Search
Full-text search across every published incident. Officer names are never indexed — search hits match the redacted summary, agency name, tribunal citation, and the controlled-vocabulary fields (incident type, finding, disposition).
- Agency: siu-on×
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person, the subject officer and additional police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. In early 2026, a team of officers with a regional police service, operating in plainclothes and unmarked vehicles with a specialized unit, were looking to arrest a group of males suspected in a series of crimes. One of them - the affected person – was also subject to an arrest warrant. The team – including multiple witness officers and the subject officer – tracked the suspects to a location in a city, the address of a public venue. The officers surveilled the vehicles and the males. The affected person removed items from the trunk of their vehicle and placed them on the bed of another vehicle. After a time, the officers decided to move in to arrest the suspects. The venue was closed, the area was empty and most of the males were out of the vehicles. The plan was to approach the vehicles and box them in from the front and sides to prevent the males using them to escape. On seeing the unmarked police vehicles converging on their location, the males entered their vehicles and tried to drive off. The driver of one vehicle moved back and forth on a couple of occasions, pushing the police vehicles in front of him sufficiently back to allow him to escape. The affected person also drove forward into the police vehicle in front of them, propelling it backwards. They then backed up and accelerated forward again, pushing the police vehicle further back. When the affected person reversed a second time, their vehicle spun to the right and came to a stop; its driver side had struck a light standard. As this was occurring, the subject officer had smashed out the driver’s window with their baton and attempted to incapacitate the affected person through the window with a conducted energy weapon, but neither of the discharges were effective. With the affected person’s vehicle at rest, the subject officer and another officer struggled to remove the affected person from the driver’s seat, at least partly because the driver’s door was wedged against the light standard. The affected person was eventually forced out of the vehicle by the officers and taken to the ground where they were struck several times by the officers before being handcuffed behind the back. Paramedics attended the scene and transported the affected person to hospital where they were diagnosed with a serious injury.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject officer agreed to an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. In the evening of early 2026, the subject officers were on patrol operating a marked cruiser. At about 9:41 p.m., the officers began to follow a vehicle for failing to stop at a red light before making a right turn onto a street and heading south. The vehicle quickly turned left into an apartment complex and then left again onto a ramp to the underground parking for a building. The cruiser, its emergency lights activated while stopped behind the vehicle, followed the vehicle as the entry gate rose and the garage door opened. The affected person was driving the vehicle. He continued down a lane between rows of parking spaces, reversed into a parking spot and exited his vehicle. He was immediately confronted by one of the officers asking where he was going. The officers had stopped their cruiser short of the vehicle in the lane. The affected person walked past the officers and towards a wall, against which he began to urinate. He was pinned against the wall by one of the officers while he continued to relieve himself, after which he began to struggle against both officers as they tried to control his arms behind his back. The affected person was told he had failed to stop for police. The parties struggled for about five minutes. With the assistance of additional officers, the affected person was handcuffed and taken into custody. He had been forced to the ground, punched twice in the head by one of the officers and drive-stunned multiple times in the back by the other officer. The affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis, which was attributed to trauma and the use of the CEW.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. In the morning of early 2026, a constable was a Community Intervention Response Team (CIRT) officer on patrol in their marked cruiser when their Automatic Licence Plate Recognition (ALPR) device detected a stolen vehicle - a Jeep Wrangler - parked outside a market in Brampton. The officer radioed for the assistance of another officer. The subject officer responded to the request and arrived in the area. Notwithstanding the tinted windows on the Jeep, it was determined that there was a male in the driver’s seat of the vehicle. The constable positioned their cruiser directly behind the Jeep to prevent its escape as the subject officer went to the driver’s door and opened it. Their intention was to arrest the driver. The complainant was sitting in the Jeep and gripped the steering wheel with their right hand as the subject officer, joined shortly by the constable, attempted to forcibly extricate them. The subject officer delivered several punches to the complainant’s head and upper body area. The complainant was forced out of the vehicle, taken to the ground and punched again in the abdomen by the subject officer before they were handcuffed behind the back. Following their arrest, the complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a broken nose.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized. In the afternoon of early 2026, the police service received 911 calls about a male causing a disturbance inside and outside a transit bus stopped in the southbound lanes of a street. At about the same time, an officer was on patrol in her cruiser travelling west when she was flagged down by a person in connection with the same disturbance. The officer brought her cruiser to a stop in front of the bus and exited to investigate. The male was the affected person. He was heavily intoxicated by alcohol and bleeding from the head. Moments prior, a male passenger on the bus had fought with the affected person, also a passenger, and forcibly ejected him from the bus. On learning of the altercation in the bus, the driver had contacted security and locked-down the vehicle pending the arrival of assistance. The affected person had attempted to re-enter the bus, banging and kicking its exterior and causing damage to the front door. He had also banged on other vehicles passing by in the area. The officer attempted to escort the affected person off the roadway but he refused. At one point, he got in the officer’s face and forced her backward. Another officer arrived on scene with their partner and intervened to assist the first officer in taking the affected person to the roadway. With their partner’s assistance, the officers proceeded to handcuff the affected person’s hands behind the back. Paramedics arrived on scene and transported the affected person to hospital. He was treated for lacerations to the head and forehead, and diagnosed with a neck fracture.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized. In the morning of early 2026, members of the Emergency Response Team convened at a house situated in the area of Cornwall. Acting under the authority of a CDSA search warrant, the team entered the house to search for cocaine and fentanyl. The affected person was present at the time and alerted to the officers’ presence outside the home. They entered the main floor bathroom and attempted to conceal themselves behind a sink. They were quickly located by an officer and placed on the floor in a prone position. The subject officer, the team leader, had forced their way into the bathroom and located the affected person. Having positioned the affected person on the floor, the officer dropped their left knee intending to lower themselves by their side but inadvertently landed on the affected person’s back. The impact fractured the affected person’s left hand, which was underneath their chest at the time. The affected person was taken into custody and transported to the police station. They were seen at hospital later in the day and diagnosed with their injury.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized. In late 2025, the subject officer and the witness officer were dispatched to an apartment in the area of a city in Ontario, following calls to police from the resident, the affected person. The affected person threatened to kill herself if police did not attend her residence and indicated that she had cut her wrists. The officers arrived at the address, where they were joined by paramedics. The first responders made their way to the apartment door. Finding it locked, the subject officer kicked it open. The affected person was in her bedroom at the time. She was highly agitated and belligerent with the officers. A cut was visible on her wrist. The officers handcuffed the affected person behind the back and were escorting her down a hallway in the apartment when the witness officer briefly pinned her against a wall as the affected person’s hostility escalated. The affected person turned and spat on the witness officer, and was taken to the floor by the officers in a prone position. The affected person screamed at the officers to kill her and banged her face on the floor about a half-dozen times, fracturing her nose in the process. The subject officer took hold of the affected person’s head to prevent her hurting herself. The affected person was seen at hospital after her arrest and ultimately diagnosed with a broken nose.
vehicle_injury · 2026-Q1
In the early morning of February 2026, the subject officer sat in their marked cruiser in a parking lot at the southeast corner of a major intersection. They and their passenger were manning a perimeter point at that location. At about 2:43 a.m., two vehicles travelled past their location at excessive speed. The subject officer pulled onto the roadway and accelerated after the vehicles, intending to stop them in connection with their speed. With the driver of one vehicle were several passengers, including the affected person in the backseat. The vehicles continued at speeds as high as 170 km/h. Approaching a major road, the driver came upon traffic stopped at a red light, applied their brakes but crashed into two of the vehicles. The affected person suffered a fractured hip in the collision. The subject officer arrived on scene and arrested the driver for dangerous driving.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. In the morning of early 2026, a constable was a Community Intervention Response Team (CIRT) officer on patrol in their marked cruiser when their Automatic Licence Plate Recognition (ALPR) device detected a stolen vehicle - a Jeep Wrangler - parked outside a market in Brampton. The officer radioed for the assistance of another officer. The subject officer responded to the request and arrived in the area. Notwithstanding the tinted windows on the Jeep, it was determined that there was a male in the driver’s seat of the vehicle. The constable positioned their cruiser directly behind the Jeep to prevent its escape as the subject officer went to the driver’s door and opened it. Their intention was to arrest the driver. The affected person was sitting in the Jeep and gripped the steering wheel with their right hand as the subject officer, joined shortly by the constable, attempted to forcibly extricate them. The subject officer delivered several punches to the affected person’s head and upper body area. The affected person was forced out of the vehicle, taken to the ground and punched again in the abdomen by the subject officer before they were handcuffed behind the back. Following their arrest, the affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a broken nose.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject officer agreed to interviews with the SIU. One of the subject officers did provide a written statement. In the late evening of early 2026, police officers were dispatched to a motor vehicle accident at an intersection in a residential area. The collision involved a single vehicle that had been stolen moments earlier. Witnesses to the collision reported that the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle – the affected person – had fled the area. The affected person had run from the site of the collision to a nearby residential street and ultimately made his way to the rear of a property where they hid in a backyard shed. A police dog unit was deployed to the area and eventually tracked the affected person to the shed. One of the officers who had been searching for the affected person called out to them but there was no response. The officer eventually opened the door to the shed and told the affected person to show their hands. When the affected person, lying on the ground, failed to do so, the officer discharged their CEW. As the affected person cried out in pain, the officer dragged them out of the shed, delivering a punch to the torso in the process. Two other officers arrived on scene and joined in the arrest process. Repeated directions were given to the affected person to show and release their hands. One of the officers struck the affected person again in the torso and another officer punched them in the head or upper body area three times. Following another CEW discharge by one of the officers into the affected person’s back, their hands were controlled and handcuffed. The affected person was seen at hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a broken nose and three fractured ribs.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant, the subject officer and other police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. In the afternoon of early 2026, the subject officer and another officer were dispatched to a residence in rural Lambton County. A person had called police to request a welfare check on two individuals, whom they had reason to believe had been fighting. The caller was also aware that these individuals were prohibited from being in each other’s company. The officers arrived at the location and entered the apartment. One individual was arrested for assault. The complainant was located in a bedroom and arrested by the subject officer for breach of a non-association condition. The subject officer handcuffed the complainant behind the back and escorted them down an external staircase from the second floor. As the pair neared the bottom of the stairs, the subject officer stepped on the complainant’s left foot. The complainant was not wearing shoes or socks at the time. The complainant was seen at hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a fractured left foot.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
In the evening of early 2026, officers from the Ottawa Police Service responded to a reported domestic disturbance in the area of a major road and drive in Ottawa. They altered course to a nearby restaurant following a related call about a male on the roof of the building. The subject officer was the first to arrive on scene, followed by two witness officers. The male on the roof was the affected person, who was of unsound mind. They had earlier called police from their residence, reporting a break-in attempt. They exited through a window, made their way to the restaurant, and ascended onto the roof. The subject officer and a witness officer attempted to persuade the affected person to come down safely. The affected person threatened to jump if not provided with a cigarette and hung from a light bar attached to the building. As negotiations were ongoing, a fire truck arrived. The affected person lost their grip on the light bar and fell to the ground, landing feet-first. They were transported to hospital and diagnosed with multiple fractures of both feet.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject officer agreed to an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. In the evening of early 2026, an officer was on patrol operating a marked cruiser. Their passenger and partner was another officer. At about 9:41 p.m., the officers began to follow a vehicle for failing to stop at a red light before making a right turn onto a street and heading south. The vehicle quickly turned left into an apartment complex and then left again onto a ramp to the underground parking for a building. The cruiser, its emergency lights activated while stopped behind the vehicle, followed the vehicle as the entry gate rose and the garage door opened. The affected person was driving the vehicle. They continued down a lane between rows of parking spaces, reversed into a parking spot and exited their vehicle. They were immediately confronted by an officer asking where they were going. The officers had stopped their cruiser short of the vehicle in the lane. The affected person walked past the officers and towards a wall, against which they began to urinate. They were pinned against the wall by an officer while they continued to relieve themselves, after which they began to struggle against both officers as they tried to control their arms behind the back. The affected person was told they had failed to stop for police. The parties struggled for about five minutes. With the assistance of additional officers, the affected person was handcuffed and taken into custody. They had been forced to the ground, punched twice in the head by an officer and drive-stunned multiple times in the back by another officer. The affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis, which was attributed to trauma and the use of the CEW.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police and non-police eyewitness, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the morning of early 2026, the subject officer and another officer were dispatched to a convenience store in a area. A store employee had contacted police to report a male and female shoplifter. The officers arrived on scene and spoke with store staff, confirming that two suspects had left the store with alcohol and food without paying for the items. The employee showed a video clip they had taken with their cellphone, depicting the male and female. The officers located the suspects – the other person and the affected person – at a nearby bus shelter. The other person was taken into custody by one of the officers without incident. The affected person, however, resisted when the subject officer attempted to secure them in handcuffs. The officer was able to affix a cuff to the right hand but had difficulty attaching the other cuff to the affected person’s left hand. The affected person objected to their arrest, denied that they had done anything wrong, and struggled against the subject officer’s efforts to bring their arms behind the back. The tussle eventually made its way outside the bus shelter where the other officer intervened. The officers brought the affected person to the ground, after which the other officer secured both their hands in handcuffs. Following their arrest, the affected person was taken to hospital and treated for a fractured right wrist.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the afternoon of early 2026, the affected person was in custody at a police detachment. Earlier that day, they had been arrested in relation to an incident at a municipal building. While being processed for release following a period in detention, the affected person objected to a condition that would prohibit their presence at a location. The officer explained that an amendment could be made but indicated that the affected person would have to be returned to cells for a period. The affected person refused to accompany the officer to cells and a struggle followed in which they were forced to the floor. The affected person was eventually handcuffed and returned to a cell. Later that day, paramedics transported the affected person to hospital where they were diagnosed with injuries.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized. In the morning of early 2026, police officers were on the lookout in a regional area for a SUV that had reportedly been involved in several collisions and was said to be operated in a reckless manner - speeding, swerving and skidding on the roadway. It had sustained significant damage to the front passenger side. An officer was among the officers responding to one of the collision scenes, travelling east on a county road, when he spotted the SUV passing him in the opposite direction. The officer performed a U-turn and accelerated after the vehicle, activating his cruiser’s emergency lights and siren. A short time later, the SUV pulled over to the shoulder of the road and came to a stop. The officer stopped a short distance behind the SUV. The driver was alone in the vehicle. He opened his driver’s door, observed the officer approaching him on foot, and asked the officer what he had done. The officer said he was driving a stolen vehicle. The driver said the vehicle was not stolen. Told he was being detained for a “hit and run”, the driver asked for more information. The driver refused to exit the SUV at the officer’s direction and then began to grapple with him on the road when the officer dragged him out. Another officer was responding to the first officer’s radio request for backup when he arrived on scene to find the two fighting in the middle of the county road. The officer exited his cruiser and ran to the altercation just as the first officer was bringing the driver down against the driver side of the SUV. As the two continued to wrestle each other, the second officer threw six punches in the direction of the driver’s head. Following the final blow, the driver brought his hands to cover his face. He was turned onto his front and handcuffed behind the back. Following his arrest, the driver was seen at hospital and diagnosed with a fractured right orbital bone.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of their notes. In the early afternoon of a day in early 2026, the affected person, while detained in a cell of a police detachment, reached into their underpants, retrieved a quantity of drugs and consumed them. About an hour later, they lapsed into medical distress with seizure-like symptoms. Custodial staff were quickly alerted to the affected person’s situation. They administered several doses of Narcan and summoned EMS. Paramedics arrived on scene and transported the affected person to hospital where they were treated for an overdose. The day before, acting on the strength of a warrant, two officers had arrested the affected person. One of the officers had conducted a pat-down search at the time, but failed to discover a body-pack around the affected person’s torso, which contained a plastic container of illicit substances. After being placed in a cruiser for transport to the detachment, the affected person was able to manipulate their handcuffed arms to retrieve the container from their pack and conceal it down the front of their underwear. At the detachment, the affected person revealed they were wearing the body-pack. It was removed from their possession and a quantity of methamphetamine was confiscated. A further pat-down search before the affected person was lodged in a cell failed to discover the container they were hiding.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person, the subject officer and other police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. In the afternoon of early 2026, the subject officer and another officer were dispatched to a residence in rural Lambton County. A person had called police to request a welfare check, and the caller was aware that the individuals involved were prohibited from being in each other’s company. The officers arrived at the location and entered the apartment. One person was arrested for assault. The affected person was located in a bedroom and arrested by the subject officer for breach of a condition. The subject officer handcuffed the affected person behind the back and escorted them down an external staircase. As the pair neared the bottom of the stairs, the subject officer stepped on the affected person’s left foot. The affected person was not wearing shoes or socks at the time. The affected person was seen at hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a fractured left foot.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person, the subject officer, and other civilian eyewitnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. In the morning of early 2026, the subject officer was dispatched to the area near Ross Avenue East and Hemlock Street following a call to police about a domestic disturbance unfolding outside a residence. On their arrival, the officer observed a male - a civilian - straddling the affected person and holding them down on the roadway. Ordered to remove himself from the affected person, the civilian did so while explaining to the officer that they had damaged his property and assaulted him. The subject officer decided to arrest the affected person for assault and mischief. There followed a physical engagement between the three parties during which the subject officer punched the affected person and used a taser on the affected person and the civilian. The affected person and the civilian were handcuffed and taken into custody. The affected person attended hospital following their release and was diagnosed with a concussion.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of their notes. In the early afternoon of a day in 2026, the affected person, while detained in a cell of a police detachment, reached into their underpants, retrieved a quantity of drugs and consumed them. About an hour later, they lapsed into medical distress with seizure-like symptoms. Custodial staff were quickly alerted to the affected person’s situation. They administered several doses of Narcan and summoned EMS. Paramedics arrived on scene and transported the affected person to hospital where they were treated for an overdose. The day before, acting on the strength of a warrant, two officers had arrested the affected person. One of the officers had conducted a pat-down search at the time, but failed to discover a body-pack around the affected person’s torso, which contained a plastic container of illicit substances. After being placed in a cruiser for transport to the detachment, the affected person was able to manipulate their handcuffed arms to retrieve the container from their pack and conceal it down the front of their underwear. At the detachment, the affected person revealed they were wearing the body-pack. It was removed from their possession and a quantity of methamphetamine was confiscated. A further pat-down search before the affected person was lodged in a cell failed to discover the container they were hiding.
vehicle_injury · 2026-Q1
In the early morning of a day in late February 2026, a subject officer sat in their marked cruiser in a parking lot at an intersection in a city. The officer and their passenger were manning a perimeter point at that location. At about 2:43 a.m., two vehicles travelled past their location at excessive speed. The officer pulled onto the roadway and accelerated after the vehicles, intending to stop them in connection with their speed. With the driver of one vehicle were several passengers, including the affected person in the backseat. The vehicles continued at speeds as high as 170 km/h. Approaching an intersection, the driver came upon traffic stopped at a red light, applied their brakes but crashed into two of the vehicles. The affected person suffered a fractured hip in the collision. The officer arrived on scene and arrested the driver for dangerous driving.