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 47-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 22, 2026, at 2:52 a.m., the Windsor Police Service (WPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 21, 2026, at 10:07 p.m., police received a call from the Holiday Inn Riverside hotel [33 Riverside Drive East] about a male [the Complainant] urinating in the lobby. The Complainant had left the hotel upon the arrival of Witness Official (WO) #1 and the Subject Official (SO) but was located in the “100 block” of Ouellette Street, heavily intoxicated and standing in the middle of the road. He resisted as officers attempted to arrest him for public intoxication and was taken to the ground and handcuffed behind the back. At 10:18 p.m., a WPS custody van arrived along with Officer #1, Officer #2, WO #5 and WO #3. The Complainant resisted as officers attempted to place him in the van. He was pushed against the van and eventually placed inside. The Complainant suffered a cut to his chin and nose, and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were summoned to the scene. The Complainant was transported to the Windsor Regional Hospital – Ouellette Campus (WRH – OC) and diagnosed with a fractured nasal bone. Stitches were also required to close the wound on his chin.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/05/22 at 7:35 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/05/22 at 7:44 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on May 22, 2026.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on May 22, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Officials (WO)

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

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

The witness officials were interviewed on June 3, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on Ouellette Avenue in the area of Chatham Street, Windsor.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

WPS Communications Recordings

At approximately 10:09 p.m.,[3] May 21, 2026, WPS 911 received a call from staff members at a Holiday Inn Express. They requested police attendance with respect to a male - the Complainant – who was drunk, and had urinated in the lobby and chased a female patron. The Complainant had reportedly taken his penis out in front of two guests and threatened the guests with it. He had since left the hotel.

At 10:09 p.m., WPS dispatch broadcast a request for WPS officers to attend the Holiday Inn Express. The SO and WO #5 responded.

At 10:12 p.m., Officer #3 and WO #2 arrived at the hotel. WO #2 advised that “there were no grounds at this time” [to arrest] but requested that the SO check on the Complainant’s wellbeing. WO #1 advised that he believed he had located the Complainant on Ouellette Avenue.

At 10:17 p.m., the SO advised that he was also present at WO #1’s location. WO #1 advised that the Complainant was in custody for public intoxication and a prisoner transport wagon was requested.

At about 10:27 p.m., WO #4 advised he was “heading in with one”. The SO and WO #1 advised they would follow WO #4. They arrived at WPS Headquarters at 10:28 p.m.

WPS In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

At 10:16 p.m., May 21, 2026, the Complainant was standing unsteadily in traffic. He attempted to walk away before officers took hold of him and brought him to the ground using a leg sweep. The Complainant’s face impacted the ground in the process. WO #1 and the SO wrestled control of the Complainant’s arms behind the back and handcuffed them. Additional officers arrived and assisted in pinning the Complainant to the ground.

At about 10:19 p.m., the SO punched the Complainant once to the right side of the torso. Ten seconds later, the officer punched him again in the same area.

At about 10:23 p.m., a prisoner transport van pulled up to the site of the arrest on Ouellette Avenue. The Complainant was lifted to his feet and forced towards the van as he dropped his weight and resisted the officers’ efforts. Officers pressed him against the side steel door during a search and then pushed him into the van headfirst.

WPS Custody Footage

At 10:29 p.m., May 21, 2026, the Complainant was removed from the custody van by officers with blood on his face. Officers walked him to an elevator and sat him on the floor. The Complainant became agitated, and officers attempted to control his head. The Complainant struggled against the officers. When the elevator arrived, officers attempted to lift him to his feet, but the Complainant refused to stand. Officers carried him into the elevator and laid him on the floor, on his back, while controlling his legs as he tried to kick out. The officers subsequently pulled him out of the elevator by his legs and dragged him to the booking area.

At 10:34 p.m., officers sat the Complainant in a custody chair. He continued to struggle against the officers, who had difficulty restraining him. An officer used his foot to push the Complainant’s stomach back into the chair to enable officers to fasten the belts and place a spit hood over his head.

At 10:46 p.m., paramedics arrived and assessed the Complainant. The Complainant was given an injection by paramedics at 11:16 p.m., after which he was transferred to a stretcher and taken out of the custody area.

Video Footage from Holiday Inn Cameras[4]

The Complainant was captured in the front lobby, visibly swaying while speaking with staff. After being directed towards the second-floor washrooms, he unzipped his pants and urinated on the lobby floor, reception desk, and surrounding area in the presence of patrons and staff. The Complainant went upstairs into the breakfast lounge, where he chased a female patron and confronted two others. He again exposed himself, prompting a female patron to use a chair as a barrier. He repeated this behaviour with another female patron before leaving the hotel.

Video Footage from City of Windsor Traffic Camera

At 10:14 p.m., May 21, 2026, the Complainant stood in the northbound lane of Ouellette Avenue near Chatham Street. The recordings showed police vehicles arriving; however, the cameras were too far from the interaction to provide a clear view of the subsequent events.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the WPS between May 26, 2026, and June 1, 2026:

• Occurrence Report
• Supplementary Reports
• Police communications recordings
• CAD Report
• ICC footage
• Custody footage
• Notes – WO #2, WO #1, WO #5, WO #3 and WO #4
• Forensics Report
• Photographs
• WPS policies – Use of Force; Arrest; Assault Resist Obstruct; Handcuffing

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between May 26, 2026, and June 1, 2026:

• The Complainant’s medical records from WRH - OC
• Video footage from Holiday Inn
• Video footage from City of Windsor traffic cameras

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that largely captured the incident, 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.

The Complainant was of unsound mind on the evening of May 21, 2026. He had consumed alcohol and illicit substances, and was heavily intoxicated. He made his way to the Holiday Inn Express, 33 Riverside Drive East, where he urinated in the lobby and harassed employees and guests. Hotel staff contacted police.

WO #1 responded to the call in his cruiser and located the Complainant standing in the middle of Ouellette Avenue at Chatham Street West, a short distance from the Holiday Inn. He was shortly joined by the SO, arriving in his own cruiser. The officers approached the Complainant and took hold of his arms. The Complainant struggled against the officers’ efforts to bring his arms behind the back. WO #1 swept the Complainant’s left leg backwards and forced him to the ground with the assistance of the SO. The Complainant fell front first, striking his face on the roadway.

Within seconds of the takedown, WO #1 and the SO wrestled control of the Complainant’s arms and handcuffed them behind the back. The Complainant twisted his body and kicked out with his feet as the officers applied pressure to his backside. Additional officers arrived on scene and also applied pressure to keep the Complainant pinned on the road. The SO punched the Complainant twice to the right side and his legs were crossed and bent backwards to deter further kicking. Eventually, with the arrival of a prisoner van, the Complainant was lifted to his feet and escorted to the vehicle. He dropped his weight and pushed backwards as the officers forced him forwards to the van and forced him inside.

The Complainant’s belligerence persisted at the police station and he had to be pulled from the van and dragged in and out of an elevator to the booking area. Paramedics arrived at the station, sedated the Complainant and transported him to hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured 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 31, Liquor Licence and Control Act - Intoxication

31 (1) No person shall be in an intoxicated condition in,

(a) a place to which the general public is invited or permitted access; or

(b) any part of a residence that is used in common by persons occupying

more than one dwelling in the residence.

(2) A police officer or conservation officer may arrest without warrant any person who is contravening subsection (1) if, in the opinion of the officer, it is necessary to do so for the safety of any person.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by WPS officers on May 21, 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.

With information to believe that the Complainant’s disorderly and reckless behaviour was the product of significant intoxication, I am satisfied that WO #1 and the SO were within their rights in moving to arrest him under section 31 of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the officers in the Complainant’s arrest was lawful. The takedown and the physical pressure applied by the officers was commensurate with the Complainant’s formidable and protracted resistance throughout his arrest. The only strikes established on the evidence were delivered by the SO, namely, two punches to the Complainant’s right side. It is true that these occurred as the Complainant had already been handcuffed behind the back. It is also true that the Complainant’s combativeness, despite being handcuffed on the ground, had not relented. He continued to strain against the officers’ efforts to keep him under control and attempted to kick out with his legs. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the two strikes delivered by the SO constituted an unreasonable escalation of force, particularly as the Complainant continued to resist after the punches.

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 that 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 4, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit