 18, 2025, TPS officers were dispatched to George Hislop Park in Toronto regarding a reported fight among individuals. Following an investigation at the scene, the SO and WO #1 arrested the Complainant at about 6:30 a.m. The Complainant had suffered a significant cut to the forehead and was bleeding.

The Complainant was handcuffed by the officers and escorted to a police cruiser on Charles Street East where he was searched by the SO and WO #1. Multiple cell phones, a significant amount of cash and scales were seized from his person. The Complainant denied he was in possession of drugs.

An ambulance attended and transported the Complainant to hospital for the cut to his forehead.

At about 7:25 a.m., the SO and WO #1 were relieved in the Emergency Department of the hospital by WO #2 and WO #3. Shortly after, the Complainant asked to use the bathroom. The officers escorted him to the bathroom and kept watch while he unbuckled his pants, reached into his groin area and threw drugs into the toilet, and flushed. The officers pulled him back and were able to secure the drugs from the toilet. The Complainant was returned to the ambulance gurney. He was provided some water, took a sip and began to chew on a baggie in his mouth that contained an illicit substance. The officers attempted to prevent him swallowing and encouraged him to spit it out. The Complainant refused and lapsed into unconsciousness.

A paramedic administered Narcan and hospital staff took charge of the Complainant’s care. He was discharged from hospital on October 26, 2025.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code of Canada - 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 overdosed on illicit substances while in the custody of TPS officers on October 18, 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 Complainant’s overdose.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the Complainant, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s overdose. In my view, there was not.

Police responding to the reported assault in the park had interviewed witnesses and had evidence to believe that the Complainant had been one of the aggressors. In the circumstances, the SO and WO #1 were within their rights in taking the Complainant into custody for assault with a weapon.

Once in police custody, the SO and WO #1 owed the Complainant a duty of care with respect to his health and wellbeing. The issue in this case boils down to whether the officers did enough to search the Complainant and confiscate the drugs he had before he was able to access and ingest them at the hospital. A review of the BWC footage indicates that both officers participated in a search of the Complainant’s person over his clothing, which included examining his pockets and bags he was carrying. The search lasted several minutes and appeared to have been conducted thoroughly. The SO became suspicious that the Complainant was hiding drugs after he confiscated the cash and scales, but no drugs were discovered. The officers might have considered conducting a more intrusive search, such as a strip search, but that would entail bringing the Complainant back to the station. In the meantime, they were concerned about the Complainant’s head injury and wanted to get him first to a hospital. I am unable to reasonably conclude that either officer transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law when they chose to attend to Complainant’s physical injury ahead of an additional search at the station.

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

Date: February 10, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit