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 · 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.