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
In the late afternoon of early 2026, police officers were alerted to a recent theft from a liquor store at a shopping centre. The suspect had fled the store and entered a nearby retail store where a security guard stopped him. The suspect dropped a backpack containing stolen items and fled further into the store as the officers arrived. They chased the suspect, grounded and handcuffed him behind the back. An officer arrived shortly after the arrest to assist and was checking the backpack's items when they were approached by a person. This person picked up an item that had fallen from the backpack, claiming it belonged to them. The officer replied that it was not theirs, stood up, and removed the item from the person's hand. The person swiped the officer's hand away, and then swiped it away again as the officer reached out to grab them. The officer moved towards the person, grabbed them by the upper body, and used their leg to sweep the person's legs out from under them. The person fell onto their back and immediately favoured their right knee. They were handcuffed behind the back and taken into custody. The person was seen at hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a fractured right knee.
siu_code:tcd · 2025-Q4
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. The subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes, as was their legal right. In the early afternoon of Q4 2025, Toronto Police Service (TPS) officers were called to a hotel located in the Yonge Street area of Toronto. Hotel staff had contacted police to seek the removal of a guest — the complainant. The complainant had caused a commotion in the lobby and accused hotel employees of being associated with persons seeking her death. The complainant was of unsound mind at the time of her interaction with the officers. Since checking into the hotel a few days earlier, the complainant had frequently attended the front desk to complain about persons wanting her dead. She had returned to her room by the time of the officers' arrival. A group of TPS officers arrived on scene and, accompanied by the hotel manager, took the elevator to the 18th floor and attended at the complainant's room. Among them was the subject officer. The subject officer knocked on the door and asked for the complainant. The complainant indicated she had not called police and refused to open the door. The subject officer indicated that the officers would open the door if she did not let them in. The complainant did not respond. A female officer interjected and attempted to speak with the complainant, assuring her she was not in trouble and that they simply wanted to talk. Still, there was no response. Officers attempted to open the door, including with a master card key, but were unsuccessful as it had been double-locked from the inside. A TPS Mobile Crisis Intervention Team (MCIT) arrived on scene and also tried to have the complainant open the door. On learning from hotel staff that the complainant's room had a Juliet balcony from which the complainant could jump, a witness officer entered an adjacent room and onto its balcony. From that vantage point, the officer observed that the door to the Juliet balcony was open. Looking down, the officer observed the complainant lying on the roof of the third floor and immediately radioed for paramedics. The roof was accessed by Toronto Fire Service. The complainant was pronounced deceased shortly thereafter. At autopsy, the pathologist was of the preliminary view that the complainant's death was attributable to multiple blunt force trauma.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police eyewitnesses, and 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 or the release of his notes. In early 2026, police officers were on the lookout for a vehicle following a call to police from a woman. The woman had called to report that a family member – the affected person – had left their residence in the vehicle. They were of unsound mind and experiencing suicidal ideation. An officer located the vehicle and attempted to pull it over. The affected person refused to stop and picked up their speed. Two other officers, driving separate cruisers, joined the first officer. The three of them decided to attempt a rolling block of the vehicle. At about 12:40 a.m., the officers positioned their cruisers around the vehicle and brought it to a stop. The officers exited their cruisers and attempted to engage with the affected person. The affected person had a knife that they occasionally held at their neck and abdomen. The officers realized that the affected person was only a risk to themselves, and put their firearms away. They were upset and asked the officers to kill them. They talked of being infected with spores and fungi. As time went by, the affected person became less responsive to the officers’ overtures. A team of tactical officers arrived on scene and surrounded the vehicle. Among their ranks was a trained negotiator who also attempted to bring the standoff to a peaceful resolution. The affected person could not be persuaded to let go of the knife and exit the vehicle. A plan was agreed that the tactical officers would storm the vehicle to take the affected person into custody when and if they placed the knife away from their person. At a later time, the subject officer gave the signal to move in after the affected person had put the knife on the front passenger seat. Tactical officers smashed the front door windows and discharged CEWs at the affected person and OC spray into the vehicle. The affected person retrieved the knife and suffered a stab wound to the abdomen. The officers took possession of the knife and removed the affected person from the vehicle. The affected person was transported to hospital by paramedics and treated for a laceration to their abdomen.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and other witnesses (police and non-police), gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer chose not to interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. Shortly before noon, in early 2026, police officers responded to a call in Sudbury. A 911 call had been received suggesting a potentially violent disturbance inside a vehicle. The caller did not communicate directly with the call-taker but the police were able to use her cell phone to approximate a location from where she was calling. An officer found the vehicle in the area and spoke to two individuals and determined that there were grounds to believe that one of them had been assaulted by the affected person. Fearing imminent arrest, the affected person, inside the rear of the vehicle, exited and fled the scene. They ran a short distance and entered into the rear, enclosed deck of a house in the area, where they sought to conceal themselves in a crawl space under a staircase. A police dog handler – the subject officer – and their dog arrived at the site of the vehicle from which the affected person had fled. Joined by other officers, the subject officer and their dog initiated a track of the affected person. They were not hard to find. The officers followed a set of footprints in the snow to the house, spoke to one of the homeowners briefly, and entered the rear deck. The affected person was quickly located inside a crawl space. The subject officer released their police dog. The dog approached the affected person and bit their right hand. With the dog still latched onto their hand, the affected person was removed from the crawl space and positioned on the floor in a prone position. They were handcuffed behind the back and the dog separated from their right hand. The affected person was transported to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a fracture of the small finger on the right hand.
custody_transport_injury · 2025-Q4
Just after midnight in late December 2025, Toronto Police Service (TPS) officers were called to the scene of a reported hit and run in a residential area of the city. A woman on the roadway had been struck by a vehicle — a Ford Edge — that had left and then returned to the scene. Firefighters were the first to arrive, followed shortly by the subject officer and their partner, a witness officer. A crowd of persons had gathered around the injured woman, including family members. The officers ordered the crowd back so the firefighters could render care. Within seconds of the officers' arrival, a family member of the injured woman approached the Ford Edge, parked nearby at the curb. They tried to open the door of the vehicle and were pushed away by the witness officer. The subject officer arrived at the driver's door of the Ford Edge, opened it, and took hold of the driver — the complainant. The subject officer detected the smell of alcohol emanating from the complainant. The officer repeatedly told the complainant to exit the vehicle and then forcibly removed them from their seat when they did not comply. The subject officer and witness officer escorted the complainant to the rear of the Ford Edge, where the subject officer grounded the complainant front first. The complainant was subsequently handcuffed behind the back and placed in the backseat of a police cruiser. The complainant was transported to hospital following their arrest and diagnosed with a broken nose.
custody_transport_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant and police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer (SO) did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the evening in early November 2025, two witness officers (WO #1 and WO #2) were dispatched to a residence in the area of Ellesmere Road and Meadowvale Road, Toronto, in connection with a reported disturbance. The complainant had been quarrelling with another person and the argument had turned physical. The complainant was belligerent with the officers and refused to be assessed by attending paramedics. At one point, while outside in front of the ambulance, the complainant swatted WO #1's hands. The officer reacted by pushing the complainant backward towards the ambulance and through the open side door. The two tussled briefly before WO #1 delivered a series of punches to the complainant's head area. Shortly after, the complainant was handcuffed and subsequently brought to 43 Division and lodged in a cell. Early the following day, a special constable (SEW #1) attended the cell to retrieve the complainant to speak with duty counsel. The complainant refused to exit the cell and then prevented the special constable from closing the cell door by continually positioning a leg to block its closure. Additional officers attended and, following a struggle, removed the complainant from the cell in order to place them in another cell. The second cell had a "D" ring that could be used to further restrain the complainant while in the cell. The complainant refused to cooperate with the relocation and was dragged from the first cell to the second cell and forced inside. Just inside the second cell, the complainant grabbed hold of the SO's left leg. The officer reacted by punching the complainant six times to the head, after which the complainant let go of the leg. Additional officers entered the cell and assisted in handcuffing the complainant to the "D" ring. The complainant was transported to hospital later that same day. Their left eye was swollen and their nose had started bleeding. They were diagnosed with a fracture of the left orbital bone.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person, the subject officer and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident in part, 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 and the crisis worker 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 that preceded the officers’ arrival and occasionally adopting a belligerent posture with the subject officer. 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.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant and a police eyewitness, 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 afternoon of late 2025, the subject officer, operating a police cruiser with a witness officer as their passenger, stopped a vehicle in a rural area. The complainant was driving the vehicle. Police officers had been on the lookout for the complainant after they expressed suicidal ideations when they came to learn, earlier that day, that they were the subject of a sexual assault investigation. As the officers exited the cruiser to make their way to the vehicle, the complainant accessed a knife and used it to inflict a serious laceration across the left side of their neck. The subject officer and the witness officer observed the wound, contacted paramedics, and attempted to apply first aid. When the complainant tried to prevent the officers from helping them, they were handcuffed to allow the subject officer and the witness officer to provide emergency care. The complainant was transported to hospital and treated for a serious neck wound.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2025-Q4
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 chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of their notes. In early 2025, police officers, including the subject officer, attended at a campsite in a provincial park. A park warden had contacted police for their assistance. A short period prior, the park warden, at the campsite in connection with a noise complaint, had witnessed one of the campers - the affected person - slap the park warden in the face. The subject officer and another officer took custody of the affected person and handcuffed them behind the back without incident. The affected person was searched and placed in the rear of the subject officer's cruiser for transportation to a detachment. At the detachment, the affected person was lodged in a cell and held there until their release from custody later that morning. The affected person returned to the park to meet with the park warden in violation of a no-contact condition of their release from custody. They subsequently attended hospital that same day and were diagnosed with two broken ribs.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the subject officer and another police eyewitness, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. In the evening of late 2025, police officers, including the subject officer, were dispatched to a location in a town. A resident of the multi-unit location had contacted police to report concern with the wellbeing of a male – the affected person – causing a disturbance at the property. He had been talking to himself and threatening to kill someone. The subject officer arrived on scene, joined by two other officers. The officers attended at a unit of the building and arrested the affected person on a warrant in effect for their arrest for breach of a probation order. They were handcuffed behind the back, escorted outside and searched by the officers. A number of items were seized. The affected person was subsequently placed in the backseat of a police cruiser and read their rights by an officer. An officer exited the cruiser, leaving the affected person alone. The officers returned to the unit to search the residence for firearms. Left alone in the cruiser, the affected person slipped their handcuffed arms below their legs and repositioned them to the front. They subsequently reached towards the crotch area of their pants, retrieved a bag and ingested a substance it contained. Shortly after the affected person’s consumption of the substance, the subject officer began to monitor them from outside the cruiser. The affected person brought their hands up to their mouth area on several occasions. Having concluded the search of the unit, an officer returned to the cruiser and checked on the affected person in the rear. The affected person was shaking and pale. Noting that the handcuffs were now to the front, and suspecting a drug overdose, the officer requested EMS. The affected person was removed from the cruiser, administered two doses of Narcan and placed in the recovery position pending the arrival of paramedics. EMS arrived and the affected person was taken to hospital and treated for drug overdose.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and the subject officer, and other police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. In the early morning of November 2025, an officer, on patrol in a marked vehicle, came across a pick-up truck stopped for a red light in Oakville. When the light turned green, the pick-up did not move. The officer exited their cruiser to check the driver and noticed them asleep with their head slumped forward. After banging on the window for a period, the officer was able to rouse the driver and directed them to pull over on the other side of the intersection. The driver was the affected person. With them in the front passenger seat was a female. The affected person proceeded south through the intersection, put on their four-way flashers as if they were going to stop, and then accelerated away. The officer radioed what had happened and began to pursue the truck. Other officers heard the transmissions and headed in the area of the pursuit to assist. The pursuit continued at speed for about 12 minutes. The affected person disregarded multiple red lights, as did police officers. A spike belt was deployed in front of the pick-up truck at one point, causing damage to the truck’s front driver side tire. As the pursuit turned onto eastbound Lakeshore Road West, the vehicles closest to the affected person’s truck decided to perform a rolling block. The affected person brought the truck to an abrupt stop. The officers stopped their cruisers and the subject officer exited their vehicle and approached the front of another officer's cruiser, pointing their semi-automatic pistol at the affected person in the driver’s seat of the truck. The officer was joined by other officers, who each fired their CEWs at the affected person through the open driver’s door window. Orders were shouted at the affected person to exit the vehicle. The subject officer holstered their gun and took out their OC canister, which they sprayed at the affected person. Shortly after, the subject officer climbed on top of the hood of another officer's cruiser, grabbed a hold of the affected person’s leg, which had appeared through the driver’s window, and, with other officers' help, pulled the affected person out of the truck onto the hood. The affected person had their arms together by their chest and was on their right side on top of the hood when the subject officer punched them three times to the upper torso / head area. The affected person was pulled off the hood onto the ground. There were now about six officers surrounding the affected person. Among them, the subject officer punched in the direction of the affected person’s torso and another officer dropped their knee onto the upper body and head area. The subject officer then stood up and kicked at the affected person’s right hip area. Shortly after, the affected person was handcuffed, stood up and lodged in the backseat of one of the cruisers. The affected person was transported to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with multiple facial fractures.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2025-Q4
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, 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 morning of late 2025, the police received a call from hospital security reporting that a patient who had been discharged and escorted out of the hospital – the affected person – was in the parking lot, refusing to leave. The subject officer and another officer of the Emergency Response Team were dispatched. Upon arrival, the officers spoke with security and confirmed the information provided in the call. Security advised that the affected person had been discharged and provided with medication but refused to leave the hospital. They had to physically escort them out of the building; however, they still would not leave the property and wanted to return to the hospital. They were trespassed. Hospital staff did not want them back inside and wanted them removed. The briefing did not include information indicating that the affected person had a particular medical condition. The subject officer approached the affected person and informed them that they were required to leave the premises. The affected person stated that they wanted to return to the hospital because they were in pain. They were advised that they could seek care at another hospital, that they had been trespassed from this one, and that they must either leave or be arrested and removed from the premises. During the conversation, the affected person moved away from the vehicle where they had been standing and proceeded in the direction of the hospital doors. As they walked past, the subject officer asked where they were going and took hold of their arm. As the subject officer began to turn them around, an audible cracking sound was heard and the arm appeared to rotate in an abnormal manner consistent with having snapped. The affected person was permitted to re-enter the hospital so that their injury could be addressed. They were diagnosed with, and subsequently treated for, a comminuted and displaced fracture of the left distal humerus.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person, the subject officer and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. In the afternoon of late 2025, the subject officer and their partner were on the lookout for the affected person. The affected person was wanted for a number of break and enters, and subject to an outstanding arrest warrant. The officers located the affected person at a gas station in a rural area. The affected person was pumping gas into a vehicle. The officers pulled up in their unmarked vehicle, such that their vehicle was adjacent to the affected person's vehicle, and exited their vehicle. The subject officer approached the affected person and advised them they were under arrest. The affected person walked around the front of their vehicle away from the subject officer and towards the driver’s door. They confronted the partner officer beside the door and pushed them out of the way, attempting to enter the vehicle. The partner officer pushed back against the driver’s door to prevent it opening. The subject officer moved to assist the partner officer. There followed a protracted struggle in the course of which the subject officer used force against the affected person multiple times. With the assistance of three civilians on scene, the officers overcame the affected person’s resistance and handcuffed them behind the back. The affected person was transported to hospital where diagnostic imaging was unable to rule out undisplaced fractures to the ribs.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person, a subject officer 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, an officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the evening of late 2025, police officers, including two subject officers, attended an apartment in a city. The resident – the affected person – had contacted police to report that an inebriated person was in her apartment and she wanted them removed. The officers entered the apartment and approached the person in the living room. They were seated on a sofa and speaking on the phone with a police call-taker. After a period, the person ended their conversation on the phone, stood up from the sofa and walked a short distance towards the door. Just before the door, the officers took hold of their arms. The person attempted to free their arms and the officers maintained their grip. Other officers intervened and the person fell forward to the floor, striking their head off the edge of a wall in the process. Officers fell with the person and landed on top of them. They were handcuffed in quick order and taken into custody. Following their arrest, the person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a reduced level of consciousness and a scalp laceration with emphysema and subgaleal hematoma.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person's police custodians, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officials did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the afternoon of late 2025, the affected person was arrested in connection with a stolen automobile. They were searched at the scene and transported to the police headquarters where they were lodged in a cell at about 5:45 p.m. They told police that they had consumed heroin a couple of hours before their arrest and explained they would become sick in their cell once the effects of the drug wore off. The affected person was monitored by special constables while in cells. They appeared to sleep for most of their time in custody. At about 7:40 a.m., the affected person had just woken when they started to vomit. They were removed from the cell and transported to hospital. The affected person was taken to hospital and treated for opioid withdrawal.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the events in question, 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 December 2025, acting on the authority of a Form 2 issued under the Mental Health Act, officers attended an apartment in London. The form, authorizing police to compel the affected person’s attendance at hospital for a psychiatric examination, had been obtained. Concerns had been raised for the affected person’s well-being. Arriving at the apartment door, officers attempted to have the affected person exit the apartment. They explained who they were and why they were there. The affected person adamantly refused to leave the apartment. Behind a barricaded front door, the affected person variously threatened police that they would jump from the balcony and harm them or themselves if they entered the residence. Officers, including a member of the service’s crisis team, continued to negotiate with the affected person attempting to dissuade them from harming themselves or others. They assured them that they would not face criminal charges, and that they would simply be escorting them to hospital. The affected person remained unreceptive. With information that the affected person might jump from the balcony and was repeatedly threatening their life and those of the officers, the service deployed the emergency response unit to the scene. The plan was to have officers rappel from the roof to the affected person’s balcony, preventing them from using it to jump from the building. Officers arrived and were harnessed and ready to descend from the rooftop. As the officers were reaching the balcony railing, they were confronted by the affected person. With an aluminum baseball bat in hand, the affected person began to swing at the officers as they were still hanging from their rappel lines, striking one of them. An officer managed to land on the balcony and immediately became engaged in a struggle with the affected person. The two punched at each other, and the affected person fell to the ground. An officer deployed their CEW and another officer delivered a single punch to the face of the affected person as they lay on the ground. Following the strike, the affected person’s hands were handcuffed. The affected person was taken to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with multiple facial fractures.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized. In the morning of early 2025, police officers, including two subject officers, were dispatched to an area in Hamilton, following a call to police about a violent incident. The affected person, in violation of a no-contact order, had visited the person they were ordered not to contact and struck them in the face. The affected person and the person they struck had left by the time of the officers’ arrival. The officers interviewed witnesses and determined there were grounds to arrest the affected person for assault. The affected person and the person they struck had traveled to the affected person’s residence and were there when the officers arrived on scene. The officers heard a female screaming from inside and alerted the other officers. Led by one of the subject officers, the officers knocked on the door and directed the affected person to come out. The affected person refused to allow them entry, asserting it was their home and they needed a warrant. The officers explained that they had exigent circumstances and demanded that they open the door or they would force their way inside. When the affected person continued to refuse, one of the subject officers used a baton to smash the door’s glass window. Shortly after the window was broken, the affected person opened the door. The officers quickly grabbed the affected person and pulled them forward. The affected person stepped from the floor to ground level, landing awkwardly on their foot and fracturing it in the process. They were placed in a prone position on the ground and handcuffed without incident. The affected person was transported to hospital after their arrest and treated for their foot fractures.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
In the afternoon of late 2025, the affected person attended a Canada Post outlet in a store to pick up a key to a home. They were told by staff that they could not be helped because they did not have the proper documentation. The affected person became belligerent and slammed their phone on the counter. Police were called to the scene. The first officer to arrive was joined shortly by another officer. This was the officers' second time at the outlet dealing with the affected person. Earlier that afternoon, they had attended to deal with the affected person, who had been refused service because of their behaviour and deficient paperwork. The affected person had left the store on that occasion. On the present occasion, the first officer to arrive told the affected person to leave the store or they would be arrested, and then grabbed them to forcibly remove them from the store when they refused to exit of their own accord. The affected person physically resisted the officer's efforts to push them out and the two tussled briefly. The other officer grabbed the affected person and threw them to the floor, after which they were handcuffed behind the back. The affected person suffered an injury in the takedown. They were taken from the scene to hospital by paramedics.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
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, neither subject officer agreed to interviews with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. Shortly before midnight, in late 2025, a team of police officers, including two subject officers, were dispatched to a residence in Oakville, the home of the affected person. They arrived intending to arrest the affected person under the Mental Health Act following a number of calls to police in which they were reported to have attacked motorists, brandishing a knife in one instance. The affected person refused to surrender to police. Over the course of the next couple of hours, they would exit and re-enter their home through the front door, challenging the officers gathered by the road outside their house. They told them they would have to engage them physically to take them into custody. At about 2:20 a.m., as the affected person was a short distance away from their front door gesticulating at the officers on the roadway, the two subject officers, in the company of two witness officers, approached them from behind. One of the subject officers attempted to distract the affected person, who reacted by turning to run towards the front porch and door. The subject officers and the witness officers discharged their CEWs and also attempted to distract the affected person as they made it onto the front porch but no further. One of the subject officers cut them off before they could re-enter the house, using their arm to tackle them against the wall adjacent the front door. Following additional CEW discharges, the affected person’s arms were handcuffed behind their back. The affected person was seen at hospital after their arrest and treated for a deep laceration to the scalp.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and the subject officer, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. In the late afternoon of a day in late 2025, police officers were dispatched to an address in Hamilton, following a call to police about domestic abuse. A person reported that the affected person had threatened them earlier in the day and attended at their apartment where they caused a domestic disturbance. The subject officer, in the company of another officer, arrived at the address. They were aware that there were warrants in effect for the affected person's arrest on firearm-related charges. A friend of the person's spoke with the officers and indicated that the affected person was possibly at the rear of the residence. The subject officer walked to the side of the house and located the affected person sitting in a chair. They directed the affected person not to move, told them to stand up and then grabbed their arm, lifting them from the chair. The affected person immediately began to resist the officer. The two exchanged punches to the head before falling to the ground where the struggle continued. The subject officer yelled out for the other officer's help, and they appeared quickly and joined in the struggle. The affected person flailed their legs and refused to release their arms to be handcuffed. The subject officer and the other officer punched the affected person multiple times but could not sufficiently subdue them to take control of their arms behind the back. Another officer arrived on scene about two minutes after the altercation started and assisted in eventually handcuffing the affected person. The affected person was transported to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a broken nose and a fractured orbital bone.