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_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 – the other person and the affected person – at a nearby bus shelter. One person was taken into custody by one of the officers without incident. The affected person, however, resisted when the subject officer attempted to secure them in handcuffs. The officer was able to affix a cuff to the affected person's hand but had difficulty attaching the other cuff to their other hand. The affected person objected to their arrest, denied that they had done anything wrong, and struggled against the subject officer's efforts to bring their arms behind their 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 wrist.
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. 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 them and 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
In the afternoon, a person was apprehended by the subject officer under the Mental Health Act. Police had been called to a location 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 harm himself. The officer took the person into custody without incident. As they were cooperative, the officer did not feel the need to place them in handcuffs. The subject officer and the person arrived at a hospital, where they were joined by a witness officer. The subject officer was later relieved by another officer. The person became increasingly agitated and tried to leave the psychiatric evaluation section. After being warned to calm down, the person confronted the officers and was subsequently restrained to the floor, resulting in an injury. The person was then handcuffed and restrained to a hospital bed.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant and additional police and non-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 in a city. The homeowners had contacted police to report a person attempting to break into their residence. Two constables were the first on scene, arriving at about the same time. They were joined shortly by a police dog handler, the subject officer, and their dog. Additional officers arrived on scene and set up a perimeter around the house as the subject officer deployed their dog to locate the suspect. It was not long before the dog led the subject officer to the rear yard and a crawl space underneath a deck. The complainant was hiding in the crawl space, which was cluttered with stored items. They failed to come out and give any indication of their presence despite repeated direction from the subject officer for them to do so. With the dog still attached to the lead, the subject officer released the dog into the crawl space. The dog’s first foray into the space was unsuccessful. The subject officer released the dog into the crawl space again. On this occasion, the dog located the complainant under some items and bit into their left arm. The complainant gave no reaction. The subject officer approached their dog and the complainant and released the dog’s hold, after which the complainant was taken into custody. The complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fracture and dog bites to the left arm.
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 their location. Two call-takers – one from the local 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 left knee.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
In the afternoon of early 2026, the subject officer observed the affected person in a Stratford 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 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 exited, running across the street and tackling 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.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person, the subject officer and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. In the evening of late 2025, police officers were dispatched to a location. The police had received a call about a disturbance involving the affected person and their partner. The subject officer arrived on scene and was joined by other officers. A crisis worker was also in attendance with the police. The subject officer was met by the affected person and allowed inside. The two made their way to the rear yard to talk. The other officers and the crisis worker remained in the location to speak with the partner. Over the course of the next 45 minutes, the subject officer attempted to have the affected person explain what had happened. An intoxicated affected person engaged with the officer in fits and starts, unable to provide a coherent account of the events that preceded the officers’ arrival and occasionally adopting a belligerent posture with the subject officer. The officer told the affected person that they would not be allowed to stay at the location that night, and would need to explore alternative accommodations. The affected person became increasingly frustrated, unable to secure themselves a place for the night. Near the end of their discourse, the affected person walked towards the rear door of the location. The subject officer grabbed a hold of them, told them they were under arrest for public intoxication, and attempted to pull them away from the location. The affected person resisted the officer by pulling in the opposite direction. There followed an altercation. The subject officer threw the affected person to the ground and positioned themselves overtop their supine torso. Another officer was by the affected person’s upper body. The affected person thrashed their legs about. The subject officer delivered a series of elbow strikes to the affected person’s face, after which their arms were controlled in front of their body and handcuffed. Following their arrest, the affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured right shoulder.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant, the subject officer and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. Police officers were dispatched to an area in Toronto in the early morning of 2026. A call had been made to police following a concern about the complainant. The complainant was prohibited from communicating or being with a person as a condition of a release order. The subject officer arrived on scene with other officers. The complainant was located and asked to identify himself. He refused to do so but entered a residence with the officers. The officers were able to ascertain the complainant’s identity and moved to take him into custody. A struggle ensued and the complainant was forced to the floor by the officers, after which he was secured in handcuffs. The complainant was injured in the takedown and transported to hospital after his arrest and treated for his injury.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant 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 complainant – who was refusing to leave. Officers arrived on scene and took a belligerent complainant into custody to prevent a breach of the peace. They were placed in a cruiser and transported to the police detachment. The complainant remained confrontational at the detachment. At one point, after they had been stood facing a wall to be searched, the complainant turned and started to close their hand in the direction of one of the searching officers. The officer standing behind the complainant 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 complainant, 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 their back. The complainant was subsequently transported to hospital when they complained of facial pain. They were diagnosed with a broken nose.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
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, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the evening of early 2026, police were dispatched to an apartment in the area of a city in Ontario. The person who called 911 reported a disturbance involving the affected person. The person who made the call wanted the affected person removed from their residence. The subject officer arrived on scene with another officer shortly before 11:00 p.m., joined shortly by a third officer. The person who made the call met them outside the building and provided them a key to the apartment. One of the officers opened the door, stepped inside and was splashed with cooking oil from a bottle by the affected person. The affected person retreated into the kitchen area and was physically engaged by the officers. They were taken to the floor and handcuffed behind the back by the subject officer. The affected person was placed in the backseat of the subject officer's cruiser and transported to a police detention facility. En route, they slipped the handcuffs under their legs so that they were then positioned in front of their body. In statements made to police personnel at the station, they would explain that the pain in their left wrist was the result of this maneuver. The next day, the affected person was seen at a hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left wrist.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
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. Shortly before midnight, in early 2026, police were asked to assist in the search of a suspect who had fled the scene of an attempted break and enter in a city and entered into a region with two accomplices in a vehicle. The vehicle had crashed on a street in the area, after which two of the suspects were arrested. The third took flight on foot and remained at large. Police deployed officers to the area of the collision and established a perimeter. Police dog teams were brought in to assist in the search, as was a police drone. Two subject officers were part of the police operations. They were paired with a dog handler, who conducted a track of the suspect across residential streets in the area and the rear yards of homes. At about 1:40 a.m., with the assistance of residents in the neighbourhood sharing their surveillance camera footage with the police, the subject officers and the dog handler located a male – the affected person – hiding underneath a covering in the rear yard of a residence in the area. They alerted other officers, who arrived at the location to assist in taking the affected person into custody. The dog handler loudly announced that officers were present and directed the affected person to surrender. Initially, there was no response from the affected person. The officer warned that they would deploy their dog if the affected person did not surrender, at which point the affected person indicated they would come out. Another brief period passed before the subject officers moved in and physically engaged the affected person. They removed them from under the covering and dragged them a distance away. The affected person was struck several times by the officers, including in the face, before they were handcuffed behind the back. Following their arrest, the affected person was seen at hospital and diagnosed with several facial fractures and a broken finger.
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.
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.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
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, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the evening of early 2026, police were dispatched to an apartment in the area of a city. The person who called 911 wanted the affected person removed from their residence. The officer arrived on scene with another officer shortly before 11:00 p.m., joined shortly by a third officer. The person who called 911 met them outside the building and provided them a key to the apartment. One of the officers opened the door, stepped inside and was splashed with cooking oil from a bottle by the affected person. The affected person retreated into the kitchen area and was physically engaged by the officers. They were taken to the floor and handcuffed behind the back by the officer. The affected person was placed in the backseat of the officer's cruiser and transported to a police detention facility. En route, they slipped the handcuffs under their legs so that they were then positioned in front of their body. In statements made to police personnel at the station, they would explain that the pain in their left wrist was the result of this maneuver. The next day, the affected person was seen at a hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left wrist.
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.
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.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
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, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the evening of early 2026, police were dispatched to an apartment in the area of a city. The person who called 911 wanted the affected person removed from their residence. The officer arrived on scene with another officer shortly before 11:00 p.m., joined shortly by a third officer. The person who called 911 met them outside the building and provided them a key to the apartment. One of the officers opened the door, stepped inside and was splashed with cooking oil from a bottle by the affected person. The affected person retreated into the kitchen area and was physically engaged by the officers. They were taken to the floor and handcuffed behind the back by the officer. The affected person was placed in the backseat of the officer's cruiser and transported to a police detention facility. En route, they slipped the handcuffs under their legs so that they were then positioned in front of their body. In statements made to police personnel at the station, they would explain that the pain in their left wrist was the result of this maneuver. The next day, the affected person was seen at a hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left wrist.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
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 chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of their notes. In early 2026, the affected person was driving in Brampton when a police cruiser started to follow their vehicle, attempting to pull them over. The affected person did not stop for the cruiser, turned into side streets, and ultimately lost control of their vehicle due to icy road conditions, striking parked cars. The affected person exited their car and fled the scene on foot. An officer was on patrol when their ALPR registered a hit on the affected person's vehicle, indicating that the registered owner was a suspended driver. The officer briefly chased the affected person on foot and broadcast that they were subject to arrest for failing to remain at the scene of an accident. The affected person made their way home to the area, where the subject officer was waiting and grabbed hold of them, throwing them to the ground as they were attempting to enter a house. The officer kept the affected person pinned to the ground with their body weight before being joined by another officer. The affected person struggled against the officers' efforts to control their arms and bit one of the officers. The subject officer kneed the affected person in the ribs and pulled them onto their side. The parties continued to wrestle for control of the affected person's arms, and the subject officer delivered another knee strike to the torso. With the arrival and intervention of additional officers, the affected person was handcuffed and taken into custody. The affected person was charged with multiple offences and released at the scene, subsequently attending hospital and being diagnosed with a fractured 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 early 2026, members of the Emergency Response Team convened at a house situated in the 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 material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may be briefly summarized. In the evening of early 2026, the affected person was with her boyfriend, an off-duty officer, on a street in Toronto when the two quarreled and she left the area telling him that she was going to jump. She made her way to a bridge over a river and called the officer using a passerby’s cellphone. She told him she was going to commit suicide and that it would be his fault. The officer called police to report that the affected person was in mental health crisis and threatening to harm herself. He would subsequently learn from a third-party whose phone the affected person had used to call him that she was in the area of the bridge and a roadway. The subject officer drove in that direction, travelling across the bridge. With him was another officer. The subject officer approached the side of the bridge, brought his vehicle to a stop and exited with the other officer. They were just out of their cruiser when the affected person scaled the bridge guardrail and jumped down the other side. She landed on the frozen river below, a distance of about eight metres. The two officers made their way to the riverbank and walked onto the river to render aid to the affected person. Firefighters attended the scene and assisted in her removal. She was transported to hospital and diagnosed with fractures and injuries to her internal organs.