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).
- Province: ON×
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 area and entered into the 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. 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 tarp 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 tarp 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.
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 a area. The person who called 911 reported a disturbance involving the affected person. They wanted the affected person removed from their residence. The 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 officer. The affected person was placed in the backseat of the 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.
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 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 residence. A resident had called police to remove an intoxicated and unwelcome guest – the affected person – who was refusing to leave. Officers arrived on scene and took a belligerent affected person into custody to prevent a breach of the peace. They were placed in a cruiser and transported to the police detachment. The affected person remained confrontational at the detachment. At one point, after they had been stood facing a wall to be searched, the affected person turned and started to close their hand in the direction of one of the searching officers. The officer standing behind the affected person reacted by wrapping an arm around their neck, forcing them to the floor and delivering a punch in the direction of their upper body. The affected person, prone on the floor, did not readily release their arms at the officers’ direction and was met with several punches to the legs and torso by the officers. The officers wrestled control of their arms after the strikes and handcuffed them behind their back. The affected person was subsequently transported to hospital when they complained of facial pain. They were 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 morning of early 2026, members of the Emergency Response Team convened at a house situated in the area of Cornwall. Acting under the authority of a CDSA search warrant, the team entered the house to search for cocaine and fentanyl. The affected person was present at the time and alerted to the officers’ presence outside the home. They entered the main floor bathroom and attempted to conceal themselves behind a sink. They were quickly located by an officer and placed on the floor in a prone position. The subject officer, the team leader, had forced their way into the bathroom and located the affected person. Having positioned the affected person on the floor, the officer dropped their left knee intending to lower themselves by their side but inadvertently landed on the affected person’s back. The impact fractured the affected person’s left hand, which was underneath their chest at the time. The affected person was taken into custody and transported to the police station. They were seen at hospital later in the day and diagnosed with their injury.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
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, a subject officer 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 area and entered into the 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. 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. Two 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.
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 affected person 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 affected person stepped out. Asked to identify themselves, the affected person provided a false name and attempted to walk by the officers. The officers took hold of them and a struggle ensued. The affected person was forcibly taken to the floor and handcuffed behind the back. The affected person was transported to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a fractured left knee.
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 their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. In early 2026, two officers were dispatched to an address 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 they observed a male - the affected person - with a cut to the forehead. The affected person refused to cooperate as the officer sought to question them 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 they failed to do so, they were warned that they would be arrested for public mischief. Shortly after, the officers took hold of the affected person to take them into custody. The affected person refused to surrender their arms to be handcuffed and was grounded. On the floor, they resisted the officers' efforts to control their 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 them verbally to give up their arms, before the officers wrestled control of their arms behind the back and secured them in handcuffs. The affected person was transported to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a broken nose.
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 division's 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. 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 an 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 officer, and intervened. The 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 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 specific 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 initial 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.
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 address 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 device to warm themselves. The affected person was searched by the subject officer at the scene and again at a 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 on their person 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_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 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, in Stratford, the subject officer observed the affected person in a public 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 a fully marked cruiser. The affected person ran and the subject officer exited their vehicle, ran across the street, and tackled the affected person to the ground. The affected person was held down by the subject officer and the witness officer, who arrived on scene within seconds. 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 left side. With the assistance of additional officers, 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_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 specific 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 initial 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 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.
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 location 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.
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 affected person 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 affected person stepped out. Asked to identify themselves, the affected person provided a false name and attempted to walk by the officers. The officers took hold of them and a struggle ensued. The affected person was forcibly taken to the floor and handcuffed behind the back. The affected person 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 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, 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. Police officers were dispatched to an area in Toronto, in the early morning, after a call was made to police. The affected person was prohibited from communicating or being with another person as a condition of a release order. The subject officer arrived on scene with other officers. The affected person was located and asked to identify themselves. They refused to do so but entered the residence with the officers. The officers were able to ascertain the affected person's identity and moved to take them into custody. A struggle ensued and the affected person was forced to the floor by the subject officer and another officer, after which they were secured in handcuffs. The affected person was injured in the takedown and transported to hospital after their arrest and treated for their injury.
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_injury · 2026-Q1
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 chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of their notes. In early 2026, the affected person was driving in Brampton when a police cruiser started to follow their vehicle, attempting to pull them over. The affected person did not stop for the cruiser, turning into side streets and ultimately losing control of their vehicle due to icy road conditions, striking parked cars. The affected person exited their car and fled the scene on foot through backyards. An officer was on patrol when their ALPR registered a hit on the affected person's vehicle, indicating that the registered owner was a suspended driver. The officer briefly chased the affected person on foot and broadcast that they were subject to arrest for failing to remain at the scene of an accident. The affected person made their way home to the area, where the subject officer was waiting and grabbed hold of them, throwing them to the ground as they were attempting to enter the house. The officer kept the affected person pinned to the ground with their body weight for a period before being joined by another officer. The affected person struggled against the officers' efforts to control their arms and bit one of the officers. The subject officer kneed the affected person in the left ribs and pulled them onto their left side. The parties continued to wrestle for control of the affected person's arms, and the subject officer delivered another knee strike to the torso. With the arrival and intervention of additional officers, the affected person was handcuffed and taken into custody. The affected person was charged with multiple offences and released at the scene, subsequently attending hospital and being diagnosed with a fractured left rib.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with 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 the early afternoon of a day in early 2026, the subject officer was dispatched to a gas station following a call to police about a male kicking a door at the premises. The subject officer arrived on scene, parked their cruiser in the parking lot, and located the male – the affected person. They detained the affected person and subsequently arrested them on the strength of several outstanding warrants. The subject officer handcuffed the affected person behind the back and conducted a pat-down search by the side of the cruiser, confiscating several items, after which they placed them in the rear of their vehicle. Another officer arrived on scene and was to take custody of the affected person and transport them to the station. They and the subject officer approached the rear of the subject officer’s cruiser, opened the passenger door and observed that the affected person had brought their handcuffed hands to the front and their shoes were off. The officers removed the affected person and subjected them to a secondary search. On this occasion, they located substances in the inner pockets of the affected person’s coat. Following the search, en route to the station, the officer observed that something was in the affected person’s mouth. They said that they had consumed a substance, at which point the officer pulled over and called for an ambulance. While waiting for the ambulance, the officer pleaded with the affected person to spit out what was in their mouth. Other officers arrived on scene and did the same. The affected person said that they would rather die than go to police cells. Paramedics attended and transported the affected person to hospital. They were unresponsive with persistent bradycardia on arrival. They were monitored overnight and released into the custody of the authorities the following day.