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 40-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 19, 2026, at 8:16 a.m., the Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 18, 2026, at 5:25 p.m., the owner of a restaurant in Lincoln called NRPS to report a man [now known to be the Complainant] causing a disturbance. Reportedly, the owner – Civilian Witness (CW) #1 - had earlier trespassed the man, who was now two doors away and refusing to leave the area. At 7:05 p.m., CW #1 called NRPS again and reported that the man had returned. He was again causing a disturbance and refusing to leave the restaurant. Witness Official (WO) #1 and the Subject Official (SO) responded and located the Complainant. They attempted to arrest the Complainant for trespassing and a struggle ensued. At 7:33 p.m., the police officers grounded the Complainant and handcuffed his hands behind the back. The Complainant was transported to NRPS Central Holding, where he was paraded and lodged in a cell. At 8:20 p.m., the Complainant complained of pain to his ribs and leg. He was transported to Greater Niagara General Hospital (GNGH) and diagnosed with a fracture of the right fibular head.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/07/19 at 9:11 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/07/19 at 12:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 6

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 19, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between July 20 and July 24, 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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness official was interviewed on July 29, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the driveway and walkway out front of a restaurant in Lincoln.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage - WO #1’s Cruiser

Starting at about 7:23 p.m., July 18, 2026, WO #1 was captured leaning on the front of the police vehicle and speaking to the Complainant. The Complainant carried a cellphone in his left hand. WO #1’s vehicle, parked on the side of a roadway in front of a commercial business, faced east.

Starting at about 7:24 p.m., the Complainant walked west along the driver’s side of the police vehicle. WO #1 moved his police vehicle to face west towards a commercial establishment [now known to be the involved restaurant]. A marked NRPS SUV was parked in the driveway between the two businesses and a second uniformed police officer - the SO – was captured walking from the area of the Complainant. The Complainant stood at the north side of the roadway, at the end of the driveway. Patrons of the restaurant were observed on the outdoor patio in front of the building. The Complainant spoke and swore loudly at the SO. The Complainant was subsequently captured standing in the driveway of the businesses next to the patio.

Starting at about 7:30 p.m., two males – CW #2 and CW #3 – exited the restaurant and approached the driveway. The Complainant swore and yelled. The SO walked quickly towards the Complainant, who began to back away from the police officer. The SO reached out with his left hand and attempted to grab the right arm of the Complainant, who continued to back away from the SO. The Complainant’s heels came into contact with the concrete curb of the driveway, and he fell backward onto his buttocks with his right leg caught under him. WO #1 and a male - CW #1 - approached the Complainant on the ground. The Complainant got back to his feet and attempted to pull away from the SO, who maintained a hold of the Complainant’s right arm. The SO used his left leg to sweep the legs of the Complainant, causing the Complainant to fall towards the ground. The Complainant used his left hand to brace his fall and ended up on his knees with the SO on his right side and WO #1 on his left. The Complainant was subsequently captured on his stomach in the driveway with the SO holding his right wrist and the Complainant’s left arm visible of the ground above his head. The Complainant’s legs were straight out behind him. CW #2 approached the police officers, stood by the Complainant’s left side and took hold of the Complainant’s left arm. WO #1 removed his legs from the Complainant’s legs, after which the Complainant pulled his knees forward so that he was now on his knees with his head down towards the ground. CW #3 approached the Complainant’s right side and pushed down on his back. The SO continued to struggle with the Complainant’s right arm and WO #1 attempted to control the Complainant’s left leg. The Complainant cried out in pain as his hands were positioned behind the back and handcuffs were applied. CW #2 and CW #3 disengaged and the SO and WO #1 lifted the Complainant to his feet, walking him to the SO’s vehicle.

Starting at about 7:39 p.m., the SO’s police vehicle left the scene with the Complainant.

The Complainant’s Cellphone Video Clips

All the recordings were taken before the Complainant was arrested by the police.

On one clip, WO #1 was captured standing and facing the Complainant. The Complainant was near the front patio of the restaurant. The Complainant stated that he was on public property.

In another clip, WO #1 stood in front of his police vehicle and spoke to the Complainant, who stated his rights were abused. WO #1 subsequently spoke to CW #1.

In another clip, the Complainant recorded patrons in front of the restaurant. The SO spoke with the Complainant and subsequently walked away.

In another clip, the Complainant spoke with CW #1, who eventually forced the Complainant off the property.

In the final clip, the Complainant stood at the edge of the property, stating he could play his music if he wanted.

NRPS Communications Recordings

On July 18, 2026, at 5:25 p.m., a woman called from a restaurant in Lincoln to report a male on the patio. He was screaming at the owner, threatening staff, and making a scene.

At 5:29 p.m., WO #3 and WO #2 were dispatched. It was further reported that the male - the Complainant - had struck the owner. WO #3 broadcast that the police had been called a few days prior.

At 6:07 p.m., WO #3 reported that the Complainant had been issued a trespass notice and removed from the property.

At 6:47 p.m., CW #1 advised the police call-taker that the Complainant was back at the restaurant and harassing staff and patrons. He noted that the police had already been at the restaurant because of the Complainant.

At 7:05 p.m., the SO and WO #1 were dispatched.

The officers were on scene at 7:14 p.m.

At 7:21 p.m., the SO advised that everything was okay. The Complainant had been arrested for mischief and causing a disturbance.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the NRPS between July 21, 2026, and July 24, 2026:

• ICC footage
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Reports
• General Occurrence Report – Cause Disturbance
• General Occurrence Report - Trespass
• NRPS policies - Use of Force; Powers of Arrest
• Charges – the Complainant
• Person History – the Complainant
• Notes – WO #1, WO #3 and WO #2

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following sources between July 23, 2026, and August 18, 2026:

• The Complainant’s medical records from GNGH
• Cellular telephone photographs from CW #4
• Cellular telephone videos from the Complainant

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and other eyewitnesses (police and non-police), 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 afternoon of July 18, 2026, NRPS officers were dispatched to a restaurant in Lincoln about a male causing a disturbance at the business. The SO was the first to arrive on scene, followed shortly by WO #1.

The male was the Complainant. Earlier that evening, he had attended at the restaurant to confront an employee whom he believed had cast aspersions on his character. On that occasion, he had reportedly screamed at the owner, threatened staff and made a scene. A different pair of officers had attended at the restaurant to remove him from the premises. The Complainant had left the scene only to return a short time later.

WO #1 and the SO confronted the Complainant outside the restaurant by the roadway. They encouraged him to leave the area but the Complainant was adamant he would remain. He swore at the officers and raised his voice, catching the attention of diners on the restaurant’s patio. This went on for about half-an-hour.

At about 7:30 p.m., as the Complainant stepped onto the driveway by the side of the restaurant, the SO quicky approached him and took hold of his right arm. The two tussled on their feet momentarily before the Complainant tripped over the driveway curb and fell to the ground. WO #1 entered the fray and took hold of the Complainant as well. The Complainant returned to his feet and attempted to pull away from the officers. Using a leg sweep, the SO took the Complainant down again. The Complainant continued to struggle with the officers and managed to prop his knees under him and lift his torso from the ground. Two restaurant patrons intervened at this point. They approached the Complainant and assisted in keeping him pinned to the ground as the SO controlled his arms behind the back and secured them in handcuffs.

The Complainant was transported to the police station where he complained of pain to the ribs and legs. He was taken to hospital and diagnosed with factures of the right leg.

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 175 (1), Criminal Code – Causing a Disturbance

175 (1) Every one who

(a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,

(i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting language,

(ii) by being drunk,

(iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Section 2(1), Trespass to Property Act - Trespass an Offence

2 (1) Every person who is not acting under a right or authority conferred by law and who,

(a)without the express permission of the occupier, the proof of which rests on the defendant,

(i) enters on premises when entry is prohibited under this Act, or

(ii) engages in an activity on premises when the activity is prohibited under this Act; or

(b)does not leave the premises immediately after he or she is directed to do so by the occupier of the premises or a person authorized by the occupier,

is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000.

Section 9(1), Trespass to Property Act - Arrest Without Warrant on Premises

9 (1) A police officer, or the occupier of premises, or a person authorized by the occupier may arrest without warrant any person he or she believes on reasonable and probable grounds to be on the premises in contravention of section 2.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by NRPS officers on July 18, 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 evidence indicates that the Complainant, repeatedly and over a protracted period of time, disturbed the peace around the restaurant by harassing staff and upsetting diners. There is also evidence he walked onto the restaurant’s private property despite knowing that he was not welcome. On this record, I am satisfied that the SO and WO #1 were within their rights in moving to arrest the Complainant under sections 175(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code and sections 2(1) and 9(1) of the Trespass to Property Act.

I am further satisfied that the SO and WO #1 used only lawful force in the Complainant’s arrest. The takedown made sense as it would better position the officers to manage the type of physical resistance the Complainant had displayed when first grabbed by the SO. The Complainant did, in fact, continue to resist his arrest by refusing to release his arms to be handcuffed and attempting to stand up. The officers responded with like force by wrestling with the Complainant to keep him on the ground and control his arms behind the back. At no time did either of the officers strike the Complainant.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s fractures were incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the injuries were 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: November 6, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit