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 55-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 20, 2025, at 3:21 p.m., the South Simcoe Police Service (SSPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On December 20, 2025, at approximately 1:33 p.m., SSPS officers responded to the Shoppers Drug Mart at 140 Holland Street West, Bradford, following reports of a male causing a nuisance. Police officers located the male - the Complainant – and he was given a verbal trespass warning. The Complainant left the area but returned to the store at about 2:23 p.m., harassing and impeding customers. Police officers responded again and attempted to arrest the Complainant for trespassing. He resisted, was grounded, and suffered facial injuries. County of Simcoe Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called and transported the Complainant to South Lake Regional Health Centre (SLRHC) in Newmarket where he was diagnosed with a broken nose.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/12/20 at 4:21 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/12/20 at 5:20 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on December 20, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between December 22, 2025, and January 28, 2026.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on January 6, 2026.

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on December 30, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in front of the Canada Post outlet in Shoppers Drug Mart, 140 Holland Street West, Bradford.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

SSPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On December 20, 2025, starting at about 2:28 p.m., WO #1 approached a Canada Post outlet counter [now known to be inside Shoppers Drug Mart, 140 Holland Street West, Bradford]. Behind the counter stood a male - CW #3. WO #1 said to a male standing with a telephone in his hand, “So you have come back.” The male - the Complainant - wore a reflective construction winter coat. He looked at his phone and said to WO #1, “She sent it to me.” The Complainant held the screen of the telephone up to WO #1. CW #3 said the Complainant had come back and was calm at first but became verbally aggressive and slammed his telephone on the counter. Another uniformed police officer - the SO - approached the Complainant from behind. The Complainant said to WO #1, “You guys have to listen to me.” WO #1 grabbed the Complainant’s right hand, and the SO grabbed the back of the Complainant’s right elbow. WO #1 told the Complainant he was under arrest. The police officers pushed and directed the Complainant away from the counter. The Complainant protested and turned to face the police officers. He pushed WO #1, who slipped. The SO grabbed the Complainant from behind and pushed him. The Complainant collided with a rack of merchandise before landing on the floor face first. The SO landed on top of the Complainant. WO #1 broadcast that the police officers had one person under arrest. The SO knelt on the Complainant’s left side and held the Complainant’s left wrist behind the back. The SO held the back of the Complainant’s neck with his left hand. WO #1 applied handcuffs to the Complainant.

Starting at about 2:29 p.m., WO #1 stated that the Complainant was also under arrest for assaulting a peace officer. The police officers lifted the Complainant from the floor. The Complainant shouted and bled from his facial area.

Video Footage - Shoppers Drug Mart

On December 20, 2025, starting at about 1:24 p.m., the Complainant approached a counter [now known to be the Canada Post outlet in a Shoppers Drug Mart]. An employee interacted with the Complainant.

Starting at about 1:25 p.m., two female employees - CW #1 and another woman - arrived and verbally interacted with the Complainant. CW #1 spoke on the phone while the Complainant waited at the counter.

Starting at about 1:38 p.m., a police officer - WO #1 - arrived at the counter and spoke with the Complainant, who gesticulated with his hands and repeatedly presented a piece of paper. A minute later, another police officer - the SO - arrived.

Starting at about 1:46 p.m., the Complainant stormed away from the counter and departed the store. The police officers had no physical contact with the Complainant.

Starting at about 2:13 p.m., the Complainant returned to the postal counter and interacted with an employee - CW #3. CW #3 threw a piece of paper, which the Complainant had presented, back at him and pointed in the direction of the exit. The Complainant held up his phone towards CW #3 as if to display something on the screen. CW #3 made a phone call and the Complainant waited near the counter.

Starting at about 2:16 p.m., the Complainant slammed the paper and his phone on the counter in front of CW #3.

Starting at about 2:28 p.m., WO #1 and the SO arrived at the postal counter. The Complainant presented his phone to the police officers. WO #1 grabbed the Complainant by his right wrist and jerked him into the aisle. The Complainant resisted and was pushed along the aisle out of view. The SO walked behind them. Both police officers were partially observed as they grounded the Complainant to the floor near the end of the aisle. WO #1 and the SO also fell to the floor, where they restrained the Complainant.

