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 39-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 1, 2026, at 9:08 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On February 1, 2026, at approximately 3:30 a.m., police officers responded to a domestic disturbance at a residence in the area of Jane Street and St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto. There they encountered the Complainant, who was upset with the police response time, and moved to arrest him. The Complainant resisted arrest and was struck by the officers. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) attended and transported the Complainant to the Humber River Hospital (HRH) where, at 7:52 a.m., he was diagnosed with a nasal bone fracture.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/02/01 at 9:56 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/02/01 at 10:39 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

39-year-old male; not interviewed; declined

Civilian Witness

CW Not interviewed; declined

Subject Official

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

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

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

WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #1 was interviewed on February 4, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in a residence in the area of Jane Street and St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On February 1, 2026, starting at about 3:40 a.m., WO #1 arrived on scene. He knocked, and the CW opened the door. The CW told him she had called the police several times, but everything was now okay. WO #1 told her he was going to enter the residence, and the CW tried to stop him. He pushed the CW aside and entered the residence. The Complainant was on an upstairs landing. WO #1 asked the Complainant how he was, and then turned around and handcuffed the CW behind the back before handing her over to the SO. WO #1 told the CW she was under arrest for assault. WO #1 proceeded up a flight of stairs to the Complainant, who sat on the stairs. The officer asked if he was okay, as the Complainant had blood on his forehead. The Complainant told WO #1 that the CW should not be arrested. The Complainant called 911 and told the call-taker that he needed police officers to come to the residence. WO #1 and the SO told the Complainant they were police officers. The SO asked the Complainant to hang up the telephone, and the CW yelled at the Complainant to get off the phone. The Complainant refused to stop speaking with the call-taker and asked to speak to a sergeant. The SO told him he was a sergeant, and WO #1 told the dispatcher that the Complainant was with the police. The SO warned the Complainant that if he did not stop, he would go to jail. The Complainant stated he would like everybody to leave. The SO came up the stairs and stood in the Complainant’s way. The Complainant told the call-taker he wanted the police officers to leave as they were giving him anxiety, and he had a mental health issue. The SO told the Complainant he was going to be arrested for public mischief. WO #1 took hold of the Complainant’s right hand, and the Complainant sat on the floor, indicating that he did not want to be dragged. The SO told him to get on his stomach. Both WO #1 and the SO held the Complainant’s hands, and a struggle began when they started to handcuff him. The Complainant resisted the process and continued to struggle to free himself as the police officers ordered him to get on his stomach and place his hands behind the back. The SO held the Complainant’s legs and WO #1 pulled the Complainant by the shoulder. They flipped him on his stomach, after which the SO held his left hand behind the back while WO #1 tried to pull out his right hand from underneath him. The Complainant pushed and rolled back on his back.

Starting at about 3:46 a.m., the SO delivered a closed fist strike to the area of the left side of the Complainant’s face and ordered him to get his hands behind the back. A second later, the SO delivered two more successive closed fist strikes to the side of the Complainant’s head. The Complainant yelled and asked why he was hit. The Complainant put his hands behind the back; however, as the police officers began to handcuff him, he started to struggle again and freed his hands. He asked the police officers what they were doing, and he requested more police officers. The Complainant bled from the forehead and nose, and he spat blood. As the struggle continued, the SO called for more police officers. WO #1 kicked the Complainant on the foot, and the Complainant asked WO #1 why he kicked him. The officers continuously ordered him to turn around on his stomach, and the CW pleaded with the Complainant to stop resisting. The Complainant accused the police officers of attacking him for no reason and asked why they had punched him on the nose. He insisted he wanted other police officers to come and further accused them of wanting to kill him. WO #1 and the SO wrestled the Complainant onto his stomach and handcuffed his hands behind the back.

Communications Recordings

On February 1, 2026, at 3:32 a.m., a TPS unit [now known to be WO #1] was dispatched to a residence in the area of Jane Street and St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto, regarding an unknown trouble call. Another TPS unit [now known to be the SO] advised he would also respond.

At 3:33 a.m., the Complainant and the CW were heard to argue on a live 911 line. Both the CW and the Complainant called 911, but neither responded to the call-taker. Statements were heard in the background of those calls, including, “Get out of my house,” “Stop kicking me,” “She’s gonna kill me,” and, “She’s hitting me”. The 911 call-taker broadcast that a weapon might be involved.

At 3:38 a.m., the Complainant called 911 and requested to be escorted out of the residence. The CW could be heard in the background repeatedly telling the Complainant to leave.

At 3:44 a.m., WO #1 advised that one person - the CW - was in custody.

At 3:45 a.m., the Complainant called 911 and requested that police officers respond to his address. WO #1 said, “You have officers here.”

At 3:52 a.m., the SO advised that the Complainant was being held down and the officers were having difficulty securing his hands in handcuffs.

At 3:55 a.m., the SO advised that the Complainant was handcuffed.

At 3:56 a.m., EMS were called for the Complainant. It was broadcast that the Complainant had a bloody nose and back injuries due to a domestic assault.

At 4:06 a.m., EMS arrived at the scene, and the Complainant was transported to HRH.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between February 2, 2026, and February 15, 2026:

• BWC footage
• Communications recordings
• General Occurrence Reports
• TPS History – the Complainant
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Reports
• Involved Officers List
• Notes –WO #2, WO #1, WO #3, WO #6, WO #5, WO #4 and the SO
• Release Order – the Complainant
• TPS policies – Arrest; Incident Response (Use of Force)

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained an Ambulance Call Report from Toronto EMS on February 19, 2026.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police witnesses and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the early morning of February 1, 2026, WO #1 and the SO were dispatched to an address in the area of Jane Street and St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto, following a 911 call. The caller did not address the call-taker but utterances were heard in the background suggesting an ongoing and potentially violent disturbance involving a male and female. The officers entered the home despite objections from the woman who opened the door – the CW. The CW was placed under arrest by WO #1 after he observed a male – the Complainant – with a cut to the forehead.

The Complainant refused to cooperate as WO #1 sought to question him about what had happened. Standing on a second floor landing, the Complainant asked the officers to leave and then called 911 asking for additional officers. WO #1 and the SO told the Complainant to disconnect the 911 call as they were the police. When he failed to do so, they warned that he would be arrested for public mischief. Shortly after, the officers took hold of the Complainant to take him into custody.

The Complainant refused to surrender his arms to be handcuffed and was grounded. On the floor, he resisted the officers’ efforts to control his arms behind the back and was met with a punch to the face by the SO. Moments later, as the struggle continued, the SO delivered two punches to the Complainant’s head in quick succession. It would take another five minutes, during which WO #1 kicked the Complainant once or twice in the legs and exhorted him verbally to give up his arms, before the officers wrestled control of his arms behind the back and secured them in handcuffs.

The Complainant was transported to hospital after 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.

Section 140, Criminal Code - Public Mischief

140 (1) Every one commits public mischief who, with intent to mislead, causes a peace officer to enter on or continue an investigation by

(a) making a false statement that accuses some other person of having committed an offence;

(b) doing anything intended to cause some other person to be suspected of having committed an offence that the other person has not committed, or to divert suspicion from himself;

(c) reporting that an offence has been committed when it has not been committed; or

(d) reporting or in any other way making it known or causing it to be made known that he or some other person has died when he or that other person has not died.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on February 1, 2026. 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.

The Complainant appears to have been of unsound mind at the time of the events in question. He believed that WO #1 and the SO were there to do him harm, and could not be persuaded otherwise. When his paranoia caused him to call 911 to ask for additional officers, and to stay on the line despite the officers’ assurances that they were police, he rendered himself subject to arrest for public mischief contrary to section 140 of the Criminal Code.

The Complainant resisted his arrest and, I am satisfied, the officers responded with legally justified force. The takedown made sense as the Complainant had refused to willingly give up his arms to be handcuffed and they were struggling on a landing at the top of a staircase. On the floor, the officers could expect to better and more safely manage the Complainant’s resistance. With respect to the SO’s punches and the knee strike/s by WO #1, these would not appear a disproportionate use of force in the context of the Complainant’s vigorous and protracted resistance. Even after the last of these blows, it took the officers another five minutes before they were able to handcuff the Complainant behind the back.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s fractured nose was the result of one or more of the SO’s punches, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury is attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the officer. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: May 8, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit