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 41-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 17, 2026, at 1:46 a.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 16, 2026, at approximately 9:21 p.m., a Toronto Police Service (TPS) plainclothes officer, Witness Official (WO) #1, following a vehicle of interest northbound on Bayview Avenue towards York Region, requested YRP assistance to stop the vehicle. A YRP uniformed police officer stopped the vehicle on Bayview Avenue just north of Steeles Avenue East, Markham. The driver [later identified as the Complainant] stopped the vehicle and fled on foot. After a short foot pursuit, the Complainant was grounded and arrested. The Complainant was transported to YRP 2 District in Richmond Hill where he complained of pain to his left elbow. York Region Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called and transported the Complainant to Mackenzie Health (MH) at 11:10 p.m. The Complainant was subsequently diagnosed with a fractured left elbow.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/05/17 at 2:53 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/05/17 at 7:45 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

41-year-old male; not interviewed; could not be located

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject official was interviewed on June 4, 2026.

Witness Officials (WO)

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 #1 was interviewed on May 30, 2026.

Service Employee Witness (SEW)

SEW Interviewed

The service employee witness was interviewed on May 25, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the sidewalk on the north side of Steeles Avenue East, between Bayview Avenue and Old English Lane, Markham.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage - The SO’s Police Vehicle

On May 16, 2026, at 9:19:42 p.m., the SO was stopped on the east side of Conacher Drive facing north towards Steeles Avenue East.

At 9:19:49 p.m., a Dodge Journey travelled eastbound on Steeles Avenue East in the south curb lane. The SO followed the Dodge Journey.

At 9:21:28 p.m., the Dodge Journey went through the intersection of Bayview Avenue, and the SO activated his emergency lights.

At 9:21:48 p.m., the Dodge Journey stopped in the south curb lane east of Bayview Avenue.

At 9:21:49 p.m., a Rav4 [now known to be WO #1] pulled in front of the Dodge Journey on an angle.

At 9:21:51 p.m., the driver of the Dodge Journey - the Complainant - exited the vehicle and ran north across Steeles Avenue East. WO #1 ran after the Complainant, followed by the SO, and they ran out of sight eastbound on the north sidewalk of Steeles Avenue East. A person in a uniform with a blue shirt [now known to be the SEW] also ran and followed the police officers, out of sight.

At 9:51 p.m., the emergency lights of the SO’s police vehicle were still activated. The police vehicle was stopped, and both front doors of the Dodge Journey were open. Two uniformed police officers and two male, plainclothes police officers, wearing ballistic vests, stood on the grass boulevard at the passenger side of the Dodge Journey. The right rear fender and quarter panel of an unmarked car [now known to be WO #1’s Rav4] was stopped in front of the Dodge Journey, on an angle.

ICC Footage - The SEW’s Police Vehicle

On May 16, 2026, at 9:21.25 p.m., the SEW’s fully marked police vehicle travelled eastbound in the south curb lane of Steeles Avenue East. It was dark outside and traffic was heavy. As the SEW entered the intersection of Bayview Avenue, a Toyota Rav4 [now known to be WO #1] travelled into his lane in front of him and continued through the intersection. Once WO #1 reached the east side of the intersection, the vehicle in front of WO #1 [now known to be the SO] activated its emergency lights.

At 9:21:46 p.m., as the SO stopped his police vehicle in the south curb lane of Steeles Avenue East, WO #1 passed the SO’s vehicle. WO #1 activated the emergency lights on the Rav4 and stopped on an angle in front of the Dodge Journey.

At 9:21:47 p.m., the SO exited his police vehicle and ran in a northeast direction across Steeles Avenue East. In the distance, the shape of someone in street clothes could be seen [now known to be WO #1], also running across Steeles Avenue East in a northeast direction. A figure [now known to be the Complainant] could be seen running east on the north sidewalk of Steeles Avenue.

At 9:21:59 p.m., the SEW entered the screen and ran towards the SO’s police vehicle, which moved slowly forward with the driver’s door open. The SEW then ran across Steeles Avenue East to the north sidewalk, in the direction of the SO and WO #1, and out of sight.

YRP Booking Video

The booking video started on May 16, 2026, at 10:15 p.m., with a staff sergeant behind the booking desk.

At 10:19 p.m., the Complainant was escorted into the booking room by Officer #1. The Complainant had his hands handcuffed behind the back.

At 10:20 p.m., Officer #1 read the Complainant his charges and his rights to counsel, as the Complainant lay back on a bench, breathing heavily.

At 10:22 p.m., the Complainant was stood up and turned around so that the handcuffs could be removed. In the process, he yelled in pain as Officer #1 grabbed his left arm. After the handcuffs were removed, the Complainant put his right hand on the wall as instructed, but he could not lift his left arm.

At 10:24 p.m., the staff sergeant asked the Complainant about injuries, and the Complainant said his left arm hurt. Officer #1 searched the Complainant, who appeared to be in pain.

At 10:36 p.m., the Complainant was led out of the booking hall to a cell.

YRP and TPS Communications Recordings & Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Reports

On May 16, 2026, at 9:22:18 p.m., the SEW broadcast that he was at Steeles Avenue, east of Bayview Avenue, Markham.

At 9:23:08 p.m., the SEW advised that the SO was chasing a man [now known to be the Complainant] on foot, and the TPS were on scene. YRP Officer #2, Officer #1 and Officer #3 advised they would respond to assist.

At 9:23:34 p.m., the SEW advised that the Complainant was in custody.

On May 16, 2026, at 9:22:37 p.m., TPS WO #1 advised he was at Steeles Avenue and Bayview Avenue. Ten seconds later, at 9:22:47 p.m., WO #1 advised he was in a foot pursuit.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the YRP and TPS between May 17, 2026, and August 7, 2026:

• Booking video (YRP)
• Communications recordings (YRP)
• Communications recordings (TPS)
• General Occurrence Report (YRP)
• CAD Reports
• Information History – the Complainant (TPS)
• ICC footage (YRP)
• Involved Officers List (YRP)
• Motor Vehicle Collision Property Damage Report (YRP)
• Notes - WO #1 (TPS)
• Notes - the SEW, WO #2 and WO #3 (YRP)
• Firearm Prohibition – the Complainant (YRP)
• MTO record – the Complainant (YRP)
• Form 10 Release – the Complainant (YRP)
• Policies: Incident Response (Use of Force) (TPS); Use of Force (YRP); Stopping and Investigating Motor Vehicles (YRP); Criminal Investigations (YRP); Processing the Offender – Arrest, Provincial Offences and Release (YRP)

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained an Ambulance Call Report from York Region EMS on July 27, 2026.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the SO and other police eyewitnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the evening of May 16, 2026, WO #1, a member of the TPS operating an unmarked cruiser, identified a Dodge Journey travelling without headlights or taillights eastbound on Steeles Avenue East. He followed the vehicle, ran a check of the licence plate and learned that the owner was subject to a release condition not to leave his residence. The same vehicle, for the same reasons, had come to the attention of the YRP SEW. As he did not have the authority as a special constable to conduct a traffic stop, he alerted the SO and sought his assistance.

Responding to the call from the SEW, the SO sat stationary in his marked cruiser on Conacher Drive, just south of Steeles Avenue East, waiting for the Dodge Journey to travel past his location. As it did so, the officer pulled onto eastbound Steeles Avenue East and began to follow it. The vehicles travelled past Bayview Avenue and the officer activated his emergency lights. The Journey came to a stop in the curb lane. Seconds later, WO #1, who had been following the two YRP cruisers as they followed the Journey, stopped his vehicle in front of the Journey on an angle.

The Complainant was operating the Journey. He opened his driver’s door, exited the vehicle and fled northbound to the north side of Steeles Avenue East. WO #1 chased the Complainant on foot, as did the SO. They followed the Complainant a distance eastward on the north sidewalk of Steeles Avenue West and eventually caught up to him. The officers struggled to force the Complainant to the ground but were able to overcome the Complainant’s resistance and did so. The Complainant continued to resist on the ground as the officers attempted to wrestle control of his arms. WO #1 punched the Complainant in the left torso two to three times, after which the Complainant’s arms were controlled behind the back and handcuffed.

The Complainant was seen at hospital following his arrest and booking at the station, and was diagnosed with a fractured left arm.

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 129, Criminal Code - Offences Relating to Public or Peace Officer

129 Every one who

(a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer,

(b) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or

(c) resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure,

is guilty of

(d) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(e) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by a YRP and a TPS officer on May 16, 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.

I am satisfied that the SO, and WO #1, for that matter, were in the lawful exercise of their duties when they took part in a traffic stop of the Complainant’s vehicle and then chased him to take him into custody as he fled on foot from the car. Having checked his licence plate against police records, the officers had reason to believe that the Complainant was driving in violation of a release order and, therefore, cause to stop the vehicle to investigate a criminal offence. Thereafter, when the Complainant ran away from the officers, he rendered himself subject a charge under section 129 of the Criminal Code of resisting an officer in the execution of their duty.

As for the force brought to bear by the officers in the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence does not reasonably establish it was unlawful. The takedown made sense in the context of a person fleeing arrest. It would bring the flight to an end and better position the officers to deal with continuing resistance on the part of the Complainant, which they could reasonably anticipate in light of his flight. In fact, the Complainant put up a spirited struggle to prevent the officers taking him into custody. He was at points able to lift his body off the ground, despite the combined efforts of the SO and WO #1 to keep him pinned, and refused to release his arms to be handcuffed. On this record, the officers’ efforts to wrestle control of the Complainant’s arms, and the two to three punches by WO #1, were commensurate with the situation at hand. Once the Complainant’s arms were in place behind the back, no further blows were struck.

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

Date: September 3, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit