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×
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. Having crossed a bridge, 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 of about three kilometres, at times well over the speed limit and, on at least two occasions, through red lights without first coming to a stop.
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 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 subject officer, in the company of two 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. One of the officers retrieved a ram and the subject 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. One of the officers 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 his 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 left rib.
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.
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
In the evening of early 2026, officers from the Ottawa Police Service responded to a reported domestic disturbance in the area of a major road and drive in Ottawa. They altered course to a nearby restaurant following a related call about a male on the roof of the building. The subject officer was the first to arrive on scene, followed by two witness officers. The male on the roof was the affected person, who was of unsound mind. They had earlier called police from their residence, reporting a break-in attempt. They exited their residence through a window and made their way to the restaurant, ascending onto the roof via an exterior ladder. The subject officer and a witness officer attempted to persuade the affected person to come down safely. The affected person 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 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
In the afternoon, a person was apprehended by an officer under the Mental Health Act. Police had been called to a building 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 die. The officer took the person into custody without incident. At a hospital, the person became increasingly agitated and tried to leave. After being warned to calm down, the person was grabbed by the officers, struggled, and fell face first, fracturing their nose in the process. The person was subsequently handcuffed and restrained to a hospital bed.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and the subject officer, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. In early 2026, the affected person was arrested by the subject officer and another officer inside a residence. The officers had gone to the address following a call to police about smoke coming from the residence. The affected person was unlawfully inside the abandoned home. They had stepped in seeking shelter from the cold outside, and had started a fire in a device to warm themselves. The affected person was searched by the subject officer at the scene and again at a police detachment. Some drug paraphernalia was confiscated. Asked whether they had consumed illicit substances in the last 24 hours, the affected person said they had not. The affected person was lodged in a cell. Later, upon returning to their cell from a phone room where they had contacted a lawyer, the affected person retrieved fentanyl from vials secreted on their person and consumed a quantity of the drug. They began to suffer the effects of the drug and became unresponsive on the cell floor. The subject officer entered the cell within minutes of the affected person’s medical event and attempted to rouse them with a sternum rub. They placed the affected person in the recovery position, administered a couple of doses of nasal naloxone and contacted EMS. Paramedics arrived on scene and took charge of the affected person’s care. They were transported to hospital and treated for acute fentanyl overdose.
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 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 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 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. 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 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 officer chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of their notes. In early 2026, the subject officer, in the company of two 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. One of the officers retrieved a ram and the subject 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. One of the officers 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 his 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 left rib.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
In the afternoon, in Stratford, the subject officer observed the affected person in a public 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 a fully marked cruiser. The affected person ran and the subject officer exited their vehicle, ran across the street, and tackled the affected person to the ground. The affected person attempted to get up 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 behind their back. Following their arrest, the affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a serious injury.
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 a certain area. 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 an officer without incident. The affected person, however, resisted when an 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 officer’s efforts to bring their arms behind their back. The tussle eventually made its way outside the bus shelter where another officer intervened. The officers brought the affected person to the ground, after which an officer secured both their hands in handcuffs. Following their arrest, the affected person was taken to hospital and treated for a fractured right wrist.
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 was on the opposite side of the street when the affected person took flight. They exited their cruiser, ran across the street, 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, 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 left 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 right orbital bone fracture.
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 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 to take custody of the affected person and transport them to the station. The officers 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 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. The affected person 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 custody the following day.
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 of the feet and knee.
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 premise 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 one of the friends 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, one of the friends, 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 their head as 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_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 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 subject officer, in the company of two 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. One of the officers retrieved a ram and the subject 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. One of the officers 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 his 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 material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized. In the morning of a day in early 2026, members of the Emergency Response Team convened at a house situated in an 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_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 officers did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the morning of early 2026, the subject officers were dispatched to a convenience store in the area of a major intersection. 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 – the affected persons – at a nearby bus shelter. One of the affected persons was taken into custody by one of the officers without incident. The other affected person, however, resisted when the other 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 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 a fractured right 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 the back. The affected person was subsequently transported to hospital when they complained of facial pain. They were diagnosed with a broken nose.
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.