Starting at about 2:29 p.m., both officers lifted the Complainant to his feet. The Complainant was moved along the aisle out of view. Blood was visible on the floor from where the Complainant had been lifted.

SSPS Communications Recordings

On December 20, 2025, at 1:33 p.m., the SSPS received a 911 call from CW #1, the store manager at the Shoppers Drug Mart in Bradford. CW #1 advised there was a male customer [later identified as the Complainant] in the store freaking out. A description of the Complainant was provided. The Complainant was said to have told the staff that he was not leaving until he got his way. The Complainant yelled at the staff, and he told them that he was going to break into a lockbox. The Complainant was told he needed proper documentation to show he could gain access to the lockbox. He reportedly told the staff he would not leave the store until the police came.

At 1:40 p.m., the SO advised all was in order.

At 2:23 p.m., CW #1 called the police service and advised that the Complainant had returned to the store, and he was “going nuts”. The Complainant was reportedly slamming things on the counter and was aggressive with staff. CW #1 wanted him removed.

At 2:29 p.m., WO #1 advised that they had the Complainant under arrest. WO #2 was notified and WO #1 advised they had the Complainant under arrest for assaulting a peace officer. The Complainant was said to have an injury to his face and EMS were requested.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the SSPS between December 21, 2025, and January 26, 2026:

• BWC footage
• Video footage from Shoppers Drug Mart
• Communications recordings
• Scene photographs
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Reports
• General Occurrence Report
• Involved Police Officer List
• Undertaking / Release Documents – the Complainant
• Notes – Officer #1, Officer #2, the SO, Officer #3, WO #1, Officer #4, Officer #5 and WO #2
• SSPS policies - Use of Force; Arrest and Release
• Police History – the Complainant
• Trespass Notice
• Ontario Police College Certificate – the SO

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between December 23, 2025, and January 28, 2026:

• The Complainant’s medical records from SLRHC
• Ambulance Call Report from Simcoe EMS

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

In the afternoon of December 20, 2025, the Complainant attended the Canada Post outlet in the Shoppers Drug Mart, 140 Holland Street West, Bradford. He was there to pick up a key to a home. Staff at the outlet told him he could not be helped because he did not have the proper documentation. The Complainant became belligerent and slammed his phone on the counter. Police were called to the scene.

WO #1 was the first to arrive, joined shortly by the SO. This was the officers’ second time at the outlet dealing with the Complainant. Earlier that afternoon, they had attended to deal with an irate Complainant, who had been refused service because of his behaviour and deficient paperwork. The Complainant had left the store on that occasion. On the present occasion, WO #1 told the Complainant to leave the store or he would be arrested, and then grabbed him to forcibly remove him from the store when he refused to exit of his own accord.

The Complainant physically resisted WO #1’s efforts to push him out and the two tussled briefly. The SO grabbed the Complainant and threw him to the floor, after which he was handcuffed behind the back.

The Complainant suffered a broken nose in the takedown. He was taken from the scene to hospital by paramedics.

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.

Section 9(1), Trespass to Property Act - Arrest Without Warrant On Premises

9 (1) A police officer, or the occupier of premises, or a person authorized by the occupier may arrest without warrant any person he or she believes on reasonable and probable grounds to be on the premises in contravention of section 2.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by SSPS officers on December 20, 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 their disposal that the Canada Post staff wanted him removed from the premises, and that he was refusing to leave, I am satisfied WO #1 and the SO were within their rights in moving to take the Complainant into custody contrary to section 9(1) of the Trespass to Property Act.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO in the Complainant’s arrest was legally authorized. The Complainant had given indication that he was not going to leave the store of his own volition and then physically resisted WO #1’s efforts to forcibly have him exit. The takedown by the SO made sense in the circumstances as it would better position the officers to deal with the Complainant’s combativeness. No strikes of any kind were delivered after the Complainant was on the floor,

In the result, while it is regrettable that the Complainant’s nose was broken in the altercation that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the injury was attributable to unlawful behaviour on the part of the SO. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: April 17, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit