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).
- Province: ON×
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 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 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 the early morning of a day in January 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 some 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 some 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 they were subject to arrest for failing to remain at the scene of an accident. The affected person made their way home to an area in Brampton, about six kilometres east of the collision scene. The subject officer was waiting for them in the area and grabbed a hold of the affected person, 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 they were joined by another officer, responding to the scene. The affected person struggled against the officers' efforts to control their arms and bit an officer's finger. 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_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 divisional 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 the area of a major street. 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 an 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 officer, and intervened. The 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_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 certain 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 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 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 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 reversed directions and ran. The subject officer stopped their vehicle, exited, and tackled 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. 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 left 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 right orbital bone fracture.
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 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_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 a city and entered into a 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 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 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_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. They 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 a hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left wrist.
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 3:10 a.m. 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 left 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 of the left elbow and dog bites to the left arm.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police and non-police eyewitnesses, 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 early morning, the affected person was at a nightclub in the Entertainment District. They were with friends to celebrate a birthday. They became involved in a disturbance with another group of patrons, and were escorted out of the premises by security staff. Unhappy with the manner in which security staff had treated them, one of the friends complained to officers who were outside the club policing the area. The subject officer was among the officers outside the nightclub. They and the friend had a brief verbal exchange before the affected person intervened and began to argue with the officer. The two were face to face and becoming more belligerent with each other. At one point, the subject officer told them to get out of the area or they would be arrested for public intoxication. Shortly after, the friend, standing beside the subject officer and the affected person, encroached on the officer's personal space in an aggressive fashion. The officer grabbed hold of the friend and was subsequently confronted by the affected person, who stepped in to try to separate the two. The subject officer turned their attention to the affected person and the two subsequently punched at each other before the officer grabbed hold of them and other officers took hold of their arms. The officers attempted to take the affected person to the ground. The affected person struggled against their efforts and was met with several open-hand palm strikes to the abdomen and a couple of knees to the buttocks by another officer. Following those strikes, they were forced prone on the ground and handcuffed behind the back. The affected person was seen at hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a nasal fracture and a concussion.
custody_death · 2018-Q4
An individual died from fentanyl toxicity at a correctional institution.
custody_death · 2018-Q4
A person died in hospital after a heavy blunt impact to the head. The coroner's inquest made no recommendations.
custody_death · 2018-Q4
An inquest was held in a city in early 2023 into the death of an individual who died in a hospital. Cause of death was heavy blunt impact to the head; means were determined to be accident. The jury made no recommendations.
custody_death · 2018-Q4
A coroner's inquest was held into the death of a person who died at a detention centre in Ontario from acute toxic effects of fentanyl and cocaine, with means undetermined. The jury returned a verdict and issued recommendations to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the detention centre regarding custody record management, compatibility assessments, surveillance, and staff training on substance use and mental health.
custody_death · 2018-Q4
A person died from acute toxic effects of fentanyl and cocaine while in custody at a detention centre. The coroner's inquest made recommendations to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the detention centre to improve safety and prevent similar deaths.
custody_death · 2018-Q4
A coroner's inquest was held into the deaths of two individuals who died in custody at a health centre after being held at a police service headquarters detention unit — one in 2018, from multi-drug toxicity, and another in 2021, from methamphetamine-amphetamine toxicity, both classified as accidents. The jury returned a verdict in 2025, and issued recommendations to the police service regarding medical professional integration, biometric monitoring, documentation, staff training on withdrawal symptoms, and operational debriefs following deaths in custody.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and other 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 morning of early 2026, staff at a housing support centre in a regional town contacted police to have a woman – the affected person – removed from the facility. The affected person was causing a disturbance and had behaved rudely to staff. They were subject to an order prohibiting their attendance at the centre. The officer arrived on scene and approached the affected person. They were seated on a sofa in the reception area. The officer stood a distance from them and explained that they needed to leave. The affected person refused to leave. After a period of further conversation, the officer approached the affected person and took hold of their arm. The affected person moved down the sofa away from the officer. They flailed their legs at the officer and fought against their efforts to take them into custody. The struggle moved to the floor where the officer attempted to wrestle control of their arms behind their back. The affected person resisted strenuously for a period of time, even as the officer tried to keep them pinned to the floor with their knees and hands. It was only with the arrival of two additional officers that the affected person was handcuffed with their hands behind their back. Following their arrest, the affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a serious injury.
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, one of the subject officers 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 subject 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_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police eyewitnesses, 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 on the lookout for a vehicle following a call to police from a person. The person had called to report that a family member – the affected person – had left their residence in the vehicle. They were of unsound mind and experiencing suicidal ideation. An officer located the vehicle and attempted to pull it over. The affected person refused to stop and picked up their speed. Two other officers, driving separate cruisers, joined the first officer. The three of them decided to attempt a rolling block of the vehicle. At some point, the officers positioned their cruisers around the vehicle and brought it to a stop. The officers exited their cruisers and attempted to engage with the affected person. The affected person had a knife that they occasionally held at their neck and abdomen. The officers realized that the affected person was only a risk to themselves, and put their firearms away. They were upset and asked the officers to kill them. They talked of being infected with spores and fungi. As time went by, the affected person became less responsive to the officers’ overtures. A team of tactical officers arrived on scene and surrounded the vehicle. Among their ranks was a trained negotiator who also attempted to bring the standoff to a peaceful resolution. The affected person could not be persuaded to let go of the knife and exit the vehicle. A plan was agreed that the tactical officers would storm the vehicle to take the affected person into custody when and if they placed the knife away from their person. At some point, the subject officer gave the signal to move in after the affected person had put the knife away from their person. Tactical officers smashed the front door windows and discharged a less-lethal weapon at the affected person and spray into the vehicle. The affected person retrieved the knife and suffered a stab wound to the abdomen. The officers took possession of the knife and removed the affected person from the vehicle. The affected person was transported to hospital by paramedics and treated for a laceration to their abdomen.