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 · 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, 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 left 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
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized. In early 2026, the subject officer sat stationary in their marked cruiser in a parking lot at the southeast corner of a major intersection. They and their passenger – a witness officer – were manning a perimeter point at that location, their cruiser stopped facing the roadway. At about 2:43 a.m., two vehicles travelled past their location at excessive speed – a white vehicle and a black vehicle - as if they were racing each other. The subject officer pulled onto the roadway and accelerated after the vehicles, intending to stop them in connection with their speed. The driver of the black vehicle was driving with several passengers, including the affected person in the backseat. The vehicles continued at speeds as high as 170 km/h. Approaching a major road – approximately a kilometre-and-a-half from the starting point, the driver came upon traffic stopped at a red light. They applied their brakes but crashed into two of the vehicles – a large truck to their left and another vehicle to their right. The affected person suffered a fractured hip in the collision. The subject officer arrived on scene and arrested the driver for dangerous driving.
firearm_death · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with a witness officer and other police and non-police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officers did not agree to interviews with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the early morning of a day in 2026, police officers were dispatched to the residence of a person in the area of a street in Mississauga. The person had called 911 to report concerns that their family member was going to harm them and their children. They indicated that the family member was in possession of firearms. The officers arrived at the address and spoke to the person. They confirmed that the family member was armed and had fled the residence. The officers began to search the area for the family member and located them a short distance away. They chased the family member on foot as they turned a corner to run along a footpath back towards the street on which the residence was located before continuing in the same direction past the street. As they ran, the family member reached into a bag they were carrying, retrieved a handgun, and dropped the bag. The bag was subsequently found to contain a firearm. Repeated commands that they stop went unheeded. The family member continued their flight, turning left at the next intersection. The officers followed as the family member turned onto the driveway of a residence. By this time, other officers were arriving on scene in cruisers. With their handguns drawn, the officers took a position of cover behind a utility pole at the end of the driveway. The officers took cover behind the wall of a garage, beside the driveway, and a van parked in a parking alcove adjacent to the garage. The family member stood at the top of the driveway, in the area of the stairs leading to the entrance to the residence, the gun in their hand. They repeatedly screamed “no” to commands that they drop the gun. The time was about 12:55 a.m. As the standoff continued on the driveway, an officer discharged their CEW. The probes struck the family member’s clothing but did not achieve neuromuscular incapacitation. Shortly after, the family member began to make their way across a shrub line that separated the residences. As they did so, the family member pointed their firearm in the direction of the officers located near the van and garage, and fired at least one shot. A bullet struck an officer's hat but did not physically injure the officer. Almost simultaneously, the officers fired their weapons. It is unclear whether any of these shots struck the family member, but they remained standing and made their way onto the driveway of another residence where they took cover behind a vehicle parked facing the house. At about this time, another officer arrived on scene armed with a rifle and positioned themselves behind a large tree on the front lawn of the residence, a distance from the family member’s location. Approximately 30 seconds after the first volley of gunfire, the family member fired their weapon again in the direction of the officers located in the area of the residence. The officer fired twice but the family member remained standing beside the vehicle. There followed another exchange of gunfire involving the family member and the officer, resulting in the family member falling to the ground. Officers approached the family member cautiously and moved their handgun away from them. They applied pressure to their wounds and initiated CPR. Paramedics were on scene shortly after 1:00 a.m. The family member was pronounced deceased at 1:14 a.m. The pathologist at autopsy was of the view that the family member’s death was attributable to a gunshot wound to the head. They documented multiple gunshot wounds, including injuries to the right bicep, the left side of the back where a projectile was recovered, and a gunshot wound to the forehead.
firearm_death · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with witnesses and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. The subject officials did not agree to interviews with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the early morning of January 2026, police officers were dispatched to a residence in the area of a city to report a domestic disturbance between a couple. The affected person had a knife and was threatening to kill the other person. Officers arrived on scene to find that the other person was being held in a locked room by the affected person. The other person indicated through the door that the affected person was holding a knife to their neck and would kill them if police opened the door. Officers attempted to negotiate a peaceful resolution with the affected person. They assured the affected person that they were not there to hurt them and encouraged them to open the door and allow the other person to leave. The affected person refused to open the door. They said they would not hurt the other person if the officers did not enter the room. Other officers, including a trained negotiator, tried to engage the affected person in conversation but they were mostly unresponsive. At one point, the other person appeared in the doorway and tried to escape, but the affected person grabbed them and pulled them back into the room. The officers decided to enter the room. The door was forced open and the officers entered. The affected person grabbed the other person from behind and held the knife to their neck and head. The officers fired their weapons, and the affected person sustained multiple gunshot wounds and was immediately incapacitated. The other person was not struck. The affected person was provided emergency medical attention but could not be saved.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
In the afternoon of early 2026, the subject officer observed the affected person in Stratford. Aware that the affected person was subject to a warrant for their arrest, the officer contacted uniformed personnel to respond to the area to take the affected person into custody. A witness officer arrived in the area in a fully marked cruiser. The officer pulled up to the affected person as they walked and watched as the affected person ran. The subject officer stopped their vehicle, exited, and tackled the affected person to the ground. The affected person attempted to get up and was held down by the subject officer and the witness officer. A struggle ensued during which the subject officer delivered several punches to the head and torso of the affected person, and a knee strike to their side. With the assistance of additional officers, the affected person was handcuffed. Following their arrest, the affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a right orbital bone fracture.
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.
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 person 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 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 and non-police witnesses, as well as video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes. In the afternoon of early 2026, while patrolling the Rideau Street area of Ottawa, two officers located the affected person near a street. The affected person was wanted for robbery and assault with a weapon with respect to an incident that had happened in the weeks before. Upon observing the officers, the affected person fled on foot towards a drive. Officers subsequently lost sight of him and requested assistance from additional units to canvass the area and re-establish his location. After repositioning, the officers again observed the affected person near townhouses. When an officer called out to him, the affected person fled, prompting a foot pursuit. Additional officers subsequently joined the pursuit, which continued through the area, with officers intermittently losing sight of the affected person. At some point, the subject officer and another officer received an update that the affected person had been seen in the area and drove towards the area. Near a street, the subject officer observed civilians pointing out the affected person. He then observed the affected person standing with his back pressed against a wall. When the subject officer exited the cruiser and directed him to stop, the affected person fled on foot along a drive, through a parking lot, and eastbound on a street. As the subject officer closed the distance on the affected person, a civilian intervened. The civilian had observed the affected person running from the parking lot with two officers in pursuit yelling, "Stop." Believing the affected person was gaining a lead on the officers and wanting the pursuit to end because it was occurring around children, the civilian stepped into the affected person’s path and bear-hugged him. As the two engaged, both men rolled onto the hood of a parked vehicle and rolled off it, falling to the roadway and onto the street. Within seconds of the civilian and the affected person going to the ground, the subject officer arrived and came down onto the affected person before taking control of him and securing his arms behind the back. The subject officer arrested him for robbery, assault with a weapon, and obstruction. Another officer arrived shortly and applied handcuffs. Following his arrest, the affected person was taken to the police station before being transported to hospital, where he was diagnosed with a buckle fracture of his right thumb.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police witnesses, and video footage that captured their time in custody, 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 early 2026, the affected person was arrested and taken into custody on the strength of outstanding warrants. A pat-down search was conducted at the scene and revealed no items of concern. The affected person was transported to the police station and subjected to a frisk search. Nothing of note was located and they were lodged in a cell. At approximately 2:15 a.m., officers monitoring the cell camera observed the affected person spending an extended period of time in the toilet and sink area. The affected person was observed facing the toilet and hunched over. Their movements suggested that they were moving something in or around the toilet, although the object itself could not be seen. They then walked away from the toilet with their hands in their pants pockets. At approximately 2:17 a.m., the affected person was removed from the cell, and a search of the cell was conducted. During the search, a clear plastic bag containing a trace amount of a white substance believed to be a narcotic was located inside one of their socks. The affected person was subsequently searched again and questioned about the substance. They admitted that it was cocaine. The affected person quickly became unresponsive. Officers assisted them to the floor, where they were observed foaming at the mouth and experiencing seizures. Two doses of naloxone were administered and EMS were called. The affected person was transported to the hospital and treated for a variety of serious medical issues, some of which were related to a multidrug overdose.
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, two officers had arrested the affected person, acting on the strength of a warrant. 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.
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 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 an intersection. At about the same time, an officer was on patrol in her cruiser travelling west on the street 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 they refused. At one point, they got in the officer’s face and forced them 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 their back. Paramedics arrived on scene and transported the affected person to hospital. They were treated for lacerations to the head and forehead, and diagnosed with a neck fracture.
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 situated in the area. 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_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, 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. On a day in early 2026, a team of officers with the Gangs and Hate Crimes 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 the subject officer – tracked the suspects to an area in a city, the location of a convention centre. The officers surveilled the suspects and their vehicles. After a time, the officers decided to move in to arrest the suspects. The plan was to approach the vehicles and box them in to prevent escape. On seeing the police vehicles converging, the males entered their vehicles and tried to drive off. The affected person drove forward into a police vehicle, propelling it backwards, and then backed up and accelerated forward again. When the affected person reversed a second time, their vehicle spun and came to a stop, striking a light standard. The subject officer smashed out the driver’s window with a baton and attempted to incapacitate the affected person with a CEW, but was not effective. With the vehicle at rest, the officers struggled to remove the affected person and eventually forced them out, taking them to the ground where they were struck several times before being handcuffed. 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 situated in the area. 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.
vehicle_injury · 2026-Q1
In the early morning of February 2026, the subject officer sat stationary 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. One of the vehicles, with multiple passengers, including the affected person, continued at high speeds and eventually crashed into other vehicles at a red light, resulting in the affected person suffering a fractured hip. The subject officer arrived on scene and arrested the driver for dangerous driving.
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 residence. 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 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 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. 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. The officer struck the affected person again in the torso and another officer punched them in the head or upper body area. Following another CEW discharge 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 injuries.
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 person 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 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.