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).
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
In the late afternoon in early January 2026, Ottawa Police Service (OPS) officers responded to a reported theft of alcohol from an LCBO at a shopping centre. The suspect fled into a nearby Walmart, where a security guard stopped them at the entrance. The suspect dropped a backpack containing stolen bottles of alcohol and fled further into the store as officers arrived. The suspect was chased, grounded, and handcuffed. A subject officer arrived shortly after the arrest to assist and made their way to the backpack near the sliding entrance doors, where they were crouched over it checking its contents when they were approached by a third party — the complainant. The complainant picked up a bottle that had fallen from the backpack and claimed ownership of it. The subject officer disputed the claim, stood up, and removed the bottle from the complainant's hand. The complainant swiped the officer's hand away twice as the officer reached out to detain them. The subject officer moved toward the complainant, grabbed them by the upper body, and used a leg sweep to bring the complainant to the ground. The complainant fell onto their back and immediately showed signs of injury to their right knee. They were handcuffed and taken into custody. Following arrest, the complainant was seen at hospital and diagnosed with a fractured right knee.
siu_code:tcd · 2025-Q4
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. 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 early afternoon of Q4 2025, Toronto Police Service (TPS) officers were called to a hotel located in the Yonge Street area of Toronto. Hotel staff had contacted police to seek the removal of a guest — the complainant. The complainant had caused a commotion in the lobby and accused hotel employees of being associated with persons seeking her death. The complainant was of unsound mind at the time of her interaction with the officers. Since checking into the hotel a few days earlier, the complainant had frequently attended the front desk to complain about persons wanting her dead. She had returned to her room by the time of the officers' arrival. A group of TPS officers arrived on scene and, accompanied by the hotel manager, took the elevator to the 18th floor and attended at the complainant's room. Among them was the subject officer. The subject officer knocked on the door and asked for the complainant. The complainant indicated she had not called police and refused to open the door. The subject officer indicated that the officers would open the door if she did not let them in. The complainant did not respond. A female officer interjected and attempted to speak with the complainant, assuring her she was not in trouble and that they simply wanted to talk. Still, there was no response. Officers attempted to open the door, including with a master card key, but were unsuccessful as it had been double-locked from the inside. A TPS Mobile Crisis Intervention Team (MCIT) arrived on scene and also tried to have the complainant open the door. On learning from hotel staff that the complainant's room had a Juliet balcony from which the complainant could jump, a witness officer entered an adjacent room and onto its balcony. From that vantage point, the officer observed that the door to the Juliet balcony was open. Looking down, the officer observed the complainant lying on the roof of the third floor and immediately radioed for paramedics. The roof was accessed by Toronto Fire Service. The complainant was pronounced deceased shortly thereafter. At autopsy, the pathologist was of the preliminary view that the complainant's death was attributable to multiple blunt force trauma.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant and police eyewitnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, 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 early morning of Q1 2026, OPS officers were on the lookout for a Hyundai Elantra following a call to police from a woman. The woman had called to report that a family member — the complainant — had left their residence in the vehicle. The complainant was of unsound mind and experiencing suicidal ideation. A witness officer located the vehicle and attempted to pull it over. The complainant refused to stop and increased their speed. Two additional witness officers, driving separate cruisers, joined the first. The three officers decided to attempt a rolling block of the Elantra. At around 12:40 a.m., the officers positioned their cruisers around the Elantra and brought it to a stop on the west shoulder of a road in Ottawa. The officers exited their cruisers and attempted to engage with the complainant. The complainant had a knife that they occasionally held at their neck and abdomen. The officers recognized that the complainant was only a risk to themselves and put their firearms away. The complainant was upset and asked the officers to kill them. They spoke of being infected with spores and fungi. As time passed, the complainant became less responsive to the officers' overtures. A team of OPS tactical officers arrived on scene and surrounded the Elantra. Among them was a trained negotiator who also attempted to bring the standoff to a peaceful resolution. The complainant could not be persuaded to let go of the knife and exit the vehicle. A plan was agreed upon whereby the tactical officers would move in to take the complainant into custody when and if the complainant placed the knife away from their person. At around 4:00 a.m., the subject officer gave the signal to move in after the complainant had placed the knife on the front passenger seat. Tactical officers smashed the front door windows and discharged CEWs at the complainant and OC spray into the vehicle. The complainant retrieved the knife and suffered a stab wound to the abdomen. The officers took possession of the knife and removed the complainant from the Elantra. The complainant was transported to hospital by paramedics and treated for a four-centimetre laceration to the abdomen.
siu_code:tcd · 2025-Q4
The SIU investigated an incident involving Toronto Police Service (TPS) officers who attended at an address in the area of Jane Street and Wilson Avenue in Toronto in the evening of late December 2025. A civilian witness had called police to report being assaulted by the complainant, and had fled the apartment to a nearby location before officers arrived. Three witness officers arrived at the door of the apartment at approximately 11:40 p.m. and knocked and called out, receiving no response. While officers remained at the door awaiting a master key from the landlord, video footage from a camera on an adjacent building captured the complainant falling from height and impacting the ground at approximately 11:42 p.m. Officers entered the apartment after the key arrived shortly after midnight, and found the complainant was not inside. An officer then went onto the apartment balcony and observed the complainant on the ground below. First responders attended and the complainant was found to be deceased. The complainant had been intoxicated by drugs and alcohol in the period leading to their death. A pathologist attributed the cause of death to blunt impact injuries sustained from a descent from height. The SIU's evidence included a civilian witness interview and video footage that largely captured the incident.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant and other 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 morning of early January 2026, staff at a housing support centre in Newmarket contacted police to have a woman – the complainant – removed from the facility. The complainant was causing a disturbance and had behaved rudely to staff. She was subject to an order prohibiting her attendance at the centre. The subject officer arrived on scene and approached the complainant, who was seated on a sofa in the reception area. The officer stood a distance from her and explained that she needed to leave. The complainant refused to leave. After a period of further conversation, the subject officer approached the complainant and took hold of her left arm. The complainant moved down the sofa away from the officer, flailed her legs, and fought against efforts to take her into custody. The struggle moved to the floor, where the subject officer attempted to wrestle control of her arms behind her back. The complainant resisted strenuously for approximately a minute and a half, even as the officer tried to keep her pinned to the floor. It was only with the arrival of two additional officers that the complainant was handcuffed with her hands behind her back. Following her arrest, the complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a broken nose.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant and other witnesses (police and non-police), gives rise to the following scenario. The subject officer (SO) chose not to interview with the SIU, as was their legal right, but did authorize the release of their notes. Shortly before noon in early January 2026, Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) officers responded to a location on Notre Dame Street East 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 police were able to use their cell phone to approximate a location. An officer found the vehicle in the area and spoke to two individuals, determining there were grounds to believe that one of them had been assaulted by the complainant. Fearing imminent arrest, the complainant exited the rear of the vehicle and fled the scene. The complainant ran a short distance and entered the rear enclosed deck of a house in the area of Notre Dame Street East and St. Agnes Street in Sudbury, where they sought to conceal themselves in a crawl space under a staircase. A police dog handler — the SO — and their dog arrived at the site. Joined by three witness officers, the SO and their dog initiated a track of the complainant. Officers followed footprints in the snow to the house, spoke briefly to one of the homeowners, and entered the rear deck. The complainant was quickly located inside the crawl space. The SO released the police dog, which approached the complainant and bit their right hand. With the dog still latched on, the complainant was removed from the crawl space, placed in a prone position on the floor, handcuffed behind the back, and the dog was then separated from their right hand. The complainant was transported to hospital following arrest and was diagnosed with a fracture of the small finger on the right hand.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant and police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer (SO) chose not to interview with the SIU, but did authorize the release of their notes. In the evening in early 2026, Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) officers were looking for the complainant, who had left the scene of a domestic disturbance threatening suicide. Police were concerned for their wellbeing. A cell phone ping returned a location in the area of Victoria Avenue North and North Service Road, Lincoln. The SO, accompanied by two witness officers (WO #1 and WO #2), arrived in the area. There was no answer at the first house approached, but WO #1 noticed a light on at the adjacent property. The complainant had taken refuge in an empty house in that area. When WO #1 initially approached the house and asked the complainant to identify themselves, the complainant provided a false name. With the officer off the property, the complainant made their way to the rear of the property and into a steel shed, and had a knife in their possession. After WO #1 left the residence, the officer learned they had in fact been dealing with the complainant. The SO, WO #1, and WO #2 returned to the residence and located the complainant in the rear shed. The complainant displayed a knife and began walking with purpose toward the officers, repeatedly telling them to shoot them. The SO and WO #1 withdrew from the shed and ordered the complainant to drop the knife. The complainant discarded the knife and continued to advance. When the complainant was within striking range, the SO punched them in the face. The complainant fell but continued to resist on the ground by refusing to surrender their arms. WO #1 and WO #2 delivered several additional strikes to the torso and legs, after which the complainant was handcuffed. The complainant was subsequently diagnosed at hospital with a fractured left orbital bone.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant and the subject officers, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, one subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU, but did authorize the release of their notes. In the afternoon of early 2026, two subject officers were on-duty together assigned to the West Neighbourhood Resource Team, a proactive policing initiative by the service. The officers attended an apartment complex in the area of Richmond Road and Croydon Avenue to perform welfare checks, enforce conditions of release, and execute outstanding arrest warrants. The complainant 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 complainant stepped out. Asked to identify themselves, the complainant provided a false name and attempted to walk by the officers. The two subject officers took hold of the complainant and a struggle ensued. The complainant was forcibly taken to the floor and handcuffed behind the back. The complainant was transported to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a fractured left knee.
blessure_grave_detention_par_un_corps_de_police · 2026-Q1
blessure_grave_detention_par_un_corps_de_police · 2026-Q1
police_misconduct · 2026-Q1
police_misconduct · 2026-Q1
The Police Ethics Commissioner opened an inquiry on their own initiative regarding the actions of several police officers of the Montreal Police Service following a media report about an intervention involving an individual. The inquiry was launched under the Commissioner's authority to investigate potential breaches of the Code of Ethics of Quebec Police Officers.
police_misconduct · 2025-Q2
The Police Ethics Commissioner opened an inquiry in late July 2025 into the conduct of three police officers from the Régie intermunicipale de police Roussillon following media reports of alleged drug trafficking. The investigation was ordered under the Police Act to determine whether the officers breached the Code of Ethics of Quebec Police Officers. The investigation is ongoing.
police_misconduct · 2026-Q1
police_misconduct · 2025-Q2
police_misconduct · 2025-Q2
police_misconduct · 2026-Q1
The Police Ethics Commissioner opened an inquiry in late February 2026 into the conduct of several officers of the Montreal Police Service during an intervention involving an individual that came to the Commissioner's attention in early January 2026. The investigation was ordered pursuant to the Police Act to examine whether the officers' conduct constituted a breach of the Code of Ethics of Quebec Police Officers. The investigation is ongoing.
police_misconduct · 2025-Q2
The Police Ethics Commissioner opened an inquiry on their own initiative regarding the actions of three police officers from the Régie intermunicipale de police Roussillon in connection with allegations of drug trafficking. The inquiry was initiated following information gathered through media monitoring.
police_misconduct · 2025-Q2
police_misconduct · 2026-Q1