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 injuries of a 44-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 24, 2026, at 8:45 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 24, 2026, at 3:37 a.m., officers parked in the parking lot of the cemetery near Carrier Drive and Albion Road, Etobicoke, observed a vehicle travelling through the grounds. The officers attempted to stop the vehicle and pursued it to Carrier Drive. The vehicle continued to northbound Albion Road, refusing to stop. Intentional contact was made by one police vehicle as the vehicle was travelling near 1905 Albion Road, and another police vehicle struck the vehicle two times from the rear. The vehicle came to a stop at an industrial complex at this location. The driver [subsequently identified as the Complainant] fled on foot and was eventually arrested with the use of a conducted energy weapon (CEW). He was struck from behind, fell striking his face, and lapsed into apparent unconsciousness. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called, and the Complainant was transported to Etobicoke General Hospital (EGH) where he was diagnosed with a broken pelvis at 7:40 a.m.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/05/24 at 9:04 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/05/26 at 11:45 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Reconstructionists Assigned: 1[2]

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on May 26, 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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed not necessary

The witness officials were interviewed on June 2, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question began on the grounds of the Glendale Funeral Home and Cemetery, 1810 Albion Road, continued westward on Albion Road, and concluded in the parking lot of 1905 Albion Road, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

1905 Albion Road was an industrial area surrounded by commercial businesses. There were parking spaces at the front of the building with parking curbs. Beyond the curbs and next to the building was a garden containing river rocks, evergreen bushes, and larger decorative rocks.

SIU forensic services photographed the scene. Two samples of blood and two CEW cartridges located at the scene were collected and secured.

Image - the location where the Complainant fell after the CEW deployment

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – The SO

The SO was issued CEW “Taser 7”. Two cartridge deployments were recorded. At 3:38 a.m., May 24, 2026, the CEW was armed and the trigger was pulled. Bay One was deployed and electricity discharged for about two seconds. Two seconds later, Bay Two was deployed and electricity was discharged for about five seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

TPS Communications Recordings

On May 24, 2026, at 3:37 a.m., WO #2 broadcast that a grey SUV [the Complainant’s vehicle] was heading towards Albion Road. He reported that the driver appeared to be impaired. WO #1 advised he would get in front of the vehicle.

At 3:38 a.m., it was reported that the vehicle had been stopped and, approximately 30 seconds later, that a CEW was deployed. The Complainant, currently in custody, had hit his head on a rock when the CEW was deployed by the SO.

TPS In-car Camera (ICC) Footage - The SO’s and WO #1’s Cruisers

On May 24, 2026, starting at 3:36 a.m., the SO drove through a cemetery. The Complainant’s vehicle was ahead of the officer’s cruiser and travelling over the grass and gravestones.

At 3:37 a.m., the vehicles travelled back onto the roadway as WO #2 announced the possibility of an impaired driver. The Complainant crossed Carrier Drive and entered a parking lot across the street. He subsequently turned right onto Albion Road as the SO pursued his vehicle at speeds between about 20 km/h to 50 km/h. The SO hit the rear of the Complainant’s vehicle at a speed of 19 km/h. The SO then made contact with the Complainant’s vehicle again at a speed of 21 km/h. WO #1’s police vehicle passed the Complainant’s vehicle with its emergency lights activated. The Complainant mounted the curb and struck WO #1’s police vehicle. The SO made intentional contact with the Complainant’s vehicle again, causing it to stop. The SO and WO #2 exited their police vehicle.

At 3:39 a.m., WO #1’s police vehicle was moved to 1905 Albion Road, where the Complainant had been taken into custody by the SO and WO #1.

At 4:12 a.m., the SO was heard to say, “I thought he was reaching for something, so I deployed my taser. It ended up being his cell phone.”

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

On May 24, 2026, at 3:38 a.m., the SO exited his police vehicle and ran after the Complainant, instructing him to stop. He deployed his CEW twice at the Complainant. The Complainant fell in a garden area following the second deployment. WO #1 arrived on scene and assisted the SO in moving the Complainant to a parking lot for medical assistance. WO #1 removed a telephone from the Complainant’s hand, and he was handcuffed behind the back. The Complainant complained of pain in his groin area.

At 3:47 a.m., the SO advised that he saw the Complainant reaching for something. The first CEW deployment did not connect. He said he stumbled and fell into a wall after the second deployment.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between May 25, 2026, and June 18, 2026:

• List of involved police officers
• General Occurrence Report
• Motor Vehicle Collision Reports
• BWC footage - the SO, WO #1 and WO #2
• ICC footage - the SO and WO #1
• CEW deployment data – the SO
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• TPS policies – Use of Force; Vehicle Pursuits; Arrest and Detention
• Global Positioning System data – the SO’s and WO #1’s cruisers
• Notes - WO #3, WO #1 and WO #2

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from EGH on June 16, 2026.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police eyewitnesses, 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 or the release of his notes.

In the early morning of May 24, 2026, TPS officers, stopped in the parking lot of a cemetery at the northeast corner of Albion Road and Carrier Drive to complete their notes, were exiting the grounds in their cruisers when they came upon a Lexus SUV. The SUV immediately jumped the curb of a cemetery pathway and accelerated away from the cruisers travelling over hills and gravesites. Concerned that the driver of the SUV was impaired, the officers gave chase.

The SO activated his cruiser’s emergency lights and pursued the SUV as it travelled westward towards Carrier Drive. The SUV continued across Carrier Drive, over a parking lot on the northwest corner of Albion Road and Carrier Drive, and onto westbound Albion Road. The officer closed the distance with the SUV and struck its rear at low speed. The SUV continued westbound in the eastbound lanes of Albion Road and was cut off by another cruiser, this one operated by WO #1. The SO again struck the SUV from behind, effectively immobilizing it against the southside curb of the roadway.

The Complainant was operating the SUV. He immediately exited the vehicle and ran east along the grounds in front of businesses on the south side of Albion Road. After a flight of approximately 60 – 70 metres, in front of a wall of the business at 1905 Albion Road, the Complainant locked-up and fell over a curb onto a rock garden.

The SO had led the foot pursuit of the Complainant. At a distance of about five metres, the officer fired his CEW at the Complainant, to no effect. He continued to run and had taken another half-dozen or so strides before the SO fired a second time, felling the Complainant on this occasion. The officers approached the Complainant on the ground and took him into custody without further incident.

The Complainant was transported to hospital in ambulance from the scene of his arrest and diagnosed with a fracture left hip socket and pelvis.

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.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on May 24, 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 injuries.

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 had driven recklessly over the grounds of a cemetery, a parking lot and public roadways. In the circumstances, I am satisfied the SO was within his rights in moving to take him into custody for dangerous driving, impaired operation of a motor vehicle, and flight from police.

I am also satisfied that the force used in the Complainant’s arrest, namely, the two CEW discharges, constituted lawful force. The Complainant’s reckless operation of the SUV had caused damage to the cemetery and public property, and he had endangered the safety of the public in the vicinity. He was also holding a cellphone, which the SO mistakenly, albeit, understandably, believed could be a weapon in the heat of the chase. It was imperative that he be arrested and not allowed to escape. On this record, with the Complainant refusing verbal direction that he stop and some prospect that he might make good his escape, the use of the CEW seems a reasonable tactic. If it worked as intended, it would bring the Complainant’s flight to an end without the necessary infliction of serious injury.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injuries were the result of a fall onto a curb and rocks following a CEW discharge, there are no reasonable grounds to believe they are attributable to unlawful conduct 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: September 4, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit