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 9: (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 45-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 11, 2026, at 10:04 a.m., the Brantford Police Service (BPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 10, 2026, at 7:23 p.m., the Complainant was observed outside his residence in the area of Erie Avenue and Veterans Memorial Parkway, Brantford, swinging an axe. A neighbour contacted the BPS to report the incident. The Complainant was subject to two outstanding warrants for his arrest. At 8:58 p.m., responding officers observed the Complainant walking westbound on a nearby street and attempted to arrest him. The Complainant did not comply with the officers’ commands and was taken to the ground. The Subject Official (SO) kicked the Complainant and Witness Official (WO) #2 took control of his head and wrist. Following his arrest, police located three knives on his person in the course of a search. The Complainant complained of injury to his knee and head, and a pre-existing injury to his collarbone from several weeks earlier. At 9:21 p.m., he was transported to Brantford General Hospital (BGH). At 11:59 p.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured tibial plateau.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/07/13 at 7:46 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/07/16 at 12:39 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 16, 2026.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on July 14, 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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between July 19, 2026, and August 4, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on a residential roadway in the area of Erie Avenue and Veterans Memorial Parkway, Brantford.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

BPS Communications Recordings – Radio

On July 10, 2026, starting at about 8:56:45 p.m., a male police officer said, “I think he just got to the parking lot of [address in the area of Erie Avenue and Veterans Memorial Parkway] right now.” A second male police officer said, “10-4 which way do you want.” The initial male police officer said, “I’ll just be at the parking lot, I’ll be out with him.”

Starting at about 9:02:53 p.m., a male police officer said, “We got him in the car thank you.”

Starting at about 9:06:32 p.m., a male police officer said, “[Complainant’s first name] is complaining of several injuries, if you’re okay, we’ll just take him to the BGH.”

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – WO #2

On July 10, 2026, starting at about 8:57:15 p.m., a police cruiser was captured coming to a stop and the driver – WO #2 – exiting. Other police cruisers were stopped in the area. Three police officers were on the ground near a light pole with the Complainant. Two of them were wearing tactical uniforms and one a standard police uniform. An Anti-riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN) was located on the ground where the police officers were located. The weapon was removed from the area by WO #2. Shortly after, one of the officers – WO #1 – removed a knife from a sheath worn by the Complainant around his waist. The Complainant’s head was near the light pole. He was told he was under arrest. A police officer told the Complainant to swing his arm to the back. The Complainant said he would if they quit smashing his head. The Complainant had old scrapes to his right shoulder and back.

Starting at about 8:58:55 p.m., the Complainant said his leg hurt a lot. He was handcuffed behind the back.

Starting at about 9:00:01 p.m., the Complainant was stood up. He said, “It’s hard to walk, you guys hurt my knee.” The Complainant walked to the police cruiser where he was searched.

Starting at about 9:01:16 p.m., the Complainant was loaded into the police cruiser.

BWC Footage – The SO

On July 10, 2026, starting at about 8:57:05 p.m., the SO brought his vehicle to a stop and exited holding an ARWEN. He moved quickly towards the Complainant on the sidewalk. The view was momentarily obstructed by what appeared to be close contact with the Complainant. In subsequent images, it appeared the Complainant was on the ground and the SO pushed his head downwards. WO #2 arrived on scene and removed the ARWEN, which was on the ground beside the Complainant. The officer then returned and placed a knee on the Complainant, keeping him pinned. WO #1 was on his knees beside the Complainant on the ground. The officer removed a knife from the area of the Complainant’s waist and threw it away. The officers worked to handcuff the Complainant behind the back. The Complainant was eventually handcuffed and brought to his feet.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the BPS between July 16, 2026, and November 5, 2026:

• Police communications recordings
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Arrest Record
• In-car camera footage
• BWC footage
• Copy of two executed arrest warrants
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4 and WO #5

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from BGH on August 4, 2026.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that largely 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 evening of July 10, 2026, BPS officers were on the lookout for the Complainant in and around the area of Erie Avenue and Veterans Memorial Parkway to take him into custody in relation to a couple of warrants for his arrest. Earlier in the day, BPS officers arriving at the Complainant’s address had attempted to have him surrender. The Complainant refused to leave his home to surrender and the officers left. A neighbour was asked to contact police in the event the Complainant left his residence.

Shortly before 9:00 p.m., the SO, a tactical officer with BPS, observed the Complainant walking westward on a nearby roadway. The officer radioed that information to other officers and drove towards the Complainant in his unmarked police van. Other officers in the vicinity began to respond to the scene. The SO stopped his vehicle north of the Complainant, exited and approached him with an ARWEN in hand. At about the same time, WO #4, also a tactical officer, stopped his vehicle on the roadway, exited and approached the Complainant. The officers ordered the Complainant to the ground and then physically engaged him on his feet. The SO delivered a forward thrust kick, after which both officers took hold of the Complainant and forced him to the ground. WO #1 and WO #2 arrived shortly after the takedown and intervened in the arrest. The Complainant was handcuffed, lifted to his feet and lodged in the backseat of a police cruiser.

The Complainant was seen at hospital following his arrest and diagnosed with a fractured left knee.

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 BPS officers on July 10, 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 and the other arresting officers were within their rights in taking the Complainant into custody on the strength of the two warrants in effect at the time.

As for the force brought to bear by the police in the Complainant’s arrest, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was unlawful. On the officers’ rendition of events, this consisted of a kick and manual force to take the Complainant down, followed by a period on the ground during which the officers kept the Complainant pinned as they searched him and worked to handcuff him behind the back. The kick and takedown were reasonable as the officers had cause to believe that the Complainant was in possession of an edged-weapon. He had been seen with an axe earlier in the day and was known to carry weapons. In the circumstances, it was imperative to neutralize the Complainant as quickly as possible to mitigate the risk of a weapon being brought into play. In fact, the Complainant was in possession of a knife that he had in a sheath around his waist at the time of his arrest and the backpack he was carrying contained additional knives. Once on the ground, it made sense to keep him forcefully pinned until he was searched and handcuffed. At no time, according to the officers, was he struck on the ground. In contrast, there is a version of events proffered in the evidence that suggests the Complainant was kicked and punched on the ground, and that his injured knee is the result of an officer stepping on it. The video footage of the arrest, however, shows no such conduct on the part of the police.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s broken knee was incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, the likely result of the SO’s kick and/or the takedown, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury is 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.

I note the possible misconduct of WO #1 and WO #4, who each failed to activate their BWCs in potential violation of sections 19 and 27 of the Police Code of Conduct. This incident also appears to have been reported late to the SIU by the police service, in possible contravention of section 3 of the Police Code of Conduct. I will be referring these matters to the police service for their review. Further to section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, I will also be referring the matters to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: November 12, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit