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 36-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 14, 2026, at 3:07 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 14, 2026, at approximately 6:54 a.m., TPS 42 Division officers responded to the area of Victoria Park Avenue and Patrick Boulevard following a report of an assault in progress. They located a suspect [the Complainant]. The Complainant became combative and several conducted energy weapons (CEWs) were discharged to gain control. The Complainant showed signs of excited delirium, so paramedic services were requested. Once the Complainant was under control, he was transported directly to North York General Hospital (NYGH). He was treated for severe dehydration and put on an intravenous saline drip. At 11:38 a.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis and admitted to hospital. The diagnosing physician attributed the Complainant’s condition to the CEW usage.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/07/14 at 4:14 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/07/14 at 4:22 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 15, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between July 15 and 24, 2026.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 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

The witness officials were interviewed between July 25, 2026, and August 4, 2026.

The Scene

The scene was located on the north sidewalk of Sheppard Avenue East, east of Victoria Park Avenue, Toronto.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – SO #1

On July 14, 2026, at 6:53:39 a.m.,[2] the CEW assigned to SO #1 was armed. There were two 12-degree close-quarter cartridges seated in their respective bays. A cartridge was deployed and electricity was discharged for 1.42 seconds.

At 6:53:41 a.m., a second cartridge was deployed and electricity was discharged for 13.77 seconds.

At 6:53:55 a.m., the left arc button was pressed and electricity was discharged for 4.96 seconds.

At 6:54:01 a.m., the left arc button was pressed and electricity was discharged for 8.99 seconds.

At 6:54:48 a.m., the right arc button was pressed and electricity was discharged for 5.07 seconds.

At 6:54:54 a.m., the CEW was rendered safe.

CEW Deployment Data – SO #2

On July 14, 2026, at 6:53:01 a.m.,[3] the CEW assigned to SO #2 was armed. There were two 12-degree close-quarter cartridges seated in their respective bays. At 6:53:05 a.m., a cartridge was deployed and electricity was discharged for 4.98 seconds.

At 6:53:05 a.m., the right arc button was pressed and electricity was discharged for 9.22 seconds.

At 6:53:22 a.m., the right arc button was pressed and electricity was discharged for 0.83 seconds.

At 6:53:23 a.m., the second cartridge was deployed and electricity was discharged for 15.36 seconds.

At 6:53:49 a.m., the CEW was rendered safe.

At 6:53:51 a.m., the CEW was armed again. There was a new cartridge loaded into the CEW.

At 6:54:27 a.m., the third cartridge was deployed and electricity was discharged for 7.99 seconds.

At 6:54:39 a.m., the CEW was rendered safe.

CEW Deployment Data – WO #2

On July 14, 2026, at 6:53:12 a.m.,[4] the CEW assigned to WO #2 was armed. There were two 12-degree close-quarter cartridges seated in their respective bays. The left arc button was pressed and electricity was discharged for 0.19 seconds.

At 6:53:14 a.m., a cartridge was deployed and electricity was discharged for 4.16 seconds.

At 6:53:18 a.m., the CEW was rendered safe.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[5]

TPS Communications Recordings

On July 14, 2026, at 6:36 a.m., a 911 call was received from CW #2. He reported that he had just been punched by a male while on a run in the area of Victoria Park Avenue and Sheppard Avenue East. CW #2 provided a description of the male.

At 6:48 a.m., SO #1 said on the police radio that he “had eyes on” the suspect [now known to be the Complainant]. The dispatcher asked for any other police officer available to assist SO #1. SO #1 said something about a taser and “this guy’s about to fight”. SO #1 could be heard telling the Complainant to “stay there”. He told the dispatcher he had his CEW displayed.

At 6:50 a.m., SO #1 said they were walking eastbound on the north side of Sheppard Avenue East.

At 6:52 a.m., SO #1 said the Complainant was still not listening to his directions and walking eastbound.

At 6:54 a.m., a male voice said there had been two CEW deployments and the Complainant was still fighting.

At 6:55 a.m., a male voice said the Complainant was under control.

At 6:56 a.m., a male voice requested an ambulance for a CEW deployment. A communicator called the ambulance communications centre.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On July 14, 2026, starting at about 6:46:45 a.m., SO #1 parked his vehicle on the side of the road [now known to be the northbound curb lane of Victoria Park Avenue], exited and approached the Complainant. SO #1 asked the Complainant if he was alright and offered assistance. There was no response. The Complainant walked northbound on the sidewalk of Victoria Park Avenue. He was shirtless and wore grey sweatpants and black shoes. He clenched his fists and grunted as he walked.

Starting at about 6:46:55 a.m., SO #1 unholstered his CEW. The Complainant continued to walk northbound and did not speak to SO #1. The Complainant yelled loudly once to himself.

Starting at about 6:47:22 a.m., the Complainant turned around and walked south towards SO #1. SO #1 broadcast a radio transmission, “Taser on site, this guy is about to fight.” SO #1 told the Complainant to stay where he was. The Complainant walked towards SO #1 slowly. SO #1 backed away slowly.

Starting at about 6:47:42 a.m., SO #1 pointed his CEW at the Complainant, and moved off the sidewalk and onto the street. The Complainant remained on the sidewalk and walked south past SO #1 on the sidewalk. SO #1 told him to stay where he was and to get on the ground. SO #1 lowered his CEW and followed slowly behind the Complainant.

Starting at about 6:48:56 a.m., the Complainant turned to walk eastbound on the north sidewalk of Sheppard Avenue East. SO #1 followed behind him and repeatedly told the Complainant to get on the ground.

Starting at about 6:52:31 a.m., the Complainant turned around at an intersection [Chichester Place and Sheppard Avenue East]. SO #1 ordered the Complainant to stay there. The Complainant ignored SO #1 and walked west towards SO #1. SO #1 pointed his CEW at the Complainant and backed away. The Complainant yelled. SO #1 told the Complainant he would use his CEW on him.

Starting at about 6:53:04 a.m., additional TPS officers [SO #2 and WO #2] arrived. SO #2 and SO #1 directed the Complainant to get on the ground. The Complainant continued to walk west. SO #2 wrapped his right arm around the Complainant’s upper back, gripped the Complainant’s right bicep, and pulled him to the ground. SO #1 used his right fist to deliver about six strikes to the Complainant’s head. The Complainant yelled and stood up as the officers tried to hold him down. He flailed his body once upright and swung out with his right hand at SO #1’s head.

Starting at about 6:53:25 a.m., SO #2 unholstered his CEW and called out, “Taser, taser, taser.” He pointed his CEW at the Complainant and instructed SO #1 and WO #2 to back away. SO #1 and WO #2 released the Complainant. SO #2 discharged a set of CEW probes at the Complainant. The Complainant became stiff and fell, landing on his face. He yelled incoherently on the ground and rolled onto his back. SO #1 and WO #2 grabbed the Complainant’s arms and SO #1 punched him in the face. The Complainant stood upright. SO #2’s CEW made a noise consistent with electrical conduction but there was no visible effect on the Complainant.

Starting at about 6:53:49 a.m., SO #2 deployed a second set of CEW probes at the Complainant. The Complainant again became stiff and fell to the ground. SO #1 unholstered his CEW. SO #1 deployed a set of CEW probes at the Complainant. There did not appear to be any effect on the Complainant because he stood upright immediately.

Starting at about 6:53:54 a.m., SO #1 deployed a second set of CEW probes at the Complainant. The Complainant became stiff and fell sideways to the ground, but immediately stood upright again.

Starting at about 6:54:12 a.m., WO #2 deployed a set of CEW probes at the Complainant, which appeared ineffective. The Complainant remained upright and held onto a nearby tree. Two additional officers [WO #3 and WO #1] arrived.

Starting at about 6:54:51 a.m., the Complainant let go of the tree and started to walk eastbound.

Starting at about 6:54:55 a.m., SO #2 deployed another set of probes from his CEW at the Complainant. The Complainant became stiff and fell forwards to the ground. SO #2, WO #2, SO #1, WO #3 and WO #1 rushed forwards and grabbed the Complainant. SO #1 pressed his CEW to the Complainant’s upper right chest and discharged electricity in drive-stun[6] mode. The Complainant screamed incoherently. WO #1 said to SO #1, “Watch your taser, get it off.” SO #1 disengaged from the Complainant. SO #2 handcuffed the Complainant with his hands behind the back. SO #1 and WO #3 placed a leg restraint on the Complainant’s ankles.

Starting at about 6:56:23 a.m., the Complainant said, “I will save your sister, I will save your cousin if you give me the chance…[inaudible]…I wasn’t ready, I wasn’t ready.”

Starting at about 6:57:12 a.m., SO #2 made a radio transmission reporting that the Complainant had fought with police officers and struck them. SO #2 advised that several CEW deployments occurred. Paramedic services were requested to attend for the blood in the Complainant’s mouth. The Complainant was carried by WO #2 and WO #1 to a nearby police vehicle. The Complainant was placed horizontally across the seat of the rear prisoner compartment.

Starting at about 6:59:50 a.m., SO #2 spoke with WO #2 and said, “I’ve never deployed my taser before. He was strong. It was the last one that worked.” The Complainant mumbled incoherently and yelled in the back seat of the police vehicle.

Starting at about 7:09:40 a.m., SO #1 spoke with a sergeant and told the sergeant that the Complainant had punched him.

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage

On July 14, 2026, starting at about 6:53:15 a.m., SO #1 delivered four closed fist strikes to the Complainant’s head. The Complainant stood upright off the ground. SO #1 also stood upright and delivered three more closed fist strikes to the Complainant’s head.

Starting at about 6:53:31 a.m., the Complainant punched SO #1 on the right side of his head.

Starting at about 6:57:03 a.m., the Complainant was placed horizontally across the back seat of SO #2’s police vehicle. He mumbled, “Can you please shoot me,” and then made further incoherent utterances. He occasionally screamed incoherently.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from TPS between July 17, 2026, and August 26, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Notes – WO #3, WO #2 and WO #1
• Use of Force Policy
• Person Reports – the Complainant and CW #2
• CEW deployment data – SO #1, SO #2 and WO #2
• TPS Interview Synopses – CW #1 and CW #2
• BWC footage
• ICCS footage
• Police communications recordings
• Video footage - apartment building in the area of Sheppard Avenue East and Victoria Park Avenue
• Letter from Axon Medical Director
• Civilian Witness List

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between July 20, 2026, and July 29, 2026:

• Video footage from TTC bus
• The Complainant’s medical records from NYGH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed interviews with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the morning of July 14, 2026, TPS officers were called to the intersection of Victoria Park Avenue and Sheppard Avenue East. CW #2 had called 911 to report he had just been assaulted by a male in the area. He had been on the west sidewalk of Victoria Park Avenue running south when the male approached and punched him in the head.

The male – the Complainant – was of unsound mind and had been feeling particularly unwell over the last few weeks. The Complainant appears to have been in a psychotic state when he assaulted CW #2 for no reason.

SO #1 was the first officer on scene. He approached the Complainant, asked him what was wrong and offered to help. The Complainant, now on the east sidewalk of Victoria Park Avenue, was unresponsive. He walked away from the officer and occasionally grunted. SO #1 drew his CEW and broadcast that the Complainant seemed like he wanted to fight. The officer followed the Complainant at a distance as he continued south on Victoria Park Avenue and then east on the north sidewalk of Sheppard Avenue East.

Additional officers began to arrive at the scene, led by SO #2 and his partner, WO #2. By this time, the parties were just west of Chichester Place, a block east of Victoria Park Avenue. SO #2 ordered the Complainant to the ground on a couple of occasions and then grabbed him around the upper torso and forced him down. SO #2 and WO #2 unsuccessfully attempted to keep the Complainant pinned to the ground as SO #1 repeatedly punched him in the head. The Complainant overpowered the officers and returned to his feet, swinging his arm in the process and striking SO #1 in the head. The officers disengaged and SO #2 discharged his CEW. The Complainant locked up and fell face first onto the sidewalk. The officers again moved in to take the Complainant into custody and SO #1 again struck him in the head. The Complainant’s neuromuscular incapacitation was only momentary. He fought back against the officers and was able to return to his feet. SO #1 and SO #2 fired their CEWs and the Complainant fell down before regaining his faculties and getting up. He fell again following another CEW discharge but quickly regained his footing. The Complainant remained standing for a period as SO #1 continued to discharge energy from his CEW to no effect and WO #2 fired his CEW probes. WO #1 and WO #3 arrived on scene and joined the other officers in a semi-circle formation around the Complainant. Following a brief standoff, SO #2 fired his CEW a third and final time as the Complainant turned his back on the officers. The Complainant stiffened, fell forward and rolled onto his back on the sidewalk. The five officers rushed towards him, placed him onto his front and kept him pinned as they worked to handcuff his arms behind the back. WO #2 delivered several knee strikes to the Complainant’s torso during this time. SO #1 drive-stunned the Complainant on the ground and was pushed away by WO #1 as there were multiple officers in close-quarters at risk of getting zapped.

The Complainant was taken into custody and eventually transported to hospital where he was admitted for psychiatric examination and diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis as a result of the CEW usage.

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 July 14, 2026. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1 and SO #2 subject officials. The investigation has now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official 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 had suddenly and without provocation assaulted a pedestrian, SO #1 and SO #2, and the other arresting officers, were within their rights in moving to arrest the Complainant.

The quantum of force used to effect the Complainant’s arrest was significant but not disproportionate in the circumstances. Regrettably, it appears that nothing short of a physical engagement was going to suffice to take the Complainant into custody. Probably owing to his state of mind at the time, SO #1’s efforts to establish a dialogue and understanding with the Complainant were in vain. The initial takedown made sense. The Complainant had refused to surrender himself and ignored repeated directions to lower himself to the ground. In that position, the officers could better manage the physical resistance that they could reasonably expect of a recalcitrant suspect. The Complainant did, in fact, resist. He was a powerful man who, despite the combined efforts of SO #2, SO #1 and WO #2, including the use of strikes by SO #1, was able to overcome the officers and rise to his feet. This pattern repeated itself, even with the use of CEWs by SO #2 and SO #1. The weapon had a brief effect on some occasions, and no discernible effect on others. It was not until the final discharge that the police had amassed enough manpower to keep the Complainant down after he had fallen until he could be sufficiently subdued to handcuff his arms behind the back. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the CEWs discharges in their totality constituted excessive force. The same is true of the strikes delivered by SO #1 and WO #2.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s rhabdomyolysis was the result of the CEW discharges he experienced, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the condition was attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the subject officials. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: November 5, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit