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).
injury · 2013-Q3
The Independent Investigations Office (IIO) of British Columbia investigated an incident in which an adult male sustained serious injuries after being shot in the hand with a rubber bullet by a member of the Emergency Response Team (ERT) of the Vancouver Police. The incident occurred in Vancouver in mid-2013. The Chief Civilian Director (CCD) of the IIO reviewed the investigation upon its conclusion, as required under s.38.11 of the Police Act, to determine whether an officer may have committed an offence under any enactment. The matter was not reported to Crown Counsel, and this public report was released pursuant to s.38.121 of the Police Act, summarizing the results of the investigation and the reasoning underlying the CCD's decision.
injury · 2013-Q3
The Independent Investigations Office (IIO) of British Columbia conducted an investigation into an incident involving the injury of an adult female that occurred in mid-2013 in the city of Vancouver. The affected person was an innocent bystander who sustained a serious injury to her hip while an adult male was being taken into custody. The Chief Civilian Director (CCD) of the IIO reviewed the investigation pursuant to s.38.11 of the Police Act to determine whether an officer may have committed an offence under any enactment, including an enactment of Canada or another province. This public report was issued pursuant to s.38.121 of the Police Act, indicating that the matter was not reported to Crown Counsel, and summarizing the results of the investigation.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant, subject officers, and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. One subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes, as was their legal right. In the evening in mid-November 2025, Brantford Police Service (BPS) officers attended an apartment in the Brantford area. A resident had contacted police to report that an inebriated complainant was in their apartment and they wanted the complainant removed. The officers entered the apartment and approached the complainant in the living room. The complainant was seated on a sofa and speaking on the phone with a police call-taker. After a period, the complainant ended the phone conversation, stood up from the sofa, and walked a short distance towards the door. Just before the door, two officers took hold of the complainant's arms. The complainant attempted to free their arms and the officers maintained their grip. Other officers intervened and the complainant fell forward to the floor, striking their head on the edge of a wall in the process. Officers fell with the complainant and landed on top of them. The complainant was handcuffed in quick order and taken into custody. Following the arrest, the complainant 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 complainant and the subject officer, other police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. In the early morning of Q4 2025, a witness officer on patrol in a marked vehicle came across a pick-up truck stopped for a red light at an intersection 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, 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 complainant, who had a passenger in the front seat. The complainant proceeded through the intersection, activated four-way flashers as if about to stop, then accelerated away. The witness officer radioed what had happened and began to pursue the truck. Other officers heard the transmissions and headed to the area to assist, including a second witness officer in an unmarked police vehicle who came to occupy the lead cruiser in the pursuit. The subject officer, also operating an unmarked police cruiser, intervened as well. The pursuit continued at speed for about 12 minutes. The complainant disregarded multiple red lights, as did the pursuing 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 from Winston Churchill Boulevard in Mississauga, the three vehicles closest to the complainant's truck decided to perform a rolling block. Near an intersection along that roadway, the subject officer overtook the truck and began to slow in front of it. The complainant brought the truck to an abrupt stop. A witness officer stopped their cruiser alongside the driver side of the truck, preventing the driver's door from opening, and another witness officer stopped directly behind. The subject officer exited their vehicle and approached, pointing a semi-automatic pistol at the complainant in the driver's seat. The subject officer was joined by two witness officers, who each fired their CEWs at the complainant through the open driver's door window. Orders were shouted at the complainant to exit the vehicle. The subject officer holstered their gun and deployed OC spray at the complainant. Shortly after, the subject officer climbed onto the hood of a cruiser, grabbed the complainant's leg, which had appeared through the driver's window, and with the assistance of two witness officers pulled the complainant out of the truck onto the hood. The complainant 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 and head area. The complainant was then pulled off the hood onto the ground in front of a cruiser. With approximately six officers surrounding the complainant, the subject officer punched in the direction of the complainant's torso five times, and a witness officer dropped their knee onto the complainant's upper body and head area two or three times. The subject officer then stood up and kicked at the complainant's right hip area six times. Shortly after, the complainant was handcuffed, stood up, and placed in the backseat of one of the cruisers. The complainant was transported to hospital following arrest and diagnosed with multiple facial fractures.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. The subject officer chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of their notes, as was their legal right. In the morning of Q4 2025, OPP received a call from hospital security reporting that a patient who had been discharged and escorted out of the hospital — the complainant — was in the parking lot, refusing to leave. The subject officer and a witness officer of the Central Region Emergency Response Team were dispatched. Upon arrival, the officers spoke with security and confirmed the information provided in the call. Security advised that the complainant had been discharged and provided with medication but refused to leave the hospital. They had to physically escort the complainant out of the building; however, the complainant still would not leave the property and wanted to return to the hospital. The complainant was trespassed. Hospital staff did not want the complainant back inside and wanted them removed. The briefing did not include information indicating that the complainant had a particular medical condition. The subject officer approached the complainant and informed them that they were required to leave the premises. The complainant stated that they wanted to return to the hospital because they were in pain. The complainant was 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 complainant 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 the complainant around, an audible cracking sound was heard and the arm appeared to rotate in an abnormal manner consistent with having snapped. The complainant 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.
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. The subject officer (SO) did not agree to an interview with the SIU, as was their legal right, but did authorize the release of their notes. In the afternoon of Q4 2025, the SO, operating an OPP cruiser with a witness officer (WO) as passenger, stopped a vehicle in the area of Northshore Drive, Haldimand County. The complainant was driving the vehicle. OPP officers had been on the lookout for the complainant after they expressed suicidal ideations upon learning, earlier that day, that they were the subject of a sexual assault investigation. As the officers exited the cruiser to approach the vehicle, the complainant accessed a knife and used it to inflict a serious laceration across the left side of their neck. The SO and the WO 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 SO and the WO to provide emergency care. The complainant was transported to hospital and treated for a serious neck wound.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant, 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 in mid-November 2025, the subject officer and their partner, a witness officer, were on the lookout for the complainant. The complainant was wanted for a number of break and enters, and subject to an outstanding arrest warrant. The officers located the complainant at an Esso gas station in the Monkland area of Stormont, Dundas, and Glengarry County. The complainant was pumping gas into a Subaru Forester. The officers pulled up in their unmarked pick-up truck, such that their driver side rear quarter panel was adjacent the driver side rear quarter panel of the Forester, and exited their vehicle. The subject officer approached the complainant and advised them they were under arrest. The complainant walked around the front of their vehicle away from the subject officer and towards the driver's door. They confronted the witness officer beside the door and pushed them out of the way, attempting to enter the Forester. The witness officer pushed back against the driver's door to prevent it opening. The subject officer moved to assist the witness officer. There followed a protracted struggle in the course of which the subject officer kicked, punched, kneed and elbowed the complainant multiple times. With the assistance of three civilians on scene, the officers overcame the complainant's resistance and handcuffed them behind the back. The complainant was transported to hospital where diagnostic imaging was unable to rule out undisplaced fractures to the left fourth and fifth ribs.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant 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 the early morning of Q4 2025, OPP officers, including the subject officer, attended at a campsite in Oastler Lake 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 complainant — slap another individual in the face. The subject officer and a witness officer took custody of the complainant and handcuffed them behind the back without incident. The complainant was searched and placed in the rear of the subject officer's cruiser for transportation to the Parry Sound Detachment. At the detachment, the complainant was lodged in a cell at approximately 1:00 a.m., and held there until their release from custody later that morning at approximately 8:50 a.m. The complainant returned to the park 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 right-sided ribs.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the subject officer (SO) and another police eyewitness, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. In the evening of late 2025, OPP officers, including the SO, were dispatched to an address in Pembroke. A resident of a multi-unit address had contacted police to report concern with the wellbeing of a male — the complainant — who was causing a disturbance at the property. He had been talking to himself and threatening to kill someone. The SO arrived on scene, joined by two witness officers (WO #1 and WO #2). WO #1 and WO #2 attended a unit of the building and arrested the complainant on a warrant for breach of a probation order. He was handcuffed behind the back, escorted outside, and searched beside WO #2's cruiser. A number of items were seized, including a vape, a needle containing liquid, a .22-calibre round, and some money. The complainant was subsequently placed in the backseat of WO #1's cruiser and read his rights. WO #1 then exited the cruiser, leaving the complainant alone, and both witness officers returned to the unit to search the residence for firearms. Left alone in the cruiser, the complainant slipped his handcuffed arms below his legs and repositioned them to the front. He subsequently reached towards the crotch area of his pants, retrieved a bag, and ingested a white substance it contained. Shortly after the complainant's consumption of the substance, the SO began to monitor the complainant from outside the cruiser using vehicle lights and a flashlight. The complainant brought his hands up to his mouth area on several occasions. Having concluded the search of the unit, WO #1 returned to his cruiser and checked on the complainant in the rear. The complainant was shaking and pale. Noting that the handcuffs were now to the front and suspecting a drug overdose, WO #1 requested EMS. The complainant was removed from the cruiser, administered two doses of Narcan, and placed in the recovery position pending the arrival of paramedics. EMS arrived shortly after and the complainant was taken to hospital and treated for drug overdose.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant's police custodians, 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 afternoon in late November 2025, the complainant was arrested in connection with a stolen automobile. They were searched at the scene and transported to the LPS headquarters where they were lodged in a cell at approximately 5:45 p.m. The complainant told police that they had consumed heroin a couple of hours before the arrest and explained they would become sick in the cell once the effects of the drug wore off. The complainant was monitored by special constables while in cells. They appeared to sleep for most of the time in custody. At approximately 7:40 a.m., the complainant had just woken when they started to vomit. They were removed from the cell and transported to hospital. The complainant was treated for opioid withdrawal.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant 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 Q4 2025, the subject officer was off-duty and attending an appointment at a business located in a strip mall on Bay Street in Thunder Bay. While there, they observed a person — the complainant — applying orange spray paint to the front door of the business. They alerted the owner, identified as a civilian witness. The civilian witness ran after the complainant, and the subject officer followed. As the complainant fled along the sidewalk towards Bay Street, they lost their footing and fell forward onto the sidewalk, striking their face. The civilian witness and the subject officer reached the complainant within moments of the fall. The civilian witness attempted to secure the complainant's legs, during which the complainant kicked at them. The subject officer reached towards the complainant's upper body in an attempt to gain control, while the complainant continued to kick. The subject officer positioned the complainant onto their right side, and as physical control was applied — including the use of bodyweight — the complainant came to rest in a prone position. The subject officer maintained control over the complainant's upper back. The subject officer and the civilian witness then brought the complainant's hands behind them and continued to restrain the complainant until police arrived. Several bystanders had gathered, and one contacted police. A witness officer responded, arrested the complainant for mischief, assisted them to their feet, and transported them to the Thunder Bay Police Service station. The following day, the complainant attended hospital and was diagnosed with bilateral nasal bone fractures of indeterminate age.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant and police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the events in question, 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 morning of Q4 2025, acting on the authority of a Form 2 issued under the Mental Health Act, London Police Service (LPS) officers attended an apartment in the London area. The form, authorizing police to compel the complainant's attendance at hospital for a psychiatric examination, had been obtained by a witness officer, who had become increasingly concerned for the complainant's well-being. Arriving at approximately 7:00 a.m. in front of the apartment door, officers attempted to have the complainant exit the apartment. They explained who they were and why they were there. The complainant adamantly refused to leave. Behind a barricaded front door, the complainant variously threatened police that they would jump from the balcony and harm officers or themselves if they entered the residence. Officers, including a member of the service's COAST team, continued to negotiate with the complainant, attempting to dissuade them from harming themselves or others. They assured the complainant that they would not face criminal charges and that they would simply be escorted to hospital. The complainant remained unreceptive. With information that the complainant might jump from the balcony and was repeatedly threatening their life and those of the officers, the service deployed the Emergency Response Unit (ERU) to the scene. The plan was to have ERU officers rappel from the roof to the complainant's balcony, preventing them from using it to jump from the building. ERU officers arrived at approximately 8:45 a.m. By approximately 9:25 a.m., four of them were harnessed and ready to descend from the rooftop — the subject officer and three witness officers. At approximately 9:27 a.m., they started their descent. As the officers were reaching the balcony railing, they were confronted by the complainant. With an aluminum baseball bat in hand, the complainant began to swing at the officers as they were still hanging from their rappel lines, striking one of them in the left hand. The subject officer managed to land on the balcony and immediately became engaged in a struggle with the complainant. The two exchanged punches, and the complainant fell to the ground. One witness officer deployed their conducted energy weapon (CEW) and the subject officer delivered a single right-handed punch to the face of the complainant as they lay supine on the ground. Following the strike, the complainant was handcuffed. The complainant was taken to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with multiple facial fractures.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant 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 official agreed to an interview with the SIU. One subject officer did authorize the release of their notes. In the afternoon of Q4 2025, the complainant was arrested for drug trafficking following a traffic stop by CKPS officers. A warrant authorizing a search of the complainant's residence for evidence of drug trafficking was in effect at the time. A witness officer searched the complainant at the scene and confiscated a quantity of crack cocaine and fentanyl from their clothes. The complainant 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 at approximately 2:45 p.m. and began to vomit at approximately 6:50 p.m. Paramedics arrived at the station at approximately 7:30 p.m. The complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with opioid withdrawal.
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 December 2025, Hamilton Police Service officers, including two subject officers, were dispatched to an address in the Hamilton area following a call to police about a violent incident. The complainant, in violation of a no-contact order, had visited a witness at the address and struck her in the face. The complainant and the witness had left by the time of the officers' arrival. The officers interviewed witnesses and determined there were grounds to arrest the complainant for assault. The complainant and the witness had traveled to the complainant's residence — a trailer parked at the rear of a property in the Hamilton area — and were there when the two subject officers arrived on scene shortly after 7:00 a.m. A witness officer and a special emergency worker were also present. The special emergency worker heard a female screaming from inside the trailer and alerted the other officers. Led by one of the subject officers, the officers knocked on the trailer door and directed the complainant to come out. The complainant refused to allow them entry into the trailer, asserting it was his home and they needed a warrant. The officers explained that they had exigent circumstances and demanded that he open the door or they would force their way inside. When the complainant continued to refuse, the subject officer used a baton to smash the door's glass window. Shortly after the window was broken, the complainant opened the door. The two subject officers each took hold of one side of the complainant and pulled him forward. The complainant stepped from the trailer floor to ground level, landing awkwardly on his right foot and fracturing it in the process. He was placed in a prone position on the ground and handcuffed without incident. The complainant was transported to hospital after his arrest and treated for foot fractures.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
In the afternoon in late December 2025, the complainant attended a Canada Post outlet at a retail pharmacy in Bradford. The complainant was there to pick up a key to a home. Staff at the outlet told the complainant they could not be helped due to insufficient documentation. The complainant became belligerent and slammed their phone on the counter, prompting police to be called to the scene. A witness officer was the first to arrive, joined shortly by the subject officer. This was the officers' second attendance at the outlet involving the complainant that afternoon; earlier, they had responded to a similar disturbance in which the complainant had been refused service due to their behaviour and deficient paperwork, and the complainant had left on that occasion. On the present occasion, the witness officer told the complainant to leave the store or face arrest. When the complainant refused to exit voluntarily, the witness officer grabbed the complainant to forcibly remove them. The complainant physically resisted, and the two tussled briefly. The subject officer then grabbed the complainant and threw them to the floor, after which the complainant was handcuffed behind the back. The complainant suffered a broken nose during the takedown and was subsequently transported to hospital by paramedics. The incident was reviewed by the SIU.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant 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 official agreed to interviews with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. Shortly before midnight in October 2025, a team of HRPS TRU officers, including two subject officers (SO #1 and SO #2), were dispatched to a residence in the Oakville area, the home of the complainant. They arrived intending to arrest the complainant 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 complainant 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. They told the officers they would have to engage physically to take them into custody. At approximately 2:20 a.m., as the complainant was two to three metres away from their front door gesticulating at the officers on the roadway, the two subject officers, in the company of two witness officers (WO #1 and WO #2), approached from behind around a corner of the home. SO #1 attempted to distract the complainant, who reacted by turning to run towards the front porch and door. SO #2, WO #1, and WO #2 discharged their CEWs and also attempted to distract the complainant as they made it onto the front porch but no further. SO #1 cut them off before they could re-enter the house, using their left arm to tackle the complainant against the wall adjacent the front door. Following additional CEW discharges, the complainant's arms were handcuffed behind their back. The complainant 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 complainant and 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 evening in late November 2025, the complainant was on their way home from work travelling east on Queen Street East in Brampton. They had just taken the on-ramp to southbound Highway 410 when they were pulled over by a RIDE program set up on the ramp. The complainant was approached by an officer who asked them to pull ahead for further questioning. Another officer (a witness officer) approached and asked the complainant to continue forward and stop their pick-up truck on the ramp shoulder in front of a police vehicle. The complainant complied. The witness officer asked the complainant to step out of their vehicle and escorted them to the back of the pick-up truck, where the subject officer joined them. The complainant was angry about being pulled over and would not allow the witness officer to fully read a breath test demand, insisting the officer simply administer the test. The witness officer explained that the demand needed to be read in full and that the complainant must understand it, warning that refusing to take the test would constitute a criminal offence. The subject officer attempted to calm the complainant without success. When the complainant began to walk toward the driver's door of their vehicle, the subject officer grabbed and pushed them back toward the rear of the truck and a snow-covered grassy area past the ramp shoulder. The complainant fell backwards over the ramp curb. When they attempted to stand up, they were forced to the ground by the subject officer. A struggle ensued between the complainant and several police officers. The complainant was eventually handcuffed and placed in the rear seat of a police cruiser. The complainant attended hospital the following day and was diagnosed with a concussion.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The material events are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized. In the early morning of late December 2025, Brantford Police Service (BPS) officers were called to a residence in the area of Colborne Street East and Clarence Street South in Brantford. A resident of the building had called police to report a disturbance coming from another unit. Two witness officers attended at the scene and knocked at the door. The disturbance involved the complainant and a civilian witness. The complainant was subject to a no-contact order at the time preventing contact and communication with the civilian witness. Realizing police were outside the door and that they would be arrested for breaching the order, the complainant attempted to escape apprehension. They climbed through a window of their second floor unit onto the roof of an adjoining structure, ran across the roof to an exterior staircase, and started to descend. Two subject officers had also responded to the disturbance call and were outside as the witness officers entered. They observed the complainant running on the roof and were waiting at the bottom of the staircase. When the complainant jumped over the staircase railing at the midway landing and collapsed on the ground below, the officers approached to take them into custody. The complainant complained of pain to their right foot and was transported to hospital, where they were diagnosed with a broken right ankle.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant and the subject officer, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. In the late afternoon in early December 2025, Hamilton Police Service (HPS) officers were dispatched to an address in the area of Wentworth Street and Main Street East, Hamilton, following a call to police about domestic abuse. A witness reported that the complainant had threatened her earlier in the day and attended at her apartment where he caused a domestic disturbance. The subject officer, in the company of a witness officer, arrived at the address. They were aware that there were warrants in effect for the complainant's arrest on firearm-related charges. A friend of the first witness spoke with the officers and indicated that the complainant was possibly at the rear of the residence. The subject officer walked to the east side of the house and located the complainant sitting in a chair. They directed the complainant not to move, told them to stand up, and then grabbed their right arm, lifting them from the chair. The complainant 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 called out for assistance, and the witness officer appeared quickly and joined in the struggle. The complainant flailed their legs and refused to release their arms to be handcuffed. The subject officer and the witness officer punched the complainant multiple times but could not sufficiently subdue them to take control of their arms behind the back. A second witness officer arrived on scene approximately two minutes after the altercation started and assisted in eventually handcuffing the complainant. The complainant was transported to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a broken nose and a fractured right orbital bone.