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 · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person, 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 of late 2025, the subject officer and their partner, another officer, were on the lookout for the affected person. The affected person was wanted for a number of break and enters, and subject to an outstanding arrest warrant. The officers located the affected person at a gas station in a rural area. The affected person was pumping gas into a vehicle. The officers pulled up in their unmarked vehicle, and exited. The subject officer approached the affected person and advised them they were under arrest. The affected person walked around the front of their vehicle away from the subject officer and towards the driver’s door. They confronted the other officer beside the door and pushed them out of the way, attempting to enter the vehicle. The other officer pushed back against the driver’s door to prevent it opening. The subject officer moved to assist. There followed a struggle in the course of which the subject officer used force against the affected person multiple times. With the assistance of civilians on scene, the officers overcame the affected person’s resistance and handcuffed them. The affected person was transported to hospital where diagnostic imaging was unable to rule out injuries.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person 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 morning of late 2025, the police received a call from hospital security reporting that a patient who had been discharged and escorted out of the hospital – the affected person – was in the parking lot, refusing to leave. The subject officer and another officer of the Emergency Response Team were dispatched. Upon arrival, the officers spoke with security and confirmed the information provided in the call. Security advised that the affected person had been discharged and provided with medication but refused to leave the hospital. They had to physically escort them out of the building; however, they still would not leave the property and wanted to return to the hospital. They were trespassed. Hospital staff did not want them back inside and wanted them removed. The briefing did not include information indicating that the affected person had a particular medical condition. The subject officer approached the affected person and informed them that they were required to leave the premises. The affected person stated that they wanted to return to the hospital because they were in pain. They were 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 affected person 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 them around, an audible cracking sound was heard and the arm appeared to rotate in an abnormal manner consistent with having snapped. The affected person 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.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person, 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. As was their legal right, one of the officers did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the evening of late 2025, police officers, including two subject officers, attended an apartment in a city. The resident had contacted police to report that an inebriated person was in her apartment and she wanted them removed. The officers entered the apartment and approached the person in the living room. They were seated on a sofa and speaking on the phone with a police call-taker. After a period, the person ended their conversation on the phone, stood up from the sofa and walked a short distance towards the door. Just before the door, the officers took hold of their arms. The person attempted to free their arms and the officers maintained their grip. Other officers intervened and the person fell forward to the floor, striking their head off the edge of a wall in the process. Officers fell with the person and landed on top of them. They were handcuffed in quick order and taken into custody. Following their arrest, the person 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 affected person and police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the events in question, 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 December 2025, acting on the authority of a Form 2 issued under the Mental Health Act, police officers attended an apartment in London. The form, authorizing police to compel the affected person’s attendance at hospital for a psychiatric examination, had been obtained due to concerns for the affected person’s well-being. Arriving at the apartment door, officers attempted to have the affected person exit the apartment. They explained who they were and why they were there. The affected person adamantly refused to leave the apartment. Behind a barricaded front door, the affected person variously threatened police that they would jump from the balcony and harm them or themselves if they entered the residence. Officers, including a member of the service’s crisis team, continued to negotiate with the affected person attempting to dissuade them from harming themselves or others. They assured the affected person that they would not face criminal charges, and that they would simply be escorting them to hospital. The affected person remained unreceptive. With information that the affected person might jump from the balcony and was repeatedly threatening their life and those of the officers, the service deployed a specialized team to the scene. The plan was to have the team prevent the affected person from using the balcony to jump from the building. The team arrived and prepared to intervene. As the officers were reaching the balcony, they were confronted by the affected person. With an object in hand, the affected person began to swing at the officers as they were still approaching, striking one of them. The subject officer managed to engage with the affected person and immediately became involved in a struggle. The two struggled, and the affected person fell to the ground. An officer deployed a less-lethal weapon and the subject officer delivered a strike to the face of the affected person as they lay on the ground. Following the incident, the affected person 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 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, neither subject officer agreed to interviews with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. Shortly before midnight, in late 2025, a team of police officers, including two subject officers, were dispatched to a residence in Oakville, the home of the affected person. They arrived intending to arrest the affected person 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 affected person 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 their house. They told them they would have to engage them physically to take them into custody. At about 2:20 a.m., as the affected person 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, approached them from behind. One of the subject officers attempted to distract the affected person, who reacted by turning to run towards the front porch and door. The subject officers and the witness officers discharged their CEWs and also attempted to distract the affected person as they made it onto the front porch but no further. One of the subject officers cut them off before they could re-enter the house, using their arm to tackle them against the wall adjacent the front door. Following additional CEW discharges, the affected person’s arms were handcuffed behind their back. The affected person was seen at hospital after their arrest and treated for a deep laceration to the scalp.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
In the afternoon of late 2025, the affected person attended a Canada Post outlet in a store. They were there to pick up a key to a home. Staff at the outlet told them they could not be helped because they did not have the proper documentation. The affected person became belligerent and slammed their phone on the counter. Police were called to the scene. An officer was the first to arrive, joined shortly by another officer. This was the officers' second time at the outlet dealing with the affected person. Earlier that afternoon, they had attended to deal with the affected person, who had been refused service because of their behaviour and deficient paperwork. The affected person had left the store on that occasion. On the present occasion, an officer told the affected person to leave the store or they would be arrested, and then grabbed them to forcibly remove them from the store when they refused to exit of their own accord. The affected person physically resisted the officer's efforts to push them out and the two tussled briefly. Another officer grabbed the affected person and threw them to the floor, after which they were handcuffed behind the back. The affected person suffered an injury in the takedown. They were taken from the scene to hospital by paramedics.
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 early 2025, police officers, including the subject officers, were dispatched to an area in Hamilton, following a call to police about a violent incident. The affected person, in violation of a no-contact order, had visited the person at the address and struck them in the face. The affected person and the person had left by the time of the officers’ arrival. The officers interviewed witnesses and determined there were grounds to arrest the affected person for assault. The affected person and the person had traveled to the affected person’s residence and were there when the subject officers arrived on scene. The witness officer and another person were also present. Another person heard a person screaming from inside the residence and alerted the other officers. Led by a subject officer, the officers knocked on the door and directed the affected person to come out. The affected person refused to allow them entry, asserting it was their home and they needed a warrant. The officers explained that they had exigent circumstances and demanded that they open the door or they would force their way inside. When the affected person continued to refuse, a subject officer used a baton to smash the door’s glass window. Shortly after the window was broken, the affected person opened the door. The subject officers quickly grabbed the affected person and pulled them forward. The affected person stepped from the residence floor to ground level, landing awkwardly on their foot and fracturing it in the process. They were placed in a prone position on the ground and handcuffed without incident. The affected person was transported to hospital after their arrest and treated for their foot fractures.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person 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 early 2025, the subject officer was off-duty and attending an appointment at a business, located in a strip mall in Thunder Bay. While there, they observed a man – the affected person applying orange spray paint to the front door of the business. They alerted the owner, and the owner ran after the affected person, and the subject officer followed. As the affected person fled along the sidewalk towards the street, they lost their footing and fell forward onto the sidewalk, striking their face. The owner and the subject officer reached them within moments where they had fallen. The owner attempted to secure the affected person’s legs, during which the affected person kicked at them. The subject officer reached towards the affected person’s upper body as they attempted to gain control of them, the affected person continued to kick. The subject officer positioned the affected person onto their right side, and as they applied physical control, including the use of their bodyweight, the affected person came to rest in a prone position. The subject officer maintained control over the affected person’s upper back. The subject officer and the owner then brought the affected person’s hands behind them and continued to restrain them until police arrived. Several bystanders had gathered, and one contacted police. A police officer responded, arrested the affected person for mischief, assisted them to their feet, and transported them to the police station. The following day, the affected person attended hospital and was diagnosed with bilateral nasal bone fractures of indeterminate age.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and the subject officer, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. In the late afternoon of December 2025, police officers were dispatched to an address in Hamilton, following a call to police about domestic abuse. A person reported that the affected person had threatened them earlier in the day and attended at their apartment where they caused a domestic disturbance. The subject officer, in the company of another officer, arrived at the address. They were aware that there were warrants in effect for the affected person’s arrest on firearm-related charges. A person spoke with the officers and indicated that the affected person was possibly at the rear of the residence. The subject officer walked to the side of the house and located the affected person sitting in a chair. They directed the affected person not to move, told them to stand up and then grabbed their arm, lifting them from the chair. The affected person immediately began to resist the officer. The two exchanged punches before falling to the ground where the struggle continued. The subject officer yelled out for the other officer’s help, and they appeared quickly and joined in the struggle. The affected person flailed their legs and refused to release their arms to be handcuffed. The subject officer and the other officer punched the affected person multiple times but could not sufficiently subdue them to take control of their arms behind the back. Another officer arrived on scene about two minutes after the altercation started and assisted in eventually handcuffing the affected person. The affected person was transported to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with injuries.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person 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 officer agreed to an interview with the SIU. One of the subject officers did authorize the release of their notes. In the afternoon of late 2025, the affected person was arrested for drug trafficking following a traffic stop by police officers. A warrant authorizing a search of the affected person's residence for evidence of drug trafficking was in effect at the time. An officer searched the affected person at the scene and confiscated a quantity of crack cocaine and fentanyl from their clothes. The affected person 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 and began to vomit. Paramedics arrived at the station and the affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with opioid withdrawal.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
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 did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the evening of late 2025, the affected person was on their way home from work travelling in Brampton. They had just taken the on-ramp to a highway when they were pulled over by a RIDE program set up on the ramp. The affected person was approached by an officer who asked them to pull ahead for further questioning. Another officer approached and asked the affected person to continue forward and stop their vehicle on the ramp shoulder in front of a police vehicle. They did so. The officer asked the affected person to step out of their vehicle and escorted them to the back of the vehicle. They were joined at this time by the subject officer. The affected person was angry about being pulled over. They would not allow the officer to fully read them a breath test demand and insisted the officer simply administer the test. The officer explained that they needed to read the demand in full and ensure they understood it. They told the affected person that refusing to take the test would constitute a criminal offence. The subject officer tried to calm the affected person but to no avail. When the affected person began to walk to the driver’s door of their vehicle, the officer grabbed and pushed them back towards the rear of the vehicle and a snow-covered area past the ramp shoulder. The affected person fell backwards over the ramp curb. They attempted to stand back up but were forced to the ground by the subject officer. There followed a struggle between the affected person and several police officers. The affected person was eventually handcuffed and placed in the rear seat of a police cruiser. The affected person attended hospital the next day and was diagnosed with a concussion.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person's police custodians, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officials did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the afternoon of late 2025, the affected person was arrested in connection with a stolen automobile. They were searched at the scene and transported to the police headquarters where they were lodged in a cell. They told police that they had consumed heroin a couple of hours before their arrest and explained they would become sick in their cell once the effects of the drug wore off. The affected person was monitored by special constables while in cells. They appeared to sleep for most of their time in custody. At about early morning, the affected person had just woken when they started to vomit. They were removed from the cell and transported to hospital. The affected person was taken to hospital and treated for opioid withdrawal.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized. In early 2025, police were called to a residence in Brantford. A resident of the building had called police to report a disturbance coming from another unit. Two officers attended at the scene and knocked at the door. The disturbance involved the affected person and another individual. The affected person was subject to an order at the time preventing contact and communication with the other individual. Realizing police were outside the door and that they would be arrested for breaching the order, the affected person attempted to escape apprehension. They climbed through a window of their unit onto the roof of an adjoining structure, ran across the roof to an exterior staircase and started to descend. Two other officers had also responded to the disturbance call and were outside as the first two officers entered. They observed the affected person running on the roof and were waiting for them at the bottom of the staircase. When the affected person jumped over the staircase railing and collapsed on the ground below, the officers approached to take them into custody. The affected person complained of pain to their foot and was transported to hospital where they were diagnosed with a broken ankle.