Search
Full-text search across every published incident. Officer names are never indexed — search hits match the redacted summary, agency name, tribunal citation, and the controlled-vocabulary fields (incident type, finding, disposition).
- Agency: siu-on×
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized. In the early morning of December 21, 2025, BPS were called to a residence in the area of Colborne Street East and Clarence Street South in Brantford . A resident of the building had called police to report a disturbance coming from another unit. WO #1 and WO #2 attended at the scene and knocked at the door. The disturbance involved the Complainant and the CW . The Complainant was subject to an order at the time preventing contact and communication with the CW . Realizing police were outside the door and that he would be arrested for breaching the order, the Complainant attempted to escape apprehension. He climbed through a window of his second floor unit onto the roof of an adjoining structure, ran across the roof to an exterior staircase and started to descend. The SO #1 and SO #2 had also responded to the disturbance call and were outside as WO #1 and WO #2 entered. They observed the Complainant running on the roof and were waiting for him at the bottom of the staircase. When the Complainant jumped over the staircase railing at the midway landing and collapsed on the ground below, the officers approached to take him into custody. The Complainant complained of pain to his right foot and was transported to hospital where he was diagnosed with a broken right ankle.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized, In the afternoon of December 20, 2025, the Complainant attended the Canada Post outlet in the Shoppers Drug Mart, 140 Holland Street West, Bradford. He was there to pick up a key to a home. Staff at the outlet told him he could not be helped because he did not have the proper documentation. The Complainant became belligerent and slammed his phone on the counter. Police were called to the scene. WO #1 was the first to arrive, joined shortly by the SO . This was the officers’ second time at the outlet dealing with the Complainant. Earlier that afternoon, they had attended to deal with an irate Complainant, who had been refused service because of his behaviour and deficient paperwork. The Complainant had left the store on that occasion. On the present occasion, WO #1 told the Complainant to leave the store or he would be arrested, and then grabbed him to forcibly remove him from the store when he refused to exit of his own accord. The Complainant physically resisted WO #1’s efforts to push him out and the two tussled briefly. The SO grabbed the Complainant and threw him to the floor, after which he was handcuffed behind the back. The Complainant suffered a broken nose in the takedown. He was taken from the scene to hospital by paramedics.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU , including interviews with the Complainant and police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the events in question, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes. In the morning of December 11, 2025, acting on the authority of a Form 2 issued under the Mental Health Act , LPS officers attended an apartment in the area of Adelaide Street North and Huron Street , London. The form, authorizing police to compel the Complainant’s attendance at hospital for a psychiatric examination, had been obtained by the CW . The CW had become increasingly concerned for the Complainant’s well-being. Arriving at about 7:00 a.m. in front of the apartment door, officers attempted to have the Complainant exit the apartment. They explained who they were and why they were there. The Complainant adamantly refused to leave his apartment. Behind a barricaded front door, the Complainant variously threatened police that he would jump from the balcony and harm them or himself if they entered his residence. Officers, including a member of the service’s COAST [6] team, continued to negotiate with the Complainant attempting to dissuade him from harming himself or others. They assured him that he would not face criminal charges, and that they would simply be escorting him to hospital. The Complainant remained unreceptive. With information that the Complainant might jump from the balcony and was repeatedly threatening his life and those of the officers, the service deployed the ERU to the scene. The plan was to have ERU officers rappel from the roof to the Complainant’s balcony, preventing him from using it to jump from the building. ERU officers arrived at about 8:45 a.m. By about 9:25 a.m., four of them were harnessed and ready to descend from the rooftop – the SO , WO #1, WO #4 and WO #2. At 9:27 a.m., they started their descent. As the officers were reaching the balcony railing in question, they were confronted by the Complainant. With an aluminum baseball bat in hand, the Complainant began to swing at the officers as they were still hanging from their rappel lines, striking one of them in the left hand. The SO managed to land on the balcony and immediately became engaged in a struggle with the Complainant. The two punched at each other, and the Complainant fell to the ground. WO #4 deployed his CEW and the SO delivered a single right-handed punch to the face of the Complainant as he lay supine on the ground. Following the strike, the Complainant’s hands were handcuffed. The Complainant was taken to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with multiple facial fractures.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU , including interviews with the Complainant and the SO , and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. In the late afternoon of December 4, 2025, HPS officers were dispatched to an address in the area of Wentworth Street and Main Street East, Hamilton, following a call to police about domestic abuse. CW #1 reported that the Complainant had threatened her earlier in the day and attended at her apartment where he caused a domestic disturbance. The SO , in the company of WO #4, arrived at the address. They were aware that there were warrants in effect for the Complainant’s arrest on firearm-related charges. A friend of CW #1’s – CW #2 – spoke with the officers and indicated that the Complainant was possibly at the rear of the residence. The SO walked to the east side of the house and located the Complainant sitting in a chair. He directed the Complainant not to move, told him to stand up and then grabbed his right arm, lifting him from the chair. The Complainant immediately began to resist the officer. The two exchanged punches to the head before falling to the ground where the struggle continued. The SO yelled out for WO #4’s help, and he appeared quickly and joined in the struggle. The Complainant flailed his legs and refused to release his arms to be handcuffed. The SO and WO #4 punched the Complainant multiple times but could not sufficiently subdue him to take control of his arms behind the back. WO #1 arrived on scene about two minutes after the altercation started and assisted in eventually handcuffing the Complainant. The Complainant was transported to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with a broken nose and a fractured right orbital bone.
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 December 3, 2025, HPS officers, including SO #1 and SO #2, were dispatched to an address in the area of Wellington Street North and Barton Street West, Hamilton, following a call to police about a violent incident. The Complainant, in violation of a no-contact order, had visited the CW at the address and struck her in the face. The Complainant and the CW had left by the time of the officers’ arrival. The officers interviewed witnesses and determined there were grounds to arrest the Complainant for assault. The Complainant and the CW had traveled to the Complainant’s residence – a trailer parked at the rear of a property in the area of Wellington Street North and Burlington Street East – and were there when SO #1 and SO #2 arrived on scene shortly after 7:00 a.m. The WO and the SEW were also present. The SEW heard a female screaming from inside the trailer and alerted the other officers. Led by SO #2, the officers knocked on the trailer door and directed the Complainant to come out. The Complainant refused to allow them entry into the trailer, asserting it was his home and they needed a warrant. The officers explained that they had exigent circumstances and demanded that he open the door or they would force their way inside. When the Complainant continued to refuse, SO #2 used his baton to smash the door’s glass window. Shortly after the window was broken, the Complainant opened the door. SO #2 quickly grabbed him by the right side and SO #1 took hold of his left side, and the officers pulled him forward. The Complainant stepped from the trailer floor to ground level, landing awkwardly on his right foot and fracturing it in the process. He was placed in a prone position on the ground and handcuffed without incident. The Complainant was transported to hospital after his arrest and treated for his foot fractures.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU , including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes. In the evening of November 28, 2025, the Complainant was on his way home from work travelling east on Queen Street East in Brampton. He had just taken the on-ramp to southbound Highway 410 when he was pulled over by a RIDE program set up on the ramp. The Complainant was approached by an officer who asked him to pull ahead for further questioning. Another officer – WO #1 – approached and asked the Complainant to continue forward and stop his pick-up truck on the ramp shoulder in front of a police vehicle. He did so. WO #1 asked the Complainant to step out of his vehicle and escorted him to the back of the pick-up truck . They were joined at this time by the SO . The Complainant was angry about being pulled over. He would not allow WO #1 to fully read him a breath test demand and insisted the officer simply administer the test. WO #1 explained that he needed to read the demand in full and ensure he understood it. He told the Complainant that refusing to take the test would constitute a criminal offence. The SO tried to calm the Complainant but to no avail. When the Complainant began to walk to the driver’s door of his vehicle, the officer grabbed and pushed him back towards the rear of the truck and a snow-covered grassy area past the ramp shoulder. The Complainant fell backwards over the ramp curb. He attempted to stand back up but was forced to the ground by the SO . There followed a struggle between the Complainant and several police officers. The Complainant was eventually handcuffed and placed in the rear seat of a police cruiser. The Complainant 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 Complainant’s police custodians, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officials did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the afternoon of November 26, 2025, the Complainant was arrested in connection with a stolen automobile. He was searched at the scene and transported to the LPS headquarters where he was lodged in a cell at about 5:45 p.m. He told police that he had consumed heroin a couple of hours before his arrest and explained he would become sick in his cell once the effects of the drug wore off. The Complainant was monitored by special constables while in cells. He appeared to sleep for most of his time in custody. At about 7:40 a.m., the Complainant had just woken when he started to vomit. He was removed from the cell and transported to hospital. The Complainant was taken to hospital and treated for opioid withdrawal.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU , including interviews with the Complainant 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 official agreed an interview with the SIU . SO #1 did authorize the release of his notes. In the afternoon of November 26, 2025, the Complainant was arrested for drug trafficking following a traffic stop by CKPS officers. A warrant authorizing a search of the Complainant’s residence for evidence of drug trafficking was in effect at the time. WO #1 searched the Complainant at the scene and confiscated a quantity of crack cocaine and fentanyl from his clothes. The Complainant was transported to the police station and subjected to another search of his clothing, this time with negative results. He was lodged in a cell at about 2:45 p.m. and began to vomit at about 6:50 p.m. Paramedics arrived at the station at about 7:30 p.m. The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with opioid withdrawal.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU , including interviews with the Complainant and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed interviews with the SIU . They did authorize the release of their notes. Shortly before midnight, October 18, 2025, a team of HRPS TRU officers, including SO #1 and SO #2, were dispatched to a house in the area of Great Lakes Boulevard and Rebecca Street, Oakville, the residence of the Complainant. They arrived intending to arrest the Complainant under the Mental Health Act following a number of calls to police in which he was reported to have attacked motorists, brandishing a knife in one instance. The Complainant refused to surrender to police. Over the course of the next couple of hours, he would exit and re-enter his home through the front door, challenging the officers gathered by the road outside his house. He told them they would have to engage him physically to take him into custody. At about 2:20 a.m., as the Complainant was two to three metres away from his front door gesticulating at the officers on the roadway, SO #1 and SO #2, in the company of WO #1 and WO #2, snuck up behind him around a corner of the home. SO #1 attempted to distract the Complainant, who reacted by turning to run towards the front porch and door. SO #2, WO #1 and WO #2 discharged their CEW s and also attempted to distract the Complainant as he made it onto the front porch but no further. SO #1 cut him off before he could re-enter the house, using his left arm to tackle him against the wall adjacent the front door. Following additional CEW discharges, the Complainant’s arms were handcuffed behind the back. The Complainant was seen at hospital after his arrest and treated for a deep laceration to the scalp.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU , including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes. In the afternoon of October 9, 2025, the SO was off-duty and attending an appointment at a business, located in a strip mall on Bay Street, in Thunder Bay. While there, he observed a man – the Complainant applying orange spray paint to the front door of the business. He alerted the owner – CW #3. CW #3 ran after the Complainant, and the SO followed. As he fled along the sidewalk towards Bay Street, the Complainant lost his footing and fell forward onto the sidewalk, striking his face. CW #3 and the SO reached him within moments where he had fallen. CW #3 attempted to secure the Complainant’s legs, during which the Complainant kicked at him. The SO reached towards the Complainant’s upper body as he attempted to gain control of him, the Complainant continued to kick. The SO positioned the Complainant onto his right side, and as he applied physical control, including the use of his bodyweight, the Complainant came to rest in a prone position. The SO maintained control over the Complainant’s upper back. The SO and CW #3 then brought the Complainant’s hands behind him and continued to restrain him until police arrived. Several bystanders had gathered, and one contacted police. WO #1 responded, arrested the Complainant for mischief, assisted him to his feet, and transported him to the TBPS police station. The following day, the Complainant attended hospital and was diagnosed with bilateral nasal bone fractures of indeterminate age.