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).
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 the hospital, the person became increasingly agitated and tried to leave. After being warned to calm down, the person continued to be belligerent, and the officers attempted to control them. The person struggled, and the officers forced them to the floor, resulting in an injury. The person was subsequently restrained to a hospital bed.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
In the evening of early 2026, officers from the Ottawa Police Service were responding to a reported domestic disturbance in the area of a city in Ontario when they received a related call about a male on the roof of a nearby building. The subject officer was the first to arrive on scene, followed by two other officers. The male on the roof, the affected person, was found to be of unsound mind and had earlier called police from their residence, reporting a break-in. They exited their residence through a window and made their way to the building, ascending onto the roof via an exterior ladder. The officers attempted to persuade the affected person to come down safely, but they threatened to jump if not provided with a cigarette and hung from a light bar attached to the top of the exterior wall. As negotiations were ongoing, a fire truck arrived on scene. Shortly after, the affected person lost their grip on the light bar and fell to the ground, landing feet-first. They were transported to hospital and diagnosed with multiple fractures of both feet.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officers chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of their notes. In early 2026, the subject officers, in the company of other officers, attended at an apartment in Oshawa. A neighbouring tenant had called 911 to report the sounds of a woman screaming coming from the apartment. Officers knocked on the door and asked the woman to open it. She tried but was unable to open the door. She could be heard moaning in distress and saying that she had been choked. An officer retrieved a ram from her cruiser and an officer used it to break open the door. The woman was by the doorway and pointed in the direction of a hallway. The affected person appeared in the hallway. He was at the apartment in violation of a bail order. An officer ordered the affected person to put his hands behind his back. The affected person refused to do so and instead walked towards the officer. The officer grabbed a hold of the affected person and attempted to wrestle control of his arms behind the back. The affected person refused to release his arms. There followed a struggle during which the affected person was forced to the hallway floor and subjected to multiple punches by the officers, and the use of a CEW, before he was handcuffed behind the back. The affected person was taken into custody and transported to hospital on two occasions before he was eventually diagnosed with a broken rib.
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. As was his legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes. 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 his cruiser in the parking lot, and located the male – the affected person. He detained the affected person and subsequently arrested him 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 he placed him in the rear of his vehicle. Another officer arrived on scene in her cruiser to take custody of the affected person and transport him to the station. She 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 his handcuffed hands to the front and his shoes were off. The officers removed the affected person and subjected him 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. He said that he 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 his mouth. Other officers arrived on scene and did the same. The affected person said that he would rather die than go to police cells. Paramedics attended and transported the affected person to hospital. He was unresponsive with persistent bradycardia on arrival. He was monitored overnight and released into the custody of the authorities the following day.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
In the afternoon of early 2026, the subject officer observed the affected person in the area of a street in Stratford. 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 reversed directions and ran. The subject officer had stopped their vehicle a short distance away and exited, running across the street and tackling the affected person to the ground. The affected person attempted to right themselves and was held down by the subject officer and the witness officer, who arrived on scene within seconds. There ensued a struggle 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 arriving on scene, the affected person was handcuffed behind the back. 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 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 wanted the affected person removed from their residence. The subject officer arrived on scene with another officer shortly before 11:00 p.m., joined shortly by a third officer. The person who called 911 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 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 both subject officers, gives rise to the following scenario. In the afternoon of early 2026, members of a division's MCU were on the lookout for the affected person. They had information to believe that they had purchased a cellphone the day before with counterfeit money, and planned to arrest them for the offence. Operating unmarked vehicles and dressed in plainclothes, the officers located the affected person exiting an apartment building and tracked them to a grocery store, just around the corner from their residence in a Toronto area. They took up positions on the street outside the grocery store intending to take the affected person into custody on their exit from the store. Unaware they were being followed, the affected person left the store with a box of diapers in hand and started walking in the direction of their residence. They were confronted by a subject officer. The officer physically engaged the affected person and the two went to the ground by a stand of bicycle racks. Other members of the MCU arrived quickly at the site of the arrest, including another subject officer, and intervened. The second subject officer kneed the affected person twice in the left torso. The affected person was handcuffed behind the back and transported to the police station. The affected person complained of pain in the left arm and was transported to hospital where X-rays proved inconclusive because of swelling in the area. They were told to return to the fracture clinic for a follow-up assessment. Later, the affected person was X-rayed again in hospital and diagnosed with a radial head fracture of the left elbow.
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 and was 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 other 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.
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 wanted the affected person removed from their residence. The officer arrived on scene with another officer shortly before a certain time, joined shortly by a third officer. The person who called 911 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 officer. The affected person was placed in the backseat of the 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 police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. Two officers travelled to a residence in a specific area to arrest the affected person for criminal harassment. They had earlier spoken to a woman, who reported that the affected person had stalked her and she was concerned for her safety and the safety of her family. The affected person answered the officers’ knock on the door and was told they were to be arrested. They told the officers to get a warrant and closed the door, making their way to the basement. They called a family member, made remarks suggesting self-harm, and locked themselves in the bathroom where they proceeded to harm themselves. The officers were allowed into the residence by a witness, who expressed concern for the affected person’s safety. The officers went to the basement and started to speak to the affected person through the bathroom door. They told them they wanted to ensure their safety. The affected person said they were fine and taking a shower. The officers grew increasingly worried with the affected person’s wellbeing as their voice started to fade and attempted, unsuccessfully, to force open the door. Within minutes, additional officers arrived with a breach tool. The door was opened and officers entered. The affected person was inside the bathtub with injuries. Paramedics were called to the scene and transported them to hospital.
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 his legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes. In early 2026, two officers were dispatched to a location 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 he observed a male – the affected person – with a cut to the forehead. The affected person refused to cooperate as the officer sought to question him 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 he failed to do so, they warned that he would be arrested for public mischief. Shortly after, the officers took hold of the affected person to take him into custody. The affected person refused to surrender his arms to be handcuffed and was grounded. On the floor, he resisted the officers’ efforts to control his 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 him verbally to give up his arms, before the officers wrestled control of his arms behind the back and secured them in handcuffs. The affected person was transported to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with a broken nose.
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. The subject officer drove in that direction, travelling eastward across the bridge. With him was another officer. The subject officer approached the eastern 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 north of their location 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_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. They turned into side streets, ultimately losing control of their vehicle because of 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. They subsequently attended hospital and were diagnosed with a fractured left rib.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person, the subject officers, 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 officers did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. Shortly before midnight, in early 2026, police were asked to assist in the search of a suspect who had fled the scene of an attempted break and enter in the area and entered into the region with two accomplices in a vehicle. The vehicle had crashed on a street in the area, after which two of the suspects were arrested. The third took flight on foot and remained at large. Police deployed officers to the area of the collision and established a perimeter. Police dog teams were brought in to assist in the search, as was a police drone. The subject officers were part of the police operations. They were paired with a dog handler, who conducted a track of the suspect across residential streets in the area and the rear yards of homes. At about 1:40 a.m., with the assistance of residents in the neighbourhood sharing their surveillance camera footage with the police, the subject officers and the dog handler located a male – the affected person – hiding underneath a tarp in the rear yard of a residence in the area. They alerted other officers, who arrived at the location to assist in taking the affected person into custody. The dog handler loudly announced that officers were present and directed the affected person to surrender. Initially, there was no response from the affected person. The officer warned that they would deploy their dog if the affected person did not surrender, at which point the affected person indicated they would come out. Another brief period passed before the subject officers moved in and physically engaged the affected person. They removed them from under the tarp and dragged them a distance away. The affected person was struck several times by the officers, including in the face, before they were handcuffed behind the back. Following their arrest, the affected person was seen at hospital and diagnosed with several facial fractures and a broken finger.
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 a area. The person who called 911 reported a disturbance involving the affected person. They wanted the affected person removed from their residence. The officer arrived on scene with another officer shortly before 11:00 p.m., joined shortly by a third officer. The person who called 911 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 officer. The affected person was placed in the backseat of the 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.
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 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 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 CDSA search warrant, the team entered the house to search for cocaine and fentanyl. 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.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person, a 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, a subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. Shortly before midnight, in early 2026, police were asked to assist in the search of a suspect who had fled the scene of an attempted break and enter in the area and entered into the region with two accomplices in a vehicle. The vehicle had crashed on a street in the area, after which two of the suspects were arrested. The third took flight on foot and remained at large. Police deployed officers to the area of the collision and established a perimeter. Police dog teams were brought in to assist in the search, as was a police drone. Two subject officers were part of the police operations. They were paired with a dog handler, who conducted a track of the suspect across residential streets in the area and the rear yards of homes. At about 1:40 a.m., with the assistance of residents in the neighbourhood sharing their surveillance camera footage with the police, the subject officers and the dog handler located a male – the affected person – hiding underneath a covering in the rear yard of a residence in the area. They alerted other officers, who arrived at the location to assist in taking the affected person into custody. The dog handler loudly announced that officers were present and directed the affected person to surrender. Initially, there was no response from the affected person. The officer warned that they would deploy their dog if the affected person did not surrender, at which point the affected person indicated they would come out. Another brief period passed before the subject officers moved in and physically engaged the affected person. They removed them from under the covering and dragged them a distance away. The affected person was struck several times by the officers, including in the face, before they were handcuffed behind the back. Following their arrest, the affected person was seen at hospital and diagnosed with several facial fractures and a broken finger.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant and a subject officer, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, a subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. In the afternoon of early 2026, two subject officers were on-duty together assigned to a neighbourhood resource team, a proactive policing initiative by the service. The officers attended an apartment complex in the area to perform welfare checks, enforce conditions of release and execute outstanding arrest warrants. The affected person 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 affected person stepped out. Asked to identify themselves, the affected person provided a false name and attempted to walk by the officers. The officers took hold of them and a struggle ensued. The affected person was forcibly taken to the floor and handcuffed behind the back. The affected person was transported to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a fractured left knee.
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 were 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.