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_transport_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, neither subject officer agreed to an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. In the evening of early 2026, the subject officers were on patrol operating a marked cruiser. At about 9:41 p.m., the officers began to follow a vehicle for failing to stop at a red light before making a right turn onto a street and heading south. The vehicle quickly turned left into an apartment complex and then left again onto a ramp to the underground parking for a building situated in the area. The cruiser, its emergency lights activated while stopped behind the vehicle, followed the vehicle as the entry gate rose and the garage door opened. The affected person was driving the vehicle. He continued down a lane between rows of parking spaces, reversed into a parking spot and exited his vehicle. He was immediately confronted by one of the officers asking where he was going. The officers had stopped their cruiser short of the vehicle in the lane. The affected person walked past the officers and towards a wall, against which he began to urinate. He was pinned against the wall by one of the officers while he continued to relieve himself, after which he began to struggle against both officers as they tried to control his arms behind his back. The affected person was told he had failed to stop for police. The parties struggled for about five minutes. With the assistance of additional officers, the affected person was handcuffed and taken into custody. He had been forced to the ground, punched twice in the head by one of the officers and drive-stunned multiple times in the back by the other officer. The affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis, which was attributed to trauma and the use of the CEW.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
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 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 morning of early 2026, a constable was a Community Intervention Response Team (CIRT) officer on patrol in their marked cruiser when their Automatic Licence Plate Recognition (ALPR) device detected a stolen vehicle - a Jeep Wrangler - parked outside a market in Brampton. The officer radioed for the assistance of another officer. The subject officer responded to the request and arrived in the area. Notwithstanding the tinted windows on the Jeep, it was determined that there was a person in the driver’s seat of the vehicle. The constable positioned their cruiser directly behind the Jeep to prevent its escape as the subject officer went to the driver’s door and opened it. Their intention was to arrest the driver. The affected person was sitting in the Jeep and gripped the steering wheel with their right hand as the subject officer, joined shortly by the constable, attempted to forcibly extricate them. The subject officer delivered several punches to the affected person’s head and upper body area. The affected person was forced out of the vehicle, taken to the ground and punched again in the abdomen by the subject officer before they were handcuffed behind the back. Following their arrest, the affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a broken nose.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject officer agreed to interviews with the SIU. One of the subject officers did provide a written statement. In the late evening of early 2026, police officers were dispatched to a motor vehicle accident at an intersection in a residential area. The collision involved a single vehicle that had been stolen moments earlier. Witnesses to the collision reported that the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle – the affected person – had fled the area. The affected person had run from the site of the collision to a nearby residential street and ultimately made his way to the rear of a property where they hid in a backyard shed. A police dog unit was deployed to the area and eventually tracked the affected person to the shed. One of the officers who had been searching for the affected person called out to them but there was no response. The officer eventually opened the door to the shed and told the affected person to show their hands. When the affected person, lying on the ground, failed to do so, the officer discharged their CEW. As the affected person cried out in pain, the officer dragged them out of the shed, delivering a punch to the torso in the process. Other officers arrived on scene and joined in the arrest process. Repeated directions were given to the affected person to show and release their hands. The officer struck the affected person again in the torso and another officer punched them in the head or upper body area multiple times. Following another CEW discharge by the officer into the affected person’s back, their hands were controlled and handcuffed. The affected person was seen at hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with injuries.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police eyewitnesses, 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 afternoon of early 2026, the affected person was in custody at a police detachment. Earlier that day, they had been arrested in relation to an incident at a municipal building. While being processed for release following a period in detention, the affected person objected to a condition that would prohibit their presence at a location. The officer explained that an amendment could be made but indicated that the affected person would have to be returned to cells for a period. The affected person refused to accompany the officer to cells and a struggle followed in which they were forced to the floor. The affected person was eventually handcuffed and returned to a cell. Later that day, paramedics transported the affected person to hospital where they were diagnosed with injuries.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person, the subject officer and other police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. In the afternoon of early 2026, the subject officer and another officer were dispatched to a residence in rural Lambton County. A person had called police to request a welfare check, and the caller was aware that the individuals involved were prohibited from being in each other’s company. The officers arrived at the location and entered the residence. One person was arrested for assault. The affected person was located and arrested by the subject officer for breach of a non-association condition. The subject officer handcuffed the affected person behind the back and escorted them down an external staircase. As the pair neared the bottom of the stairs, the subject officer stepped on the affected person’s left foot. The affected person was not wearing shoes or socks at the time. The affected person was seen at hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a fractured left foot.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person, the subject officer and other civilian eyewitnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. In the morning of early 2026, the subject officer was dispatched to the area of a domestic disturbance. On their arrival, the officer observed a male holding the affected person down on the roadway. Ordered to remove himself from the affected person, the male did so while explaining to the officer that the affected person had damaged his property and assaulted him. The subject officer decided to arrest the affected person for assault and mischief. There followed a physical engagement between the three parties during which the subject officer used force against the affected person and the male. The affected person and the male were handcuffed and taken into custody. The affected person attended hospital following their release and was diagnosed with a concussion.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police eyewitnesses, 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 afternoon of a day in 2026, the affected person, while detained in a cell of a police detachment, reached into their underpants, retrieved a quantity of drugs and consumed them. About an hour later, they lapsed into medical distress with seizure-like symptoms. Custodial staff were quickly alerted to the affected person’s situation. They administered several doses of Narcan and summoned EMS. Paramedics arrived on scene and transported the affected person to hospital where they were treated for an overdose. The day before, acting on the strength of a warrant, two officers had arrested the affected person. One of the officers had conducted a pat-down search at the time, but failed to discover a body-pack around the affected person’s torso, which contained a plastic container of illicit substances. After being placed in a cruiser for transport to the detachment, the affected person was able to manipulate their handcuffed arms to retrieve the container from their pack and conceal it down the front of their underwear. At the detachment, the affected person revealed they were wearing the body-pack. It was removed from their possession and a quantity of methamphetamine was confiscated. A further pat-down search before the affected person was lodged in a cell failed to discover the container they were hiding.
pursuit_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, police officers were on the lookout in a regional area for a SUV that had reportedly been involved in several collisions and was said to be operated in a reckless manner - speeding, swerving and skidding on the roadway. It had sustained significant damage to the front passenger side. An officer was among the officers responding to one of the collision scenes, travelling east on a county road, when he spotted the SUV passing him in the opposite direction. The officer performed a U-turn and accelerated after the vehicle, activating his cruiser’s emergency lights and siren. A short time later, the SUV pulled over to the shoulder of the road and came to a stop. The officer stopped a short distance behind the SUV. The affected person was driving the SUV and was alone in the vehicle. He opened his driver’s door, observed the officer approaching him on foot, and asked the officer what he had done. The officer said he was driving a stolen vehicle. The affected person said the vehicle was not stolen. Told he was being detained for a “hit and run”, the affected person asked for more information. The affected person refused to exit the SUV at the officer’s direction and then began to grapple with him on the road when the officer dragged him out. Another officer was responding to the first officer’s radio request for backup when he arrived on scene to find the two fighting in the middle of the county road. The officer exited his cruiser and ran to the altercation just as the first officer was bringing the affected person down against the driver side of the SUV. As the two continued to wrestle each other, the second officer threw six punches in the direction of the affected person’s head. Following the final blow, the affected person brought his hands to cover his face. He was turned onto his front and handcuffed behind the back. Following his arrest, the affected person was seen at hospital and diagnosed with a fractured right orbital bone.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police and non-police eyewitness, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the morning of early 2026, the subject officer and another officer were dispatched to a convenience store in the area of a major road and avenue. A store employee had contacted police to report a male and female shoplifter. The officers arrived on scene and spoke with store staff, confirming that two suspects had left the store with alcohol and food without paying for the items. The employee showed a video clip they had taken with their cellphone, depicting the male and female. The officers located the suspects – a person and the affected person – at a nearby bus shelter. One person was taken into custody by one officer without incident. The affected person, however, resisted when the subject officer attempted to secure them in handcuffs. The officer was able to affix a cuff to the right hand but had difficulty attaching the other cuff to the affected person’s left hand. The affected person objected to their arrest, denied that they had done anything wrong, and struggled against the subject officer’s efforts to bring their arms behind the back. The tussle eventually made its way outside the bus shelter where the other officer intervened. The officers brought the affected person to the ground, after which the other officer secured both their hands in handcuffs. Following their arrest, the affected person was taken to hospital and treated for an injury.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized. In late 2025, the subject officer and the witness officer were dispatched to an apartment in the area of a city in Ontario, following calls to police from the resident, the affected person. The affected person threatened to kill herself if police did not attend her residence and indicated that she had cut her wrists. The officers arrived at the location, where they were joined by paramedics. The first responders made their way to the apartment door. Finding it locked, the subject officer kicked it open. The affected person was in her bedroom at the time. She was highly agitated and belligerent with the officers. A cut was visible on her wrist. The officers handcuffed the affected person behind the back and were escorting her down a hallway in the apartment when the witness officer briefly pinned her against a wall as the affected person’s hostility escalated. The affected person turned and spat on the witness officer, and was taken to the floor by the officers in a prone position. The affected person screamed at the officers to kill her and banged her face on the floor about a half-dozen times, fracturing her nose in the process. The subject officer took hold of the affected person’s head to prevent her hurting herself. The affected person was seen at hospital after her arrest and ultimately diagnosed with a broken nose.
pursuit_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, police officers were on the lookout in a regional area for a SUV that had reportedly been involved in several collisions and was said to be operated in a reckless manner - speeding, swerving and skidding on the roadway. It had sustained significant damage to the front passenger side. An officer was among the officers responding to one of the collision scenes, travelling east on a county road, when he spotted the SUV passing him in the opposite direction. The officer performed a U-turn and accelerated after the vehicle, activating his cruiser’s emergency lights and siren. A short time later, the SUV pulled over to the shoulder of the road and came to a stop. The officer stopped a short distance behind the SUV. The driver was alone in the vehicle. He opened his driver’s door, observed the officer approaching him on foot, and asked the officer what he had done. The officer said he was driving a stolen vehicle. The driver said the vehicle was not stolen. Told he was being detained for a “hit and run”, the driver asked for more information. The driver refused to exit the SUV at the officer’s direction and then began to grapple with him on the road when the officer dragged him out. Another officer was responding to the first officer’s radio request for backup when he arrived on scene to find the two fighting in the middle of the road. The officer exited his cruiser and ran to the altercation just as the first officer was bringing the driver down against the driver side of the SUV. As the two continued to wrestle each other, the second officer threw six punches in the direction of the driver’s head. Following the final blow, the driver brought his hands to cover his face. He was turned onto his front and handcuffed behind the back. Following his arrest, the driver was seen at hospital and diagnosed with a fractured right orbital bone.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person, the subject officer, and other civilian eyewitnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. In the morning of early 2026, the subject officer was dispatched to the area of a domestic disturbance. On their arrival, the officer observed a male holding the affected person down on the roadway. Ordered to remove himself from the affected person, the male did so while explaining to the officer that she had damaged his property and assaulted him. The subject officer decided to arrest the affected person for assault and mischief. There followed a physical engagement between the three parties during which the subject officer used force against the affected person and another individual. The affected person and the other individual were handcuffed and taken into custody. The affected person attended hospital following their release and was diagnosed with a concussion.
vehicle_injury · 2026-Q1
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized. In early 2026, the subject officer sat stationary in their marked cruiser in a parking lot at the southeast corner of a major intersection. They and their passenger – a witness officer – were manning a perimeter point at that location, their cruiser stopped facing the roadway. At about 2:43 a.m., two vehicles travelled past their location at excessive speed – a white vehicle and a black vehicle - as if they were racing each other. The subject officer pulled onto the roadway and accelerated after the vehicles, intending to stop them in connection with their speed. The driver of the black vehicle was driving with several passengers, including the affected person, in the backseat. The vehicles continued at speeds as high as 170 km/h. Approaching a major road – approximately a kilometre-and-a-half from the starting location, the driver of the black vehicle came upon traffic stopped at a red light. They applied their brakes but crashed into two of the vehicles – a large truck to their left and another vehicle to their right. The affected person suffered a fractured hip in the collision. The subject officer arrived on scene and arrested the driver for dangerous driving.
vehicle_injury · 2026-Q1
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized. In early 2026, the subject officer sat stationary in their marked cruiser in a parking lot at the southeast corner of a major intersection. They and their passenger – a witness officer – were manning a perimeter point at that location, their cruiser stopped facing the roadway. At about 2:43 a.m., two vehicles travelled past their location at excessive speed – a white vehicle and a black vehicle - as if they were racing each other. The subject officer pulled onto the roadway and accelerated after the vehicles, intending to stop them in connection with their speed. The driver of the black vehicle was driving with several passengers, including the affected person, in the backseat. The vehicles continued at speeds as high as 170 km/h. Approaching a major road – approximately a kilometre-and-a-half from the starting point, the driver came upon traffic stopped at a red light. They applied their brakes but crashed into two of the vehicles – a large truck to their left and another vehicle to their right. The affected person suffered a fractured hip in the collision. The subject officer arrived on scene and arrested the driver for dangerous driving.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
In the evening, officers responded to a reported domestic disturbance in the area of a city, altering course to a nearby location following a related call about a person on the roof of a building. The subject officer was the first to arrive on scene, followed by two other officers. The person on the roof, the affected person, was found to be of unsound mind and had earlier called police reporting a break-in attempt at their residence. They exited their residence through a window and made their way to the location, 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. The affected person eventually lost their grip on the light bar and fell to the ground, landing feet-first, and was transported to hospital with multiple fractures of both feet.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither of the subject officers agreed to interviews with the SIU. One of the officers did provide a written statement. In the late evening of a day in early 2026, police officers were dispatched to a motor vehicle accident at an intersection in the city. The collision involved a single vehicle that had been stolen moments earlier. Witnesses to the collision reported that the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle – the affected person – had fled the area. The affected person had run from the site of the collision to a nearby residential street and ultimately made his way to the rear of a property where they hid in a backyard shed. A police dog unit was deployed to the area and eventually tracked the affected person to the shed. One of the officers who had been searching for the affected person called out to them but there was no response. The officer eventually opened the door to the shed and told the affected person to show their hands. When the affected person, lying on the ground, failed to do so, the officer discharged their CEW. As the affected person cried out in pain, the officer dragged them out of the shed, delivering a punch to the torso in the process. Other officers arrived on scene and joined in the arrest process. Repeated directions were given to the affected person to show and release their hands. The officer struck the affected person again in the torso and another officer punched them in the head or upper body area several times. Following another CEW discharge by the officer into the affected person’s back, their hands were controlled and handcuffed. The affected person was seen at hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with injuries.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police eyewitnesses, 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 afternoon of a day in early 2026, the affected person, while detained in a cell of a police detachment, reached into their underpants, retrieved a quantity of drugs and consumed them. About an hour later, they lapsed into medical distress with seizure-like symptoms. Custodial staff were quickly alerted to the affected person’s situation. They administered several doses of Narcan and summoned EMS. Paramedics arrived on scene and transported the affected person to hospital where they were treated for an overdose. The day before, two officers had arrested the affected person, acting on the strength of a warrant. One of the officers had conducted a pat-down search at the time, but failed to discover a body-pack around the affected person’s torso, which contained a plastic container of illicit substances. After being placed in a cruiser for transport to the detachment, the affected person was able to manipulate their handcuffed arms to retrieve the container from their pack and conceal it down the front of their underwear. At the detachment, the affected person revealed they were wearing the body-pack. It was removed from their possession and a quantity of methamphetamine was confiscated. A further pat-down search before the affected person was lodged in a cell failed to discover the container they were hiding.
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 neighborhood. The homeowners had contacted police to report a person attempting to break into their residence. Two officers were the first on scene, arriving at about the same time. They were joined shortly by a police dog handler, the subject officer, and their dog. Additional officers arrived on scene and set up a perimeter around the house as the subject officer deployed their dog to locate the suspect. It was not long before the dog led the subject officer to the rear yard and a crawl space underneath a deck. The affected person was hiding in the crawl space, which was cluttered with stored items. They failed to come out and give any indication of their presence despite repeated direction from the subject officer for them to do so. With the dog still attached to the lead, the subject officer released the dog into the crawl space. The dog’s first foray into the space was unsuccessful. The subject officer released the dog into the crawl space again. On this occasion, the dog located the affected person under some items and bit into their 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.
vehicle_injury · 2026-Q1
In the evening of early 2026, police officers were on the lookout for a vehicle being operated by someone who was possibly impaired. Police received information that a suspected impaired driver had left an area. About ten minutes later, the subject officer radioed that they had located the vehicle and were pursuing it. The driver did not stop for the officer. Instead, they led the officer on a chase during which they disregarded traffic rules and travelled at high speeds. The vehicle eventually lost control and collided with a utility pole at an intersection. The driver was transported to hospital and diagnosed with injuries. The subject officer was a few car lengths away from the vehicle at the time of the collision and had tracked it over a distance of about three kilometres, at times well over the speed limit and through red lights without stopping.
vehicle_injury · 2026-Q1
In the evening of early 2026, police officers were on the lookout for a vehicle being operated by someone who was possibly impaired. Police received information that a suspected impaired driver had left an area. About ten minutes later, the subject officer radioed that they had located the vehicle and were pursuing it. The driver did not stop for the officer. Instead, they led the officer on a chase during which they disregarded stop signs and traffic lights, and travelled well over the speed limit, at times on the opposite side of the road. The driver continued at pace and lost control of the vehicle, slamming into a utility pole at an intersection. The driver was transported to hospital from the scene and diagnosed with injuries. The subject officer was a few car lengths away from the driver at the time of the collision. They had tracked the vehicle over a distance, at times well over the speed limit and, on at least two occasions, through red lights without first coming to a stop.