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 37-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 2, 2026, at 8:23 p.m., the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At about 9:20 p.m., June 1, 2026, HPS officers responded to a disturbance at an address in the area of Barton Street East and Gage Avenue North, Hamilton. The Complainant resisted when officers attempted to place her under arrest, punching one officer and dislodging his body-worn camera (BWC), and biting and attempting to disarm another officer. The Complainant was taken into custody with the attendance of additional officers. Following her arrest, the Complainant complained of pain in her right knee and was transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to Hamilton General Hospital (HGH) where she was disruptive and declined medical examination. She was subsequently returned to police custody. On the morning of June 2, 2026, the Complainant was remanded into custody following her bail hearing. As she was observed to be limping, she was returned to HGH and diagnosed with a fracture of the right patella. The attending emergency physician was unable to determine whether the injury was acute or pre-existing and requested a specialist review of the X-rays.

On June 3, 2026, at about 7:30 a.m., the HPS advised the SIU that the specialist had reviewed the imaging and determined the right patella fracture to be a recent injury.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/06/04 at 10:27 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/06/04 at 10:45 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

37-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on June 6, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on June 6, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on July 14, 2026.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on June 25, 2026.

Investigative Delay

There was a delay with scheduling of Witness Officials due to availability of SIU investigators and their scheduled leave. A subsequent SIU investigator was added to the file after multiple attempts were made to schedule Witness Official interviews within a timely manner.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the main floor of a residence in the area of Barton Street East and Gage Avenue North, Hamilton, in and around the doorway of a bedroom.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

HPS Communications Recordings

On June 1, 2026, at 9:27 p.m., HPS received a 911 call from the landlord of a residence in the area of Barton Street East and Gage Avenue North, reporting that a tenant - the Complainant - was experiencing a mental health crisis. The caller advised that another tenant, CW #2, had informed her that the Complainant had cut her hand and was striking walls and doors. CW #2 had locked himself in his bedroom out of fear.

At 9:29 p.m., the SO and WO #1 were dispatched to the residence. The dispatcher provided information regarding the Complainant’s location within the home and her previous interactions with police.

At 9:55 p.m., officers advised everything was okay.

At 10:00 p.m., CW #2 placed a 911 call reporting that police had attended and left, but the Complainant had again become aggressive, pushing him, damaging property, and following him outside.

At 10:03 p.m., the SO requested that the dispatcher contact CW #2 and instruct him to remain in his room.

By 10:10 p.m., officers advised that the landlord was present. Shortly after, yelling could be heard over the radio, and officers reported that the Complainant was highly agitated.

At 10:37 p.m., police advised they had the Complainant on the ground and were attempting to apply handcuffs. An ambulance was requested at 10:38 p.m. and additional officers attended.

At 10:40 p.m., police advised that the Complainant was in custody and that an officer [WO #1] had been bitten and required medical attention.

At 10:41 p.m., officers reported that the Complainant was complaining of an ankle injury. She was subsequently transported to hospital.

HPS BWC Footage - The SO, WO #1, Officer #1, Officer #2, Officer #3, Officer #4, Officer #5 and WO #2

On June 1, 2026, at 9:50 p.m., WO #1 and the SO attended a residence in the area of Barton Street East and Gage Avenue North in response to reports that the Complainant was in crisis and attempting to harm herself. Upon contact, the Complainant appeared heavily intoxicated, was unsteady on her feet, and behaved in a belligerent manner. The officers observed no obvious physical injuries and, after determining there were no grounds to apprehend her under the Mental Health Act, departed the residence.

Following a subsequent complaint made by another tenant - CW #2 - the officers returned to the residence at 10:11 p.m. and met with the landlord, CW #1. A plan was developed to temporarily relocate CW #2 from the residence while the Complainant remained in her room.

At 10:24 p.m., the officers entered the residence and attended at CW #2’s bedroom while he gathered belongings. The Complainant repeatedly exited her room, recorded the officers with her cellular phone, and became increasingly confrontational.

At 10:33 p.m., the verbal confrontation escalated. After dropping her cellular phone on the floor, the Complainant continued arguing with WO #1. The SO positioned herself between the two. The Complainant was captured swinging her left hand towards the SO, and making contact with the officer’s chest. Within seconds, the SO grabbed the Complainant’s arm and a physical struggle immediately followed, resulting in the Complainant being taken or falling to the floor in the hallway near the threshold of her bedroom door. The camera perspective did not clearly capture the precise mechanics of the takedown or fall; however, it depicted the Complainant on her back on the floor with the officers attempting to gain control of her arms. The Complainant resisted efforts to handcuff her while officers repeatedly advised her that she was under arrest for assaulting a police officer. At one point, WO #1 yelled, "Don’t fucking bite me," and later indicated she had sustained a bite injury. The officers remained on the floor with the Complainant for several minutes. Backup officers arrived at 10:39 p.m., at which point the Complainant was handcuffed.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the HPS between June 9, 2026, and July 9, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Photographs - WO #1’s injury
• Notes - the SO, WO #1 and WO #2
• BWC footage - the SO, WO #1, Officer #1, Officer #2, Officer #3, Officer #4,

Officer #5 and WO #2

• In-car camera footage - Officer #5
• Civilian witness statements – CW #1 and CW #2

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from HGH on June 29, 2026.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, the SO and other eyewitnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the evening of June 1, 2026, the SO and WO #1 were dispatched to a residence in the area of Barton Street East and Gage Avenue North, Hamilton. A 911 call had been received indicating that one of the tenants – the Complainant – was in crisis and causing a disturbance. The officers arrived on scene and spoke with the Complainant. The Complainant was intoxicated and confrontational with the officers, but not seemingly a threat to herself or others because of mental disorder. Believing they had no grounds to apprehend the Complainant under the Mental Health Act, the officers left the residence.

Within minutes of the officers’ departure, they returned to the rooming house. A tenant – CW #2 - had called 911 reporting that the Complainant had become aggressive with him, pushing him and damaging property. The SO and WO #1 met and spoke with the landlord outside the house and agreement was reached that the landlord would make arrangements for CW #2’s temporary relocation for the night. The officers subsequently entered the property to maintain the peace as CW #2 gathered his belongings.

The Complainant inserted herself into the process, at one point entering CW #2’s room to see what was going on. From outside her bedroom door nearby, she subsequently began to video record the officers with her cellphone and argue with WO #1. WO #1 maintained her composure initially and tried to keep her distance, but as the Complainant continued to berate her with insults and get in her personal space the officer became angry and yelled back at the Complainant. The SO emerged from CW #2’s bedroom to try to de-escalate the situation to no avail. Moments later, as the Complainant attempted to shoo the officers away with her left arm, she struck the SO in the chest. The officer immediately moved to arrest the Complainant for assault on police. The Complainant pulled away as the SO took hold of one of her arms, and the parties fell to the floor. The SO landed on top of the Complainant and was quickly joined by WO #1. The Complainant bit WO #1 and attempted to bite the SO. The SO reacted by punching the Complainant in the face. The Complainant refused to release her arms to be handcuffed and was kept pinned to the floor by the officers pending the arrival of additional officers.

WO #2 arrived on scene and inserted himself into the struggle. The Complainant was placed in a seated position on the floor and handcuffed behind the back.

Following her arrest, the Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with fractures of the right lateral tibial plateau and right patella.

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 her arrest by HPS officers on June 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 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.

I am satisfied that the SO was within her rights to arrest the Complainant for assault when the Complainant swung her left arm and struck the officer in the chest.

I am also satisfied that there are no grounds in the evidence to reasonably conclude that the force used by the SO was unlawful. The officer was entitled to take hold of the Complainant to effect her arrest. Thereafter, when the Complainant struggled against the officers’ efforts to control her hands and bit and attempted to bite WO #1 and the SO, respectively, causing injury to the former, the SO had cause to escalate her force. A single strike to the face represented a sharp but not disproportionate use of force to deter the Complainant’s violence.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s fractures were incurred in the altercation that marked her arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the injuries 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 25, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit