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_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police witnesses and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. In early 2026, two officers were dispatched to an address in Toronto, following a 911 call. The caller did not address the call-taker but utterances were heard in the background suggesting an ongoing and potentially violent disturbance involving a male and female. The officers entered the home despite objections from the woman who opened the door – the affected person. The affected person was placed under arrest by one of the officers after they observed a male – the affected person – with a cut to the forehead. The affected person refused to cooperate as the officer sought to question them about what had happened. Standing on a second floor landing, the affected person asked the officers to leave and then called 911 asking for additional officers. The officers told the affected person to disconnect the 911 call as they were the police. When they failed to do so, they warned that they would be arrested for public mischief. Shortly after, the officers took hold of the affected person to take them into custody. The affected person refused to surrender their arms to be handcuffed and was grounded. On the floor, they resisted the officers’ efforts to control their arms behind the back and was met with a punch to the face by one of the officers. Moments later, as the struggle continued, the officer delivered two punches to the affected person’s head in quick succession. It would take another five minutes, during which the other officer kicked the affected person once or twice in the legs and exhorted them verbally to give up their arms, before the officers wrestled control of their arms behind the back and secured them in handcuffs. The affected person was transported to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a broken nose.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and other witnesses (police and non-police), gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer chose not to interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. Shortly before noon, in early 2026, police officers responded to a call in Sudbury. A 911 call had been received suggesting a potentially violent disturbance inside a vehicle. The caller did not communicate directly with the call-taker but the police were able to use her cell phone to approximate a location from where she was calling. An officer found the vehicle in the area. They spoke to two individuals and determined that there were grounds to believe that one of them had been assaulted by the affected person. Fearing their imminent arrest, the affected person, inside the rear of the vehicle, exited and fled the scene. They ran a short distance and entered into the rear, enclosed deck of a house in the area, where they sought to conceal themselves in a crawl space under a staircase. A police dog handler – the subject officer – and their dog arrived at the site of the vehicle from which the affected person had fled. Joined by other officers, the subject officer and their dog initiated a track of the affected person. They were not hard to find. The officers followed a set of footprints in the snow to the house in the area, spoke to one of the homeowners briefly, and entered the rear deck. The affected person was quickly located inside a crawl space. The subject officer released their police dog. The dog approached the affected person and bit their right hand. With the dog still latched onto their hand, the affected person was removed from the crawl space and positioned on the floor in a prone position. They were handcuffed behind the back and the dog separated from their right hand. The affected person was transported to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a fracture of the small finger on the right hand.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
In the afternoon of early 2026, the subject officer observed the affected person in a Stratford area. Aware that the affected person was subject to a warrant for their arrest, the officer contacted uniformed personnel to respond to the area to take the affected person into custody. A witness officer arrived in the area in a fully marked cruiser. The officer pulled up to the affected person as they walked and watched as the affected person ran. The subject officer stopped their vehicle, exited, and tackled the affected person to the ground. The affected person attempted to get up and was held down by the subject officer and the witness officer. A struggle ensued during which the subject officer delivered several punches to the head and torso of the affected person, and a knee strike to their side. With the assistance of additional officers, the affected person was handcuffed. Following their arrest, the affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fracture.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and additional police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In early 2026, police officers were dispatched to a residence in a certain area. The homeowners had contacted police to report a person attempting to break into their residence. Two officers were the first on scene, arriving at about the same time. They were joined shortly by a police dog handler, the subject officer, and their dog. Additional officers arrived on scene and set up a perimeter around the house as the subject officer deployed their dog to locate the suspect. It was not long before the dog led the subject officer to the rear yard and a crawl space underneath a deck. The affected person was hiding in the crawl space, which was cluttered with stored items. They failed to come out and give any indication of their presence despite repeated direction from the subject officer for them to do so. With the dog still attached to the lead, the subject officer released the dog into the crawl space. The dog’s first foray into the space was unsuccessful. The subject officer released the dog into the crawl space again. On this occasion, the dog located the affected person under some items and bit into their arm. The affected person gave no reaction. The subject officer approached their dog and the affected person and released the dog’s hold, after which the affected person was taken into custody. The affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fracture and dog bites to the arm.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police and non-police eyewitness, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the morning of early 2026, the subject officer and another officer were dispatched to a convenience store in the area of a major intersection. A store employee had contacted police to report a male and female shoplifter. The officers arrived on scene and spoke with store staff, confirming that two suspects had left the store with alcohol and food without paying for the items. The employee showed a video clip they had taken with their cellphone, depicting the male and female. The officers located the suspects – a person of interest and the affected person – at a nearby bus shelter. One person of interest was taken into custody by an officer without incident. The affected person, however, resisted when the subject officer attempted to secure them in handcuffs. The officer was able to affix a cuff to the right hand but had difficulty attaching the other cuff to the affected person’s left hand. The affected person objected to their arrest, denied that they had done anything wrong, and struggled against the subject officer’s efforts to bring their arms behind the back. The tussle eventually made its way outside the bus shelter where another officer intervened. The officers brought the affected person to the ground, after which the other officer secured both their hands in handcuffs. Following their arrest, the affected person was taken to hospital and treated for a fractured right wrist.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police and non-police eyewitness, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the morning of early 2026, the subject officer and another officer were dispatched to a convenience store in a certain area. A store employee had contacted police to report a male and female shoplifter. The officers arrived on scene and spoke with store staff, confirming that two suspects had left the store with alcohol and food without paying for the items. The employee showed a video clip they had taken with their cellphone, depicting the male and female. The officers located the suspects – the other person and the affected person – at a nearby bus shelter. One person was taken into custody by one of the officers without incident. The affected person, however, resisted when the subject officer attempted to secure them in handcuffs. The officer was able to affix a cuff to one hand but had difficulty attaching the other cuff to the affected person’s other hand. The affected person objected to their arrest, denied that they had done anything wrong, and struggled against the subject officer’s efforts to bring their arms behind their back. The struggle eventually made its way outside the bus shelter where the other officer intervened. The officers brought the affected person to the ground, after which the other officer secured both their hands in handcuffs. Following their arrest, the affected person was taken to hospital and treated for a fractured wrist.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may be briefly summarized. In the evening of early 2026, the affected person was with her boyfriend, an off-duty officer, on a street in Toronto when the two quarreled and she left the area telling him that she was going to jump. She made her way to a bridge over a river, and called the officer using a passerby’s cellphone. She told him she was going to commit suicide and that it would be his fault. The officer called police to report that the affected person was in mental health crisis and threatening to harm herself. He would subsequently learn from a third-party whose phone the affected person had used to call him that she was in the area of the bridge and a roadway. The subject officer drove in that direction, travelling across the bridge. With him was another officer. The subject officer approached the side of the bridge, brought his vehicle to a stop and exited with the other officer. They were just out of their cruiser when the affected person scaled the bridge guardrail and jumped down the other side. She landed on the frozen river below, a distance of about eight metres. The two officers made their way to the riverbank and walked onto the river to render aid to the affected person. Firefighters attended the scene and assisted in her removal. She was transported to hospital and diagnosed with serious injuries.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. In the evening of early 2026, the affected person made their way to a bridge. Their intention was to jump from the bridge. They called 911 to advise emergency responders of their intention and provided them with their location. Two call-takers – one from a police service and another from the ambulance service – spoke to the affected person. They assured them they had done the right thing by calling them, asked them not to jump from the bridge, and told them help was on its way. The affected person stayed on the line for several minutes. At the very end, they told the police call-taker that they could hear and see responding police officers, and that they were going to jump. They proceeded to do just that. The subject officer was the first officer on scene. They stopped their cruiser in a parking lot by the side of the bridge, exited and was making their way to the affected person’s position when the affected person jumped from the bridge onto some snow-covered rocks below. The officer provided care and comfort to the affected person while they waited for paramedics. The affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with fractures.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected gives rise to the following scenario. Police officers were dispatched to an area in Toronto in the early morning. The officers arrived on scene and located the affected person in the back patio of a residence and asked to identify themselves. They refused but entered the residence with the officers. The officers were able to ascertain the affected person’s identity and moved to take them into custody. A struggle ensued and the affected person was forced to the floor by the subject officers, after which they were secured in handcuffs. The affected person was injured in the takedown and transported to hospital after their arrest and treated for their injury.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person 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 chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of their notes. In early 2026, the affected person was driving in Brampton when a police cruiser started to follow their vehicle, attempting to pull them over. The affected person did not stop for the cruiser, turning into side streets, ultimately losing control of their vehicle due to icy road conditions and striking parked cars. The affected person exited their car and fled the scene on foot through backyards. An officer was on patrol when their ALPR registered a hit on the affected person's vehicle, indicating that the registered owner was a suspended driver. The officer briefly chased the affected person on foot and broadcast that they were subject to arrest for failing to remain at the scene of an accident. The affected person made their way home to the area, where the subject officer was waiting and grabbed a hold of them, throwing them to the ground, just as they were attempting to enter a house. The officer kept the affected person pinned to the ground with their body weight for a period before being joined by another officer. The affected person struggled against the officers' efforts to control their arms and bit one of the officers. The subject officer kneed the affected person in the left ribs and pulled them onto their left side. The parties continued to wrestle for control of the affected person's arms, and the subject officer delivered another knee strike to the torso. With the arrival and intervention of additional officers, the affected person was handcuffed and taken into custody. The affected person was charged with multiple offences and released at the scene, subsequently attending hospital and being diagnosed with a fractured left rib.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the evening of early 2026, police were dispatched to an apartment in the area of a city. The person who called 911 reported a disturbance involving the affected person. The person who called wanted the affected person removed from their residence. The subject officer arrived on scene with another officer shortly before a certain time, joined shortly by a third officer. The person who called met them outside the building and provided them a key to the apartment. One of the officers opened the door, stepped inside and was splashed with cooking oil from a bottle by the affected person. The affected person retreated into the kitchen area and was physically engaged by the officers. They were taken to the floor and handcuffed behind the back by the subject officer. The affected person was placed in the backseat of the subject officer's cruiser and transported to a police detention facility. En route, they slipped the handcuffs under their legs so that they were then positioned in front of their body. In statements made to police personnel at the station, they would explain that the pain in their left wrist was the result of this maneuver. The next day, the affected person was seen at a hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left wrist.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the afternoon of early 2026, the affected person was at a public square to protest against a demonstration by a specific movement. The demonstrators had made their way to the public square from another location, where they had initially gathered. The affected person, with a group of other people, had also been at the initial location attempting to disrupt the demonstration. Police officers had been assigned to police the demonstration and counter-protest. They were to preserve the peace and attempt to keep the rival factions separated. At the public square, officers used their bicycles to erect a perimeter between the demonstrators, at the centre of the square, and the counter-protesters, on its periphery. The affected person was in the area of the square when they and others were asked to leave the square. The affected person began to slowly walk away but stopped to object to the treatment of a woman, who was being physically escorted by police. The subject officer ordered them to leave or they would be arrested for obstructing police. The officer then pushed the affected person by the arms towards the roadway that bordered the square. The affected person told the officer that they did not have to touch them and turned to face the officer. The officer reacted by turning them around and pushing them in the back towards the roadway. The affected person stumbled forward and fell onto the sidewalk, fracturing their hip in the process. The affected person was transported by paramedics to hospital and treated for their injury.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
In the afternoon, a person was apprehended by the subject officer under the Mental Health Act. Police had been called to a location in Ottawa about a male behaving strangely. The officer arrived to find the person crying uncontrollably and muttering to himself, making references to wanting to harm himself. The officer took the person into custody without incident. At a hospital, the person became increasingly agitated and was warned that they would be restrained if they did not calm down. When their belligerence continued, the officers attempted to control them, and the person struggled against their efforts. The officers attempted to force the person to the floor, and the person fell, injuring themselves. The person was subsequently restrained to a hospital bed.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may be briefly summarized. In the evening of early 2026, the affected person was with her boyfriend, an off-duty officer, on a street in Toronto when the two quarreled and she left the area telling him that she was going to jump. She made her way to a bridge over a river, and called the officer using a passerby’s cellphone. She told him she was going to commit suicide and that it would be his fault. The officer called police to report that the affected person was in mental health crisis and threatening to harm herself. He would subsequently learn from a third-party whose phone the affected person had used to call him that she was in the area of the bridge and a roadway. The subject officer drove in that direction, travelling across the bridge. With him was another officer. The subject officer approached the side of the bridge, brought his vehicle to a stop and exited with the other officer. They were just out of their cruiser when the affected person scaled the bridge guardrail and jumped down the other side. She landed on the frozen river below, a distance of about eight metres. The two officers made their way to the riverbank and walked onto the river to render aid to the affected person. Firefighters attended the scene and assisted in her removal. She was transported to hospital and diagnosed with fractures and injuries to her internal organs.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police witnesses and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. In early 2026, two officers were dispatched to an address in Toronto, following a 911 call. The caller did not address the call-taker but utterances were heard in the background suggesting an ongoing and potentially violent disturbance involving a male and female. The officers entered the home despite objections from the woman who opened the door – the affected person. The affected person was placed under arrest by one of the officers after they observed a male – the affected person – with a cut to the forehead. The affected person refused to cooperate as the officer sought to question them about what had happened. Standing on a second floor landing, the affected person asked the officers to leave and then called 911 asking for additional officers. The officers told the affected person to disconnect the 911 call as they were the police. When they failed to do so, they warned that they would be arrested for public mischief. Shortly after, the officers took hold of the affected person to take them into custody. The affected person refused to surrender their arms to be handcuffed and was grounded. On the floor, they resisted the officers’ efforts to control their arms behind the back and was met with a punch to the face by one of the officers. Moments later, as the struggle continued, the officer delivered two punches to the affected person’s head in quick succession. It would take another five minutes, during which the other officer kicked the affected person once or twice in the legs and exhorted them verbally to give up their arms, before the officers wrestled control of their arms behind the back and secured them in handcuffs. The affected person was transported to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a broken nose.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized. In the morning of early 2026, members of the Emergency Response Team convened at a house situated in the area of Cornwall. Acting under the authority of a search warrant, the team entered the house to search for controlled substances. The affected person was present at the time and alerted to the officers’ presence outside the home. They entered the main floor bathroom and attempted to conceal themselves behind a sink. They were quickly located by an officer and placed on the floor in a prone position. The subject officer, the team leader, had forced their way into the bathroom and located the affected person. Having positioned the affected person on the floor, the officer dropped their left knee intending to lower themselves by their side but inadvertently landed on the affected person’s back. The impact fractured the affected person’s left hand, which was underneath their chest at the time. The affected person was taken into custody and transported to the police station. They were seen at hospital later in the day and diagnosed with their injury.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In early 2026, police officers were dispatched to a residence. A resident had called police to remove an intoxicated and unwelcome guest – the affected person – who was refusing to leave. Officers arrived on scene and took a belligerent affected person into custody to prevent a breach of the peace. They were placed in a cruiser and transported to the police detachment. The affected person remained confrontational at the detachment. At one point, after they had been stood facing a wall to be searched, the affected person turned and started to close their hand in the direction of one of the searching officers. The officer standing behind the affected person – the subject officer – reacted by wrapping an arm around their neck, forcing them to the floor and delivering a punch in the direction of their upper body. The affected person, prone on the floor, did not readily release their arms at the officers’ direction and was met with several punches to the legs and torso by the officers. The officers wrestled control of their arms after the strikes and handcuffed them behind their back. The affected person was subsequently transported to hospital when they complained of facial pain. They were diagnosed with a broken nose.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. In the evening of early 2026, the affected person made their way to a bridge. Their intention was to jump from the bridge. They called 911 to advise emergency responders of their intention and provided them with their location. Two call-takers – one from the police service and another from the ambulance service – spoke to the affected person. They assured them they had done the right thing by calling them, asked them not to jump from the bridge, and told them help was on its way. The affected person stayed on the line for several minutes. At the very end, they told the police call-taker that they could hear and see responding police officers, and that they were going to jump. They proceeded to do just that. The subject officer was the first officer on scene. They stopped their cruiser in a parking lot by the bridge, exited and was making their way to the affected person’s position when the affected person jumped from the bridge onto some snow-covered rocks below. The officer provided care and comfort to the affected person while they waited for paramedics. The affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with fractures.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the afternoon of early 2026, the affected person was at a square to protest against a demonstration by a movement. The demonstrators had made their way to the square from another location, where they had initially gathered. The affected person, with a group of other people, had also been at the initial location attempting to disrupt the demonstration. Officers had been assigned to police the demonstration and counter-protest. They were to preserve the peace and attempt to keep the rival factions separated. At the square, officers used their bicycles to erect a perimeter between the demonstrators, at the centre of the square, and the counter-protesters, on its periphery. The affected person was in the area of the northeast corner of the square when they and others were asked to leave the square. The affected person began to slowly walk away but stopped to object to the treatment of a person, who was being physically escorted by police. The subject officer ordered them to leave or they would be arrested for obstructing police. The officer then pushed the affected person by the arms northward towards a roadway, the roadway that bordered the square to the north. The affected person told the subject officer that they did not have to touch them and turned to face the officer. The subject officer reacted by turning them around and pushing them in the back towards the roadway. The affected person stumbled forward and fell onto the sidewalk, fracturing their hip in the process. The affected person was transported by paramedics to hospital and treated for their injury.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police witnesses and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. In the early afternoon of a day in early 2026, the subject officer was dispatched to a gas station following a call to police about a male kicking a door at the premises. The subject officer arrived on scene, parked their cruiser in the parking lot and located the male – the affected person. They detained the affected person and subsequently arrested them on the strength of several outstanding warrants. The subject officer handcuffed the affected person behind the back and conducted a pat-down search by the side of the cruiser, confiscating several items, after which they placed them in the rear of their vehicle. Another officer arrived on scene to take custody of the affected person and transport them to the station. They and the subject officer approached the rear of the subject officer’s cruiser, opened the passenger door and observed that the affected person had brought their handcuffed hands to the front and their shoes were off. The officers removed the affected person and subjected them to a secondary search. On this occasion, they located vials and substances in the inner pockets of the affected person’s coat. Following the search, en route to the station, the officer observed that something was in the affected person’s mouth. They said that they had consumed a substance, at which point the officer pulled over and called for an ambulance. While waiting for the ambulance, the officer pleaded with the affected person to spit out what was in their mouth. Other officers arrived on scene and did the same. The affected person said that they would rather die than go to police cells. Paramedics attended and transported the affected person to hospital. They were unresponsive with persistent bradycardia on arrival. They were monitored overnight and released into the custody of the authorities the following day.