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 evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and three 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. One of the subject officers did authorize the release of their notes. In the afternoon of late 2025, the affected person was arrested for drug trafficking following a traffic stop by police officers. A warrant authorizing a search of the affected person’s residence for evidence of drug trafficking was in effect at the time. An officer searched the affected person at the scene and confiscated a quantity of drugs from their clothes. The affected person was transported to the police station and subjected to another search of their clothing, this time with negative results. They were lodged in a cell and began to vomit. Paramedics arrived at the station and the affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with opioid withdrawal.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person 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 did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the evening of late 2025, the affected person was on their way home from work travelling in Brampton. They had just taken the on-ramp to a highway when they were pulled over by a RIDE program set up on the ramp. The affected person was approached by an officer who asked them to pull ahead for further questioning. Another officer approached and asked the affected person to continue forward and stop their vehicle on the ramp shoulder in front of a police vehicle. They did so. The officer asked the affected person to step out of their vehicle and escorted them to the back of the vehicle. They were joined at this time by the subject officer. The affected person was angry about being pulled over. They would not allow the officer to fully read them a breath test demand and insisted the officer simply administer the test. The officer explained that they needed to read the demand in full and ensure they understood it. They told the affected person that refusing to take the test would constitute a criminal offence. The subject officer tried to calm the affected person but to no avail. When the affected person began to walk to the driver’s door of their vehicle, the officer grabbed and pushed them back towards the rear of the vehicle and a snow-covered area past the ramp shoulder. The affected person fell backwards over the ramp curb. They attempted to stand back up but were forced to the ground by the subject officer. There followed a struggle between the affected person and several police officers. The affected person was eventually handcuffed and placed in the rear seat of a police cruiser. The affected person attended hospital the next day and was diagnosed with a concussion.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
In early 2025, police were called to a residence in Brantford due to a reported disturbance. The subject officer and another officer attended the scene and knocked on the door. The disturbance involved the affected person and another individual. The affected person was subject to an order preventing contact with this individual. Upon realizing police were outside, the affected person attempted to escape by climbing through a window onto the roof of an adjoining structure and then descending an exterior staircase. Other officers, who had also responded to the call, observed the affected person on the roof and waited at the bottom of the staircase. When the affected person jumped over the railing and fell to the ground, the officers approached to take them into custody. The affected person complained of pain and was taken to hospital, where they were diagnosed with an injury.
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 afternoon of early 2025, the subject officer was off-duty and attending an appointment at a business, located in a strip mall in Thunder Bay. While there, they observed a man – the affected person applying orange spray paint to the front door of the business. They alerted the owner, who ran after the affected person, and the subject officer followed. As the affected person fled along the sidewalk towards the street, they lost their footing and fell forward onto the sidewalk, striking their face. The owner and the subject officer reached them within moments where they had fallen. The owner attempted to secure the affected person’s legs, during which the affected person kicked at them. The subject officer reached towards the affected person’s upper body as they attempted to gain control of them, the affected person continued to kick. The subject officer positioned the affected person onto their right side, and as they applied physical control, including the use of their bodyweight, the affected person came to rest in a prone position. The subject officer maintained control over the affected person’s upper back. The subject officer and the owner then brought the affected person’s hands behind them and continued to restrain them until police arrived. Several bystanders had gathered, and one contacted police. A police officer responded, arrested the affected person for mischief, assisted them to their feet, and transported them to the police station. The following day, the affected person attended hospital and was diagnosed with bilateral nasal bone fractures of indeterminate age.