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).
- Province: ON×
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person, a subject officer 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, a subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the evening of late 2025, police officers, including two subject officers, attended an apartment in the area of a city. The resident had contacted police to report that an inebriated person was in her apartment and she wanted them removed. The officers entered the apartment and approached the person in the living room. They were seated on a sofa and speaking on the phone with a police call-taker. After a period, the person ended their conversation on the phone, stood up from the sofa and walked a short distance towards the door. Just before the door, the officers took hold of their arms. The person attempted to free their arms and the officers maintained their grip. Other officers intervened and the person fell forward to the floor, striking their head off the edge of a wall in the process. Officers fell with the person and landed on top of them. They were handcuffed in quick order and taken into custody. Following their arrest, the person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a reduced level of consciousness and a scalp laceration with emphysema and subgaleal hematoma.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police 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 evening of late 2025, the affected person was on their way home from work travelling east in Brampton. They had just taken the on-ramp to a highway when they were pulled over by a RIDE program set up on the ramp. The affected person was approached by an officer who asked them to pull ahead for further questioning. Another officer approached and asked the affected person to continue forward and stop their vehicle on the ramp shoulder in front of a police vehicle. They did so. The officer asked the affected person to step out of their vehicle and escorted them to the back of the vehicle. They were joined at this time by the subject officer. The affected person was angry about being pulled over. They would not allow the officer to fully read them a breath test demand and insisted the officer simply administer the test. The officer explained that they needed to read the demand in full and ensure they understood it. They told the affected person that refusing to take the test would constitute a criminal offence. The subject officer tried to calm the affected person but to no avail. When the affected person began to walk to the driver’s door of their vehicle, the officer grabbed and pushed them back towards the rear of the vehicle and a snow-covered area past the ramp shoulder. The affected person fell backwards over the ramp curb. They attempted to stand back up but were forced to the ground by the subject officer. There followed a struggle between the affected person and several police officers. The affected person was eventually handcuffed and placed in the rear seat of a police cruiser. The affected person attended hospital the next day and was diagnosed with a concussion.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
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, 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 afternoon of October 2025, the subject officer was off-duty and attending an appointment at a business in Thunder Bay. While there, they observed a person – the affected person applying orange spray paint to the front door of the business. They alerted the owner, and the owner ran after the affected person, with the subject officer following. As the affected person fled, they lost their footing and fell forward onto the sidewalk, striking their face. The owner and the subject officer reached them within moments where they had fallen. The owner attempted to secure the affected person’s legs, during which the affected person kicked at them. The subject officer reached towards the affected person’s upper body as they attempted to gain control of them, and the affected person continued to kick. The subject officer positioned the affected person onto their right side, and as they applied physical control, the affected person came to rest in a prone position. The subject officer maintained control over the affected person’s upper back. The subject officer and the owner then brought the affected person’s hands behind them and continued to restrain them until police arrived. Several bystanders had gathered, and one contacted police. A police officer responded, arrested the affected person for mischief, assisted them to their feet, and transported them to the police station. The following day, the affected person attended hospital and was diagnosed with bilateral nasal bone fractures of indeterminate age.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and the subject officer, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. In the late afternoon of late 2025, police officers were dispatched to an address in Hamilton, following a call to police about domestic abuse. A person reported that the affected person had threatened them earlier in the day and attended at their apartment where they caused a domestic disturbance. The subject officer, in the company of another officer, arrived at the address. They were aware that there were warrants in effect for the affected person's arrest on firearm-related charges. A person spoke with the officers and indicated that the affected person was possibly at the rear of the residence. The subject officer walked to the side of the house and located the affected person sitting in a chair. They directed the affected person not to move, told them to stand up and then grabbed their arm, lifting them from the chair. The affected person immediately began to resist the officer. The two exchanged punches before falling to the ground where the struggle continued. The subject officer yelled out for the other officer's help, and they appeared quickly and joined in the struggle. The affected person flailed their legs and refused to release their arms to be handcuffed. The subject officer and the other officer punched the affected person multiple times but could not sufficiently subdue them to take control of their arms behind the back. Another officer arrived on scene about two minutes after the altercation started and assisted in eventually handcuffing the affected person. The affected person was transported to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with injuries.
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 residence in the Oakville area, the home 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 a short distance 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 from behind. 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 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 later 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 are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized. In early 2025, police were called to a residence in Brantford. 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 of their unit 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 at the midway landing 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 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.