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 54-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 7, 2026, at 8:13 p.m., the Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 3:04 p.m., the GSPS arrested the Complainant in the parking lot of 200 Larch Street, Greater Sudbury, on an outstanding warrant. The Complainant was paraded before Witness Officer (WO) #1 at 3:26 p.m.. WO #1 requested Emergency Medical Services (EMS) after the Complainant claimed he had a right shoulder injury. The Complainant was transported to Health Sciences North (HSN) and, at 7:30 p.m., diagnosed with a fractured right clavicle.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/07/07 at 9:19 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/07/08 at 9:42 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 8, 2026.

Subject Official

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

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between July 15, 2026, and August 10, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the parking lot of 200 Larch Street, Sudbury.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

GSPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – The SO

On July 7, 2026, at 3:02:17 p.m., the SO was captured pursuing the Complainant, who was fleeing on foot south towards 200 Larch Street. WO #3 rode his bicycle towards the Complainant, extended his left arm and contacted the Complainant’s upper body. He briefly maintained a hold of the Complainant before the Complainant broke free. The SO proceeded to grasp the Complainant’s upper right shoulder and bring him to the ground. The Complainant landed on his left side beside a parked vehicle. He curled forward and covered his head.

At 3:02:40 p.m., the SO delivered three closed fist strikes to the Complainant’s right arm, after which he took control of the Complainant’s right arm and pulled it behind the back. The Complainant remained on the ground on his left side. The SO instructed the Complainant to place his hands behind the back, and then took control of the Complainant’s left arm and placed it behind the back. The Complainant repeatedly stated he had a broken collarbone and that he had to go to the hospital.

At 3:03:13 p.m., the Complainant was handcuffed with his hands behind the back. The SO asked the Complainant how long his collarbone had been broken. The Complainant replied, “Two days.” The SO visually inspected the Complainant’s right shoulder, which showed bruising.

GSPS In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage – The SO

On July 7, 2026, at 3:18:20 p.m., the SO was captured transporting the Complainant to GSPS Headquarters. The Complainant asked to be taken to the hospital. The SO said he first needed to speak with the staff sergeant. The Complainant said his shoulder had been broken for approximately one-and-a-half days. The SO further questioned the Complainant’s injury, but the Complainant’s responses were inaudible.

GSPS Custody Footage

On July 7, 2026, at 3:23:45 p.m., WO #3 escorted the Complainant into the booking area.

At 3:35:25 p.m., the SO photographed the Complainant’s right collarbone area.

At 3:49:50 p.m., EMS arrived at the booking area with WO #1 present.

At 3:57:50 p.m., EMS left the booking area with the Complainant on a stretcher.

At 8:38:34 p.m., WO #3 and WO #2 entered the cell block area with the Complainant. His hands were handcuffed in front of the body, and he wore a sling on his right arm. He was secured in a cell, and his handcuffs were removed.

GSPS Communications Recordings

On July 7, 2026, at 3:02:54 p.m., WO #3 advised he was in the parking lot of 200 Larch Street, Greater Sudbury. He requested confirmation of a bench warrant for the Complainant.

At 3:04:56 p.m., dispatch confirmed the Complainant had a first-instance unendorsed warrant.

At 3:05:22 p.m., WO #3 advised the Complainant was in custody. The SO transported the Complainant to police headquarters.

At 4:02:01 p.m., WO #2 advised that EMS were transporting the Complainant to HSN, accompanied by WO #3.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from GSPS on July 8, 2026:

• General Occurrence Reports

• Warrants related to the Complainant’s arrest

• Police communications recordings

• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report

• BWC footage

• ICCS recordings

• Custody footage

• Booking records

• GSPS policies - Arrest/Apprehension; Use of Force

• Use of Force training records – the SO

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from HSN on August 11, 2026.

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

In the afternoon of July 7, 2026, the Complainant was present in the parking lot at 200 Larch Street, Sudbury. He was subject to an arrest warrant.

At the same time, the SO, WO #2 and WO #3 were on bicycle patrol in the area. They observed the Complainant, confirmed the existence of the warrant and approached to take him into custody. They advised the Complainant that he was under arrest and then pursued him as he began to run away.

The Complainant was still in the parking lot and had emerged from in between two parked vehicles when he was confronted by WO #3 on his bicycle. The officer extended his left hand and attempted to grab a hold of the Complainant’s upper body. The Complainant broke free and continued to flee. The SO dismounted his bicycle and caught up to the Complainant quickly, taking him to the ground beside a parked vehicle. The Complainant fell onto his left side and placed his right arm up around his head. The SO delivered three quick punches to the upper right arm area before he took control of the Complainant’s arms and handcuffed them behind the back.

The Complainant was transported to the station and then to hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured right clavicle.

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 diagnosed with a serious injury following his arrest by GSPS officers on July 7, 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 SO was within his right in moving to take the Complainant into custody on the strength of the outstanding arrest warrant.

As for the force brought to bear by the SO in the Complainant’s arrest, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was unlawful. The takedown made sense as the Complainant was in flight at the time. Forcing him to the ground would bring the Complainant’s escape efforts to an end while positioning the SO to better deal with the physical resistance he could reasonably expect of a fleeing suspect. The strikes to the arm area by the SO were short punches delivered as the Complainant had his arm by his head and the officer was trying to bring the arm behind the back. While it is unclear whether they were strictly necessary, I am satisfied that they fell within the reasonable latitude afforded officers involved in physical encounters.

Precisely when the Complainant fractured his clavicle remains unknown. There is the distinct possibility his injury was incurred in a fall from a bicycle two days prior to his arrest. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to attribute the injury to unlawful conduct on the part of the SO, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.

Date: November 2, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit