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_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 affected person and another individual – at a nearby bus shelter. One suspect was taken into custody by an officer without incident. The affected person, however, resisted when an 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 officer’s efforts to bring their arms behind the back. The tussle eventually made its way outside the bus shelter where another officer intervened. The officers brought the affected person to the ground, after which they secured both their hands in handcuffs. Following their arrest, the affected person was taken to hospital and treated for a fractured right wrist.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and additional 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 or the release of their notes. In early 2026, police officers were dispatched to a location in response to a report of a person attempting to break into a residence. Two officers were the first on scene, arriving at about 3:10 a.m. They were joined shortly by a police dog handler, the subject officer, and their dog. Additional officers arrived on scene and set up a perimeter around the house as the subject officer deployed their dog to locate the suspect. It was not long before the dog led the subject officer to the rear yard and a crawl space underneath a deck. The affected person was hiding in the crawl space, which was cluttered with stored items. They failed to come out and give any indication of their presence despite repeated direction from the subject officer for them to do so. With the dog still attached to the lead, the subject officer released the dog into the crawl space. The dog’s first foray into the space was unsuccessful. The subject officer released the dog into the crawl space again. On this occasion, the dog located the affected person under some items and bit into their left arm. The affected person gave no reaction. The subject officer approached their dog and the affected person and released the dog’s hold, after which the affected person was taken into custody. The affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fracture and dog bites to the left arm.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
In the afternoon of early 2026, the subject officer observed the affected person in a Stratford area. 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 they reversed directions and ran. The subject officer had stopped their vehicle a short distance away and exited, running across the street and tackling the affected person to the ground. The affected person attempted to right themselves and was held down by the subject officer and the witness officer, who arrived on scene within seconds. There ensued a struggle during which the subject officer delivered several punches to the head and torso of the affected person, and a knee strike to their left side. With the assistance of additional officers arriving on scene, the affected person was handcuffed behind the back. Following their arrest, the affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a right orbital bone fracture.
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 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 early 2026, the subject officer, in the company of two witness officers, attended at an apartment in Oshawa. A neighbouring tenant had called 911 to report the sounds of a woman screaming coming from the apartment. Officers knocked on the door and asked the woman to open it. She tried but was unable to open the door. She could be heard moaning in distress and saying that she had been choked. One of the witness officers retrieved a ram from her cruiser and the subject officer used it to break open the door. The woman was by the doorway and pointed in the direction of a hallway. The affected person appeared in the hallway. He was at the apartment in violation of a bail order. One of the witness officers ordered the affected person to put his hands behind his back. The affected person refused to do so and instead walked towards the officer. The officer grabbed a hold of the affected person and attempted to wrestle control of his arms behind his back. The affected person refused to release his arms. There followed a struggle during which the affected person was forced to the hallway floor and subjected to multiple punches by the subject officer and the witness officers, and the use of a CEW, before he was handcuffed behind the back. The affected person was taken into custody and transported to hospital on two occasions before he was eventually diagnosed with a broken left rib.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected gives rise to the following scenario. In the evening of late 2025, police officers were dispatched to a location. The police had received a call about a disturbance involving the affected person and their partner. The subject officer arrived on scene and was joined by other officers. A crisis worker was also in attendance with the police. The subject officer was met by the affected person and allowed inside. The two made their way to the rear yard to talk. The other officers remained in the house to speak with the partner. Over the course of the next 45 minutes, the subject officer attempted to have the affected person explain what had happened. An intoxicated affected person engaged with the officer in fits and starts, unable to provide a coherent account of the events and occasionally adopting a belligerent posture. The officer told the affected person that they would not be allowed to stay at the location that night and would need to explore alternative accommodations. The affected person became increasingly frustrated, unable to secure themselves a place for the night. Near the end of their discourse, the affected person walked towards the rear door of the location. The subject officer grabbed a hold of them, told them they were under arrest for public intoxication, and attempted to pull them away from the location. The affected person resisted the officer by pulling in the opposite direction. There followed an altercation. The subject officer threw the affected person to the ground and positioned themselves overtop their supine torso. Another officer was by the affected person’s upper body. The affected person thrashed their legs about. The subject officer delivered a series of elbow strikes to the affected person’s face, after which their arms were controlled in front of their body and handcuffed. Following their arrest, the affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured shoulder.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and other witnesses (police and non-police), 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 or the release of their notes. In the evening of early 2026, police were dispatched to an apartment in the area of a city. The person who called 911 wanted the affected person removed from their residence. The subject officer arrived on scene with a witness officer shortly before 11:00 p.m., joined shortly by another witness officer. The person who called 911 met them outside the building and provided them a key to the apartment. A witness officer opened the door, stepped inside and was splashed with cooking oil from a bottle by the affected person. The affected person retreated into the kitchen area and was physically engaged by the officers. They were taken to the floor and handcuffed behind the back by the subject officer. The affected person was placed in the backseat of the subject officer's cruiser and transported to a police detention facility. En route, they slipped the handcuffs under their legs so that they were then positioned in front of their body. In statements made to police personnel at the station, they would explain that the pain in their left wrist was the result of this maneuver. The next day, the affected person was seen at a hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left wrist.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police and non-police eyewitnesses, 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 or the release of their notes. In the early morning, the affected person was at a nightclub. They were with friends to celebrate a birthday. They became involved in a disturbance with another group of patrons, and were escorted out of the premise by security staff. Unhappy with the manner in which security staff had treated them, one of the friends complained to officers who were outside the club policing the area. The subject officer was among the officers outside the nightclub. They and one of the friends had a brief verbal exchange before the affected person intervened and began to argue with the officer. The two were face to face and becoming more belligerent with each other. At one point, the subject officer told them to get out of the area or they would be arrested for public intoxication. Shortly after, one of the friends, standing beside the subject officer and the affected person, encroached on the officer’s personal space in an aggressive fashion. The officer grabbed hold of the friend and was subsequently confronted by the affected person, who stepped in to try to separate the two. The subject officer turned their attention to the affected person and the two subsequently punched at each other before the officer grabbed hold of them and other officers took hold of their arms. The officers attempted to take the affected person to the ground. The affected person struggled against their efforts and was met with several open-hand palm strikes to the abdomen and knees to the buttocks by another officer. Following those strikes, they were forced prone on the ground and handcuffed behind the back. The affected person was seen at hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a nasal fracture and a concussion.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. Two officers travelled to a residence in the area to arrest the affected person for criminal harassment. They had earlier spoken to a person, who reported that the affected person had stalked them and they were concerned for their safety, and the safety of their family. The affected person answered the officers’ knock on the door and was told they were to be arrested. They told the officers to get a warrant and closed the door, making their way to the basement. They called a family member, made remarks suggesting self-harm, and locked themselves in the bathroom where they proceeded to harm themselves. The officers were allowed into the residence by a witness, who expressed concern for the affected person’s safety. The officers went to the basement and started to speak to the affected person through the bathroom door. They told them they wanted to ensure their safety. The affected person said they were fine and taking a shower. The officers grew increasingly worried with the affected person’s wellbeing as their voice started to fade and attempted, unsuccessfully, to force open the door. Within minutes, additional officers arrived with a breach tool. The door was opened and officers entered. The affected person was inside the bathtub with injuries. Paramedics were called to the scene and transported them to hospital.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person, the subject officers, and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officers did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. Shortly before midnight, in early 2026, police were asked to assist in the search of a suspect who had fled the scene of an attempted break and enter in the Toronto area and entered into the Markham area with two accomplices in a vehicle. The vehicle had crashed in the area, after which two of the suspects were arrested. The third took flight on foot and remained at large. Police deployed officers to the area of the collision and established a perimeter. Police dog teams were brought in to assist in the search, as was a police drone. The subject officers were part of the police operations. They were paired with a dog handler, who conducted a track of the suspect across residential streets in the area and the rear yards of homes. At about 1:40 a.m., with the assistance of residents in the neighbourhood sharing their surveillance camera footage with the police, the subject officers and the dog handler located a male – the affected person – hiding underneath a covering in the rear yard of a residence in the area. They alerted other officers, who arrived at the location to assist in taking the affected person into custody. The dog handler loudly announced that officers were present and directed the affected person to surrender. Initially, there was no response from the affected person. The officer warned that they would deploy their dog if the affected person did not surrender, at which point the affected person indicated they would come out. Another brief period passed before the subject officers moved in and physically engaged the affected person. They removed them from under the covering and dragged them a distance away. The affected person was struck several times by the officers, including in the face, before they were handcuffed behind the back. Following their arrest, the affected person was seen at hospital and diagnosed with several facial fractures and a broken finger.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and the subject officer, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. In early 2026, the affected person was arrested by the subject officer and another officer inside a residence. The officers had gone to the location following a call to police about smoke coming from the residence. The affected person was unlawfully inside the abandoned home. They had stepped in seeking shelter from the cold outside, and had started a fire in a crock pot to warm themselves. The affected person was searched by the subject officer at the scene and again at a police detachment. Some drug paraphernalia was confiscated. Asked whether they had consumed illicit substances in the last 24 hours, the affected person said they had not. The affected person was lodged in a cell. Later, upon returning to their cell from a phone room where they had contacted a lawyer, the affected person retrieved fentanyl from vials secreted in their groin area and consumed a quantity of the drug. They began to suffer the effects of the drug and became unresponsive on the cell floor. The subject officer entered the cell within minutes of the affected person’s medical event and attempted to rouse them with a sternum rub. They placed the affected person in the recovery position, administered a couple of doses of nasal naloxone and contacted EMS. Paramedics arrived on scene and took charge of the affected person’s care. They were transported to hospital and treated for acute fentanyl overdose.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and both subject officers, gives rise to the following scenario. In the afternoon of early 2026, members of a divisional MCU were on the lookout for the affected person. They had information to believe that they had purchased a cellphone the day before with counterfeit money, and planned to arrest them for the offence. Operating unmarked vehicles and dressed in plainclothes, the officers located the affected person exiting an apartment building and tracked them to a grocery store, just around the corner from their residence in the area of a major street and another street. They took up positions on the street outside the grocery store intending to take the affected person into custody on their exit from the store. Unaware they were being followed, the affected person left the store with a box of diapers in hand and started walking in the direction of their residence. They were confronted by a subject officer. The officer physically engaged the affected person and the two went to the ground by a stand of bicycle racks. Other members of the MCU arrived quickly at the site of the arrest, including another subject officer, and intervened. The second subject officer kneed the affected person twice in the left torso. The affected person was handcuffed behind the back and transported to the police station. The affected person complained of pain in the left arm and was transported to hospital where X-rays proved inconclusive because of swelling in the area. They were told to return to the fracture clinic for a follow-up assessment. Later, the affected person was X-rayed again in hospital and diagnosed with a radial head fracture of the left elbow.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police witnesses and video footage that captured the incident, 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 early 2026, two officers were dispatched to a location in Toronto following a 911 call. The caller did not address the call-taker but utterances were heard in the background suggesting an ongoing and potentially violent disturbance involving a male and female. The officers entered the home despite objections from the woman who opened the door – the affected person. The affected person was placed under arrest by one of the officers after he observed a male – the affected person – with a cut to the forehead. The affected person refused to cooperate as the officer sought to question him about what had happened. Standing on a second floor landing, the affected person asked the officers to leave and then called 911 asking for additional officers. The officers told the affected person to disconnect the 911 call as they were the police. When he failed to do so, they warned that he would be arrested for public mischief. Shortly after, the officers took hold of the affected person to take him into custody. The affected person refused to surrender his arms to be handcuffed and was grounded. On the floor, he resisted the officers’ efforts to control his arms behind the back and was met with a punch to the face by one of the officers. Moments later, as the struggle continued, the officer delivered two punches to the affected person’s head in quick succession. It would take another five minutes, during which the other officer kicked the affected person once or twice in the legs and exhorted him verbally to give up his arms, before the officers wrestled control of his arms behind the back and secured them in handcuffs. The affected person was transported to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with a broken nose.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person 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 evening of early 2026, the affected person made their way to a bridge. Their intention was to jump from the bridge. They called 911 to advise emergency responders of their intention and provided them with their location. Two call-takers – one from a police service and another from the ambulance service – spoke to the affected person. They assured them they had done the right thing by calling them, asked them not to jump from the bridge, and told them help was on its way. The affected person stayed on the line for several minutes. At the very end, they told the police call-taker that they could hear and see responding police officers, and that they were going to jump. They proceeded to do just that. The subject officer was the first officer on scene. They stopped their cruiser in a parking lot by the side of the bridge, exited and was making their way to the affected person’s position when the affected person jumped from the bridge onto some snow-covered rocks below. The officer provided care and comfort to the affected person while they waited for paramedics. The affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with fractures of the feet and knee.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant and a subject officer, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, a subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. In the afternoon of early 2026, two subject officers were on-duty together assigned to a neighbourhood resource team, a proactive policing initiative by the service. The officers attended an apartment complex in the area to perform welfare checks, enforce conditions of release and execute outstanding arrest warrants. The complainant was identified as a person associated with the building who was subject to an arrest warrant on theft charges. The officers were just outside the elevator when it opened and the complainant stepped out. Asked to identify themselves, the complainant provided a false name and attempted to walk by the officers. The officers took hold of the complainant and a struggle ensued. The complainant was forcibly taken to the floor and handcuffed behind the back. The complainant was transported to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a fractured left knee.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person 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 evening of early 2026, the affected person made their way to a bridge. Their intention was to jump from the bridge. They called 911 to advise emergency responders of their intention and provided them with their location. Two call-takers – one from a police service and another from the ambulance service – spoke to the affected person. They assured them they had done the right thing by calling them, asked them not to jump from the bridge, and told them help was on its way. The affected person stayed on the line for several minutes. At the very end, they told the police call-taker that they could hear and see responding police officers, and that they were going to jump. They proceeded to do just that. The subject officer was the first officer on scene. They stopped their cruiser in a parking lot by the side of the bridge, exited and was making their way to the affected person’s position when the affected person jumped from the bridge onto some snow-covered rocks below. The officer provided care and comfort to the affected person while they waited for paramedics. The affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with fractures.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, 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 at a public square to protest against a demonstration by a certain movement. The demonstrators had made their way to the public square from another location, where they had initially gathered. The affected person, with a group of other people, had also been at the other location attempting to disrupt the demonstration. Police officers had been assigned to police the demonstration and counter-protest. They were to preserve the peace and attempt to keep the rival factions separated. At the public square, officers used their bicycles to erect a perimeter between the demonstrators, at the centre of the square, and the counter-protesters, on its periphery. The affected person was in the area of the northeast corner of the square when they and others were asked to leave the square. The affected person began to slowly walk away but stopped to object to the treatment of a woman, who was being physically escorted by police. The subject officer ordered them to leave or they would be arrested for obstructing police. The officer then pushed the affected person by the arms towards the roadway that bordered the square. The affected person told the officer that they did not have to touch them and turned to face the officer. The officer reacted by turning them around and pushing them in the back towards the roadway. The affected person stumbled forward and fell onto the sidewalk, fracturing their hip in the process. The affected person was transported by paramedics to hospital and treated for their injury.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant and a subject officer, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, one of the subject officers did not agree to an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. In the afternoon of early 2026, two subject officers were on-duty together assigned to a neighbourhood resource team, a proactive policing initiative by the service. The officers attended an apartment complex in the area to perform welfare checks, enforce conditions of release and execute outstanding arrest warrants. The complainant was identified as a person associated with the building who was subject to an arrest warrant on theft charges. The officers were just outside the elevator when it opened and the complainant stepped out. Asked to identify themselves, the complainant provided a false name and attempted to walk by the officers. The officers took hold of the complainant and a struggle ensued. The complainant was forcibly taken to the floor and handcuffed behind the back. The complainant was transported to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a fractured left knee.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
In the evening of early 2026, the affected person was with their partner, an off-duty officer, in Toronto when the two quarreled and the affected person left the area. They made their way to a bridge over a river and called the officer using a passerby’s cellphone, stating they were going to commit suicide. The officer called police to report that the affected person was in mental health crisis and threatening to harm themselves. The officer would subsequently learn that the affected person was in the area of the bridge. Two subject officers drove to the location and approached the bridge. As they exited their vehicle, the affected person jumped from the bridge and landed on the frozen river below. The officers made their way to the riverbank and walked onto the river to render aid to the affected person. Firefighters attended the scene and assisted in their removal. The affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with serious injuries.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and other witnesses (police and non-police), 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 or the release of their notes. In the evening of early 2026, police were dispatched to an apartment in the area of a city. The person who called 911 reported a disturbance involving the affected person. They wanted the affected person removed from their residence. The subject officer arrived on scene with another officer shortly before 11:00 p.m., joined shortly by a third officer. The person who called 911 met them outside the building and provided them a key to the apartment. One of the officers opened the door, stepped inside and was splashed with cooking oil from a bottle by the affected person. The affected person retreated into the kitchen area and was physically engaged by the officers. They were taken to the floor and handcuffed behind the back by the subject officer. The affected person was placed in the backseat of the subject officer's cruiser and transported to a police detention facility. En route, they slipped the handcuffs under their legs so that they were then positioned in front of their body. In statements made to police personnel at the station, they would explain that the pain in their left wrist was the result of this maneuver. The next day, the affected person was seen at a hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left wrist.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant, the subject officers, and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officers did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. Shortly before midnight, in early 2026, a police service was asked by another police service to assist in the search of a suspect who had fled the scene of an attempted break and enter in a city and entered into a region with two accomplices in a vehicle. The vehicle had crashed on a street in the area, after which two of the suspects were arrested. The third took flight on foot and remained at large. The police service deployed officers to the area of the collision and established a perimeter. Police dog teams were brought in to assist in the search, as was a police drone. The subject officers were part of the police operations. They were paired with a dog handler, who conducted a track of the suspect across residential streets in the area and the rear yards of homes. At about 1:40 a.m., with the assistance of residents in the neighbourhood sharing their surveillance camera footage with the police, the subject officers and the dog handler located a male – the complainant – hiding underneath a covering in the rear yard of a residence in the area. They alerted other officers, who arrived at the location to assist in taking the complainant into custody. The dog handler loudly announced that officers were present and directed the complainant to surrender. Initially, there was no response from the complainant. The officer warned that they would deploy their dog if the complainant did not surrender, at which point the complainant indicated they would come out. Another brief period passed before the subject officers moved in and physically engaged the complainant. They removed them from under the covering and dragged them a distance away. The complainant was struck several times by the officers, including in the face, before they were handcuffed behind the back. Following their arrest, the complainant was seen at hospital and diagnosed with several facial fractures and a broken finger.