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).
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 them 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 the emergency response unit to the scene. The plan was to have officers rappel from the roof to the affected person’s balcony, preventing them from using it to jump from the building. Officers arrived and were harnessed and ready to descend from the rooftop. As the officers were reaching the balcony railing, 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 hanging from their rappel lines, striking one of them. The subject officer managed to land on the balcony and immediately became engaged in a struggle with the affected person. The two punched at each other, and the affected person fell to the ground. An officer deployed their CEW and the subject officer delivered a single 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 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 officer agreed to interviews with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. Shortly before midnight, in late 2025, a team of police officers, including two subject officers, were dispatched to a house in the area of a city, the residence of the affected person. They arrived intending to arrest the affected person under the Mental Health Act following a number of calls to police in which they were reported to have attacked motorists, brandishing a knife in one instance. The affected person refused to surrender to police. Over the course of the next couple of hours, they would exit and re-enter their home through the front door, challenging the officers gathered by the road outside their house. They told them they would have to engage them physically to take them into custody. At about 2:20 a.m., as the affected person was two to three metres away from their front door gesticulating at the officers on the roadway, the two subject officers, in the company of two witness officers, approached them. One of the subject officers attempted to distract the affected person, who reacted by turning to run towards the front porch and door. The subject officers and the witness officers discharged their CEWs and also attempted to distract the affected person as they made it onto the front porch but no further. One of the subject officers cut them off before they could re-enter the house, using their arm to tackle them against the wall adjacent the front door. Following additional CEW discharges, the affected person’s arms were handcuffed behind their back. The affected person was seen at hospital after their arrest and treated for a deep laceration to the scalp.
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 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 time, 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 evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person 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 officer agreed to an interview with the SIU. One of the subject officers did authorize the release of their notes. In the afternoon of late 2025, the affected person was arrested for drug trafficking following a traffic stop by police officers. A warrant authorizing a search of the affected person's residence for evidence of drug trafficking was in effect at the time. An officer searched the affected person at the scene and confiscated a quantity of drugs from their clothes. The affected person was transported to the police station and subjected to another search of their clothing, this time with negative results. They were lodged in a cell and began to vomit. Paramedics arrived at the station and the affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with 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 subject officers arrived on scene. A witness officer and another person were also present. Another person 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.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the agency and may briefly be summarized. In early 2025, police were called to a residence in a city. A resident of the building had called police to report a disturbance coming from another unit. Two officers attended at the scene and knocked at the door. The disturbance involved the affected person and another individual. The affected person was subject to an order at the time preventing contact and communication with the other individual. Realizing police were outside the door and that they would be arrested for breaching the order, the affected person attempted to escape apprehension. They climbed through a window onto the roof of an adjoining structure, ran across the roof to an exterior staircase and started to descend. Two other officers had also responded to the disturbance call and were outside as the first two officers entered. They observed the affected person running on the roof and were waiting for them at the bottom of the staircase. When the affected person jumped over the staircase railing and collapsed on the ground below, the officers approached to take them into custody. The affected person complained of pain to their foot and was transported to hospital where they were diagnosed with a broken ankle.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
In the afternoon of late 2025, the affected person attended a Canada Post outlet in a store to pick up a key to a home. They were told by staff that 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. An officer was the first to arrive, joined shortly by another officer. This was the officers' second time at the outlet dealing with the affected person. Earlier that afternoon, they had attended to deal with the 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, an 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 officer's efforts to push them out and the two tussled briefly. Another 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.