Recherche
Recherche plein texte sur tous les incidents publiés. Les noms d'agents ne sont jamais indexés — les résultats portent sur le résumé caviardé, le nom du corps policier, la référence tribunalaire et les champs à vocabulaire contrôlé (type d'incident, constat, disposition).
- Corps policier: siu-on×
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.
custody_transport_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. As was their legal right, the subject officer (SO) did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the evening in early November 2025, two witness officers (WO #1 and WO #2) were dispatched to a residence in the area of Ellesmere Road and Meadowvale Road, Toronto, in connection with a reported disturbance. The complainant had been quarrelling with another person and the argument had turned physical. The complainant was belligerent with the officers and refused to be assessed by attending paramedics. At one point, while outside in front of the ambulance, the complainant swatted WO #1's hands. The officer reacted by pushing the complainant backward towards the ambulance and through the open side door. The two tussled briefly before WO #1 delivered a series of punches to the complainant's head area. Shortly after, the complainant was handcuffed and subsequently brought to 43 Division and lodged in a cell. Early the following day, a special constable (SEW #1) attended the cell to retrieve the complainant to speak with duty counsel. The complainant refused to exit the cell and then prevented the special constable from closing the cell door by continually positioning a leg to block its closure. Additional officers attended and, following a struggle, removed the complainant from the cell in order to place them in another cell. The second cell had a "D" ring that could be used to further restrain the complainant while in the cell. The complainant refused to cooperate with the relocation and was dragged from the first cell to the second cell and forced inside. Just inside the second cell, the complainant grabbed hold of the SO's left leg. The officer reacted by punching the complainant six times to the head, after which the complainant let go of the leg. Additional officers entered the cell and assisted in handcuffing the complainant to the "D" ring. The complainant was transported to hospital later that same day. Their left eye was swollen and their nose had started bleeding. They were diagnosed with a fracture of the left orbital bone.
custody_transport_injury · 2025-Q4
Just after midnight in late December 2025, Toronto Police Service (TPS) officers were called to the scene of a reported hit and run in a residential area of the city. A woman on the roadway had been struck by a vehicle — a Ford Edge — that had left and then returned to the scene. Firefighters were the first to arrive, followed shortly by the subject officer and their partner, a witness officer. A crowd of persons had gathered around the injured woman, including family members. The officers ordered the crowd back so the firefighters could render care. Within seconds of the officers' arrival, a family member of the injured woman approached the Ford Edge, parked nearby at the curb. They tried to open the door of the vehicle and were pushed away by the witness officer. The subject officer arrived at the driver's door of the Ford Edge, opened it, and took hold of the driver — the complainant. The subject officer detected the smell of alcohol emanating from the complainant. The officer repeatedly told the complainant to exit the vehicle and then forcibly removed them from their seat when they did not comply. The subject officer and witness officer escorted the complainant to the rear of the Ford Edge, where the subject officer grounded the complainant front first. The complainant was subsequently handcuffed behind the back and placed in the backseat of a police cruiser. The complainant was transported to hospital following their arrest and diagnosed with a broken nose.
pursuit_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 evening of late December 2025, OPP officers were dispatched to an address in Deseronto. Police had received a call about a disturbance at a residence involving the complainant and their partner. The subject officer arrived on scene and was joined by two witness officers. A crisis worker was also in attendance with the police. The subject officer was met by the complainant at the front door and allowed inside. The two made their way to the rear yard to talk. The other officers and the crisis worker remained in the house to speak with the partner. Over the course of the next 45 minutes, the subject officer attempted to have the complainant explain what had happened. An intoxicated complainant engaged with the officer in fits and starts, unable to provide a coherent account of the events that preceded the officers' arrival and occasionally adopting a belligerent posture with the subject officer. The officer told the complainant they would not be allowed to stay at the home that night and would need to explore alternative accommodations. The complainant became increasingly frustrated, unable to secure alternative accommodations for the night. Near the end of their discourse, the complainant walked towards the rear door of the residence. The subject officer grabbed hold of them, stated they were under arrest for public intoxication, and attempted to pull them away from the home. The complainant resisted by pulling in the opposite direction, and an altercation followed. The subject officer threw the complainant to the ground and positioned themselves overtop the complainant's supine torso on the left side. One witness officer was positioned by the complainant's upper body on the right side. The complainant thrashed their legs about. The subject officer delivered a series of elbow strikes to the complainant's face, after which the complainant's arms were controlled in front of their body and handcuffed. Following the arrest, the complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured right shoulder.
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.