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
In the afternoon of late 2025, the affected person attended a Canada Post outlet in a store in a town. They were there to pick up a key to a home. Staff at the outlet told them they could not be helped because they did not have the proper documentation. The affected person became belligerent and slammed their phone on the counter. Police were called to the scene. A witness officer was the first to arrive, joined shortly by the subject officer. This was the officers’ second time at the outlet dealing with the affected person. Earlier that afternoon, they had attended to deal with an irate affected person, who had been refused service because of their behaviour and deficient paperwork. The affected person had left the store on that occasion. On the present occasion, the witness officer told the affected person to leave the store or they would be arrested, and then grabbed them to forcibly remove them from the store when they refused to exit of their own accord. The affected person physically resisted the witness officer’s efforts to push them out and the two tussled briefly. The subject officer grabbed the affected person and threw them to the floor, after which they were handcuffed behind the back. The affected person suffered an injury in the takedown. They were taken from the scene to hospital by paramedics.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the events in question, 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 late 2025, acting on the authority of a Form 2 issued under the Mental Health Act, police officers attended an apartment in London. The form, authorizing police to compel the affected person’s attendance at hospital for a psychiatric examination, had been obtained. Concerns had been raised for the affected person’s well-being. Arriving at the apartment door, officers attempted to have the affected person exit the apartment. They explained who they were and why they were there. The affected person adamantly refused to leave the apartment. Behind a barricaded front door, the affected person variously threatened police that they would jump from the balcony and harm them or themselves if they entered the residence. Officers, including a member of the service’s crisis team, continued to negotiate with the affected person attempting to dissuade them from harming themselves or others. They assured the affected person that they would not face criminal charges, and that they would simply be escorting them to hospital. The affected person remained unreceptive. With information that the affected person might jump from the balcony and was repeatedly threatening their life and those of the officers, the service deployed a tactical team to the scene. The plan was to have the team prevent the affected person from using the balcony to jump from the building. The team arrived and prepared to intervene. As the officers were reaching the balcony, they were confronted by the affected person. With an aluminum baseball bat in hand, the affected person began to swing at the officers as they were still approaching, striking one of them. The subject officer managed to engage with the affected person and immediately became involved in a struggle. The two struggled, and the affected person fell to the ground. An officer deployed a CEW and the subject officer delivered a punch to the face of the affected person as they lay on the ground. Following the strike, the affected person’s hands were handcuffed. The affected person was taken to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with multiple facial fractures.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person's police custodians, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officials did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the afternoon of late 2025, the affected person was arrested in connection with a stolen automobile. They were searched at the scene and transported to the police headquarters where they were lodged in a cell. They told police that they had consumed heroin a couple of hours before their arrest and explained they would become sick in their cell once the effects of the drug wore off. The affected person was monitored by special constables while in cells. They appeared to sleep for most of their time in custody. At about morning, the affected person had just woken when they started to vomit. They were removed from the cell and transported to hospital. The affected person was taken to hospital and treated for opioid withdrawal.
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 early 2025, police officers, including two subject officers, were dispatched to an area in Hamilton, following a call to police about a violent incident. The affected person, in violation of a no-contact order, had visited the affected person's partner at the location and struck them in the face. The affected person and their partner had left by the time of the officers’ arrival. The officers interviewed witnesses and determined there were grounds to arrest the affected person for assault. The affected person and their partner had traveled to the affected person’s residence and were there when the officers arrived on scene. A witness officer and a civilian witness were also present. The civilian witness heard a female screaming from inside the residence and alerted the other officers. Led by one of the subject officers, the officers knocked on the door and directed the affected person to come out. The affected person refused to allow them entry, asserting it was their home and they needed a warrant. The officers explained that they had exigent circumstances and demanded that they open the door or they would force their way inside. When the affected person continued to refuse, one of the subject officers used a baton to smash the door’s glass window. Shortly after the window was broken, the affected person opened the door. The officers quickly grabbed the affected person and pulled them forward. The affected person stepped from the residence floor to ground level, landing awkwardly on their foot and fracturing it in the process. They were placed in a prone position on the ground and handcuffed without incident. The affected person was transported to hospital after their arrest and treated for their foot fractures.