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_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 northward towards the roadway that bordered the square to the north. 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 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 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.
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
In the afternoon, a person was apprehended by the subject officer under the Mental Health Act. Police had been called to a location in Ottawa about a male behaving strangely. The officer arrived to find the person crying uncontrollably and muttering to himself, making references to wanting to harm himself. The officer took the person into custody without incident. At a hospital, the person became increasingly agitated and tried to leave. After being warned, the person was grabbed by the officers and struggled against their efforts, resulting in a fall and an injury. The person was subsequently restrained.
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 officers 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 the witness officer were dispatched to a convenience store in the area of a major road and avenue. 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 persons – at a nearby bus shelter. One of the affected persons was taken into custody by the witness officer without incident. The other affected person, however, resisted when the subject officer attempted to secure them in handcuffs. The officer was able to affix a cuff to one hand but had difficulty attaching the other cuff. The affected person objected to their arrest, denied that they had done anything wrong, and struggled against the subject officer's efforts to bring their arms behind their back. The struggle eventually made its way outside the bus shelter where the witness officer intervened. The officers brought the affected person to the ground, after which the witness officer secured both their hands in handcuffs. Following their arrest, the affected person was taken to hospital and treated for an injury.
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 subject officers travelled to a residence in a certain area to arrest the affected person for criminal harassment. They had earlier spoken to a woman, who reported that the affected person had stalked her and she was concerned for her safety, and the safety of her 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 subject 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.
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 device 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. About 30 minutes after 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_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 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 location 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. They spoke to two individuals and determined that there were grounds to believe that one of them had been assaulted by the affected person. Fearing their 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 in the area, 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 their right hand.
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 – a person and the affected person – at a nearby bus shelter. One person 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 an officer 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 residence in a neighborhood. The homeowners had contacted police to report a person attempting to break into their residence. Two officers were the first on scene, arriving at about the same time. 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 hiding spot, where the affected person was found hiding. 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 hiding spot. The dog’s first attempt was unsuccessful. The subject officer released the dog into the hiding spot 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 of the left elbow 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 the area of a street in Stratford. Aware that the affected person was subject to a warrant for their arrest, the officer contacted uniformed personnel to respond to the area to take the affected person into custody. A witness officer arrived in the area in a fully marked cruiser. The officer pulled up to the affected person as they walked and watched as the affected person reversed directions and ran. The subject officer stopped their vehicle, exited, and tackled 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. 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.
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 evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person 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 other 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 officers retrieved a ram 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 court order. One of the 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 floor and subjected to multiple punches by the officers, and the use of a CEW, before he was handcuffed behind his back. The affected person was taken into custody and transported to hospital on two occasions before he was eventually diagnosed with a broken rib.
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 their head as 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 a couple of 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 material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may be briefly summarized. In the evening of early 2026, the affected person was with her boyfriend, an off-duty officer, on a street in Toronto when the two quarreled and she left the area telling him that she was going to jump. She made her way to a bridge over a river and called the officer using a passerby’s cellphone. She told him she was going to commit suicide and that it would be his fault. The officer called police to report that the affected person was in mental health crisis and threatening to harm herself. He would subsequently learn from a third-party whose phone the affected person had used to call him that she was in the area of the bridge and a roadway. The subject officer drove in that direction, travelling eastward across the bridge. With him was another officer. The subject officer approached the eastern side of the bridge, brought his vehicle to a stop and exited with the other officer. They were just out of their cruiser when the affected person scaled the bridge guardrail north of their location and jumped down the other side. She landed on the frozen river below, a distance of about eight metres. The two 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 her removal. She was transported to hospital and diagnosed with fractures of the pelvis and spine, and injuries to her lungs and kidney.
custody_death · 2018-Q4
A coroner's inquest was held into the death of a person who died at a detention centre in Ontario from acute toxic effects of fentanyl and cocaine, with means undetermined. The jury returned a verdict and issued recommendations to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the detention centre regarding custody record management, compatibility assessments, surveillance, and staff training on substance use and mental health.
custody_death · 2018-Q4
An inquest was held in a city in early 2023 into the death of an individual who died at a hospital. Cause of death was heavy blunt impact to the head; means were determined to be accident. The jury made no recommendations.
custody_death · 2018-Q4
A person died from acute toxic effects of fentanyl and cocaine while in custody. The coroner's inquest made recommendations to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the detention centre to improve safety and prevent similar deaths.