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).
blessure_grave_intervention_policiere_vehicule_implique · 2025-Q2
blessure_grave_intervention_policiere_autre · 2026-Q1
blessure_grave_intervention_policiere_autre · 2026-Q1
blessure_grave_intervention_policiere_vehicule_implique · 2025-Q4
deces_intervention_policiere_vehicule_implique · 2025-Q3
deces_intervention_policiere_arme_a_feu_utilisee_par_un_policier · 2025-Q3
blessure_grave_intervention_policiere_vehicule_implique · 2025-Q4
blessure_grave_intervention_policiere_autre · 2026-Q1
siu_code:tcd · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. The subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes, as was their legal right. In the early afternoon of Q4 2025, Toronto Police Service (TPS) officers were called to a hotel located in the Yonge Street area of Toronto. Hotel staff had contacted police to seek the removal of a guest — the complainant. The complainant had caused a commotion in the lobby and accused hotel employees of being associated with persons seeking her death. The complainant was of unsound mind at the time of her interaction with the officers. Since checking into the hotel a few days earlier, the complainant had frequently attended the front desk to complain about persons wanting her dead. She had returned to her room by the time of the officers' arrival. A group of TPS officers arrived on scene and, accompanied by the hotel manager, took the elevator to the 18th floor and attended at the complainant's room. Among them was the subject officer. The subject officer knocked on the door and asked for the complainant. The complainant indicated she had not called police and refused to open the door. The subject officer indicated that the officers would open the door if she did not let them in. The complainant did not respond. A female officer interjected and attempted to speak with the complainant, assuring her she was not in trouble and that they simply wanted to talk. Still, there was no response. Officers attempted to open the door, including with a master card key, but were unsuccessful as it had been double-locked from the inside. A TPS Mobile Crisis Intervention Team (MCIT) arrived on scene and also tried to have the complainant open the door. On learning from hotel staff that the complainant's room had a Juliet balcony from which the complainant could jump, a witness officer entered an adjacent room and onto its balcony. From that vantage point, the officer observed that the door to the Juliet balcony was open. Looking down, the officer observed the complainant lying on the roof of the third floor and immediately radioed for paramedics. The roof was accessed by Toronto Fire Service. The complainant was pronounced deceased shortly thereafter. At autopsy, the pathologist was of the preliminary view that the complainant's death was attributable to multiple blunt force trauma.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
In the late afternoon of early 2026, officers were alerted to a recent theft of alcohol from an LCBO. The suspect had fled the LCBO and entered a nearby store where a security guard stopped him. The suspect dropped a backpack containing stolen items and fled further into the store as officers arrived. The suspect was chased, grounded, and handcuffed. An officer arrived shortly after the arrest to assist and was checking the backpack when they were approached by a person. This person picked up an item that had fallen from the backpack, claiming it belonged to them. The officer replied that it was not theirs, stood up, and removed the item from the person's hand. The person swiped the officer's hand away twice, and the officer moved towards them, grabbed them, and used their leg to sweep their legs out from under them. The person fell and immediately favoured their right knee. They were handcuffed and taken into custody, later diagnosed with a fractured right knee at a hospital.
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 away from 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. It was only with the arrival of additional officers that the affected person was handcuffed. Following their arrest, the affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with an injury.
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. Officers located the vehicle and attempted to pull it over. The affected person refused to stop and picked up their speed. Multiple officers joined the pursuit and decided to attempt a rolling block of the vehicle. At about the same time, the officers positioned their cruisers around the vehicle and brought it to a stop on the shoulder of a road. 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. After the affected person had put the knife away from their person, tactical officers smashed the front door windows and discharged conducted energy weapons at the affected person and OC 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.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and other witnesses (police and non-police), gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer chose not to interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. Shortly before noon, in early 2026, police officers responded to a call in Sudbury. A 911 call had been received suggesting a potentially violent disturbance inside a vehicle. The caller did not communicate directly with the call-taker but the police were able to use her cell phone to approximate a location from where she was calling. An officer found the vehicle in the area and spoke to two females, determining that there were grounds to believe that one of them had been assaulted by the affected person. Fearing imminent arrest, the affected person, inside the rear of the vehicle, exited and fled the scene. They ran a short distance and entered into the rear, enclosed deck of a house in the area, where they sought to conceal themselves in a crawl space under a staircase. A police dog handler - the subject officer - and their dog arrived at the site of the vehicle from which the affected person had fled. Joined by other officers, the subject officer and their dog initiated a track of the affected person. They were not hard to find. The officers followed a set of footprints in the snow to the house, spoke to one of the homeowners briefly, and entered the rear deck. The affected person was quickly located inside a crawl space. The subject officer released their police dog. The dog approached the affected person and bit their right hand. With the dog still latched onto their hand, the affected person was removed from the crawl space and positioned on the floor in a prone position. They were handcuffed behind the back and the dog separated from their right hand. The affected person was transported to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a fracture of the small finger on the right hand.
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.
siu_code:tcd · 2025-Q4
The SIU investigated an incident involving Toronto Police Service (TPS) officers who attended at an address in the area of Jane Street and Wilson Avenue in Toronto in the evening of late December 2025. A civilian witness had called police to report being assaulted by the complainant, and had fled the apartment to a nearby location before officers arrived. Three witness officers arrived at the door of the apartment at approximately 11:40 p.m. and knocked and called out, receiving no response. While officers remained at the door awaiting a master key from the landlord, video footage from a camera on an adjacent building captured the complainant falling from height and impacting the ground at approximately 11:42 p.m. Officers entered the apartment after the key arrived shortly after midnight, and found the complainant was not inside. An officer then went onto the apartment balcony and observed the complainant on the ground below. First responders attended and the complainant was found to be deceased. The complainant had been intoxicated by drugs and alcohol in the period leading to their death. A pathologist attributed the cause of death to blunt impact injuries sustained from a descent from height. The SIU's evidence included a civilian witness interview and video footage that largely captured the incident.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer chose not to interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. In the evening of early 2026, police officers were looking for the affected person. They had left the scene of a domestic disturbance threatening suicide and the police were concerned for their wellbeing. A location search returned a location in a specific area. The subject officer, in the company of two other officers, arrived in the area. There was no answer at the first house they approached but one of the officers had noticed a light on at the house next door. The affected person had fled the scene of the disturbance and taken refuge in an empty house in the area. When one of the officers initially approached the house and asked them to identify themselves, the affected person provided a false name. With the officer now off the property, the affected person made their way outside to the rear of the property and inside a steel shed. They had a knife in their possession. Not long after the officer had left the residence where they encountered the affected person, the officer learned that, in fact, they had been dealing with the affected person. They, the subject officer and the other officer returned to the residence and eventually located the affected person in the rear shed. The affected person displayed a knife and began to walk with purpose towards the officers, repeatedly telling them to shoot them. The subject officer and one of the other officers walked away from the shed and ordered the affected person to drop the knife. They did so, throwing it away, and continued their advance. When they were within striking range of the subject officer, the officer punched them in the face. The affected person was felled by the blow but continued to resist on the ground by refusing to surrender their arms. The other two officers delivered several more strikes to the torso and legs, after which the affected person was handcuffed behind the back. The affected person was diagnosed at hospital after their arrest with a fractured left orbital bone.
blessure_grave_detention_par_un_corps_de_police · 2026-Q1
blessure_grave_detention_par_un_corps_de_police · 2026-Q1
police_misconduct · 2025-Q2
The Police Ethics Commissioner opened an inquiry in mid-2025 into the conduct of three police officers from a regional police service following media reports of alleged drug trafficking. The investigation was ordered under the Police Act to determine whether the officers breached the Code of Ethics of Quebec Police Officers. The investigation is ongoing.
police_misconduct · 2026-Q1
The Police Ethics Commissioner opened an inquiry on their own initiative regarding the actions of several police officers of the Montreal Police Service following a media report about an intervention involving an individual. The inquiry was launched under the Commissioner's authority to investigate potential breaches of the Code of Ethics of Quebec Police Officers.