Recherche
Recherche plein texte sur tous les incidents publiés. Les noms d'agents ne sont jamais indexés — les résultats portent sur le résumé caviardé, le nom du corps policier, la référence tribunalaire et les champs à vocabulaire contrôlé (type d'incident, constat, disposition).
police_misconduct · 2025-Q2
Au cours de l'été 2025, le Commissaire à la déontologie policière a décrété une enquête déontologique concernant trois policiers d'une régie de police en lien avec des allégations de trafic de stupéfiants. Le Commissaire a pris connaissance de la situation dans les médias au printemps 2025. L'enquête vise à déterminer si la conduite des policiers est susceptible de constituer un acte dérogatoire au Code de déontologie des policiers. Le statut est enquête en cours.
police_misconduct · 2026-Q1
The Police Ethics Commissioner opened an inquiry into the conduct of several officers of the Montreal Police Service during an intervention involving an individual. The investigation was ordered pursuant to the Police Act to examine whether the officers' conduct constituted a breach of 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.
police_misconduct · 2026-Q1
Le Commissaire à la déontologie policière a décreté une enquête de sa propre initiative concernant les agissements de plusieurs policiers du Service de police de la Ville de Montréal lors d'une intervention auprès d'un individu. Le Commissaire a pris connaissance de la situation dans les médias au début 2026.
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 initiated an inquiry on their own initiative regarding the actions of multiple police officers of the Montreal Police Service following a media report about an intervention involving an individual. The inquiry was opened under the Commissioner's authority granted by the Police Act as of October 5, 2024.
police_misconduct · 2025-Q2
The Police Ethics Commissioner initiated an inquiry on his own initiative regarding the actions of three police officers from the Régie intermunicipale de police Roussillon following media reports of allegations related to drug trafficking. The inquiry was opened under the Commissioner's authority granted by the Police Act as of October 5, 2024.
police_misconduct · 2025-Q2
Le Commissaire à la déontologie policière a décreté une enquête de sa propre initiative concernant les agissements de trois policiers d'une régie de police, relativement à des allégations de trafic de stupéfiants, portées à son attention par les médias.
police_misconduct · 2026-Q1
Le Commissaire à la déontologie policière a pris connaissance d'une intervention effectuée par plusieurs policiers du Service de police de la Ville de Montréal auprès d'un individu. Une enquête déontologique a été décrétée afin d'examiner si la conduite des policiers est susceptible de constituer un acte dérogatoire au Code de déontologie des policiers du Québec. L'enquête est en cours.
police_misconduct · 2025-Q2
The Police Ethics Commissioner opened an inquiry on their own initiative regarding the actions of three police officers from the Régie intermunicipale de police Roussillon in connection with allegations of drug trafficking. The inquiry was initiated following information gathered through media monitoring.
custody_transport_injury · 2025-Q4
Just after midnight in late December 2025, Toronto Police Service (TPS) officers were called to the scene of a reported hit and run in a residential area of the city. A woman on the roadway had been struck by a vehicle — a Ford Edge — that had left and then returned to the scene. Firefighters were the first to arrive, followed shortly by the subject officer and their partner, a witness officer. A crowd of persons had gathered around the injured woman, including family members. The officers ordered the crowd back so the firefighters could render care. Within seconds of the officers' arrival, a family member of the injured woman approached the Ford Edge, parked nearby at the curb. They tried to open the door of the vehicle and were pushed away by the witness officer. The subject officer arrived at the driver's door of the Ford Edge, opened it, and took hold of the driver — the complainant. The subject officer detected the smell of alcohol emanating from the complainant. The officer repeatedly told the complainant to exit the vehicle and then forcibly removed them from their seat when they did not comply. The subject officer and witness officer escorted the complainant to the rear of the Ford Edge, where the subject officer grounded the complainant front first. The complainant was subsequently handcuffed behind the back and placed in the backseat of a police cruiser. The complainant was transported to hospital following their arrest and diagnosed with a broken nose.
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 shoulder.
custody_transport_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant 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 (SO) did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the evening in early November 2025, two witness officers (WO #1 and WO #2) were dispatched to a residence in the area of Ellesmere Road and Meadowvale Road, Toronto, in connection with a reported disturbance. The complainant had been quarrelling with another person and the argument had turned physical. The complainant was belligerent with the officers and refused to be assessed by attending paramedics. At one point, while outside in front of the ambulance, the complainant swatted WO #1's hands. The officer reacted by pushing the complainant backward towards the ambulance and through the open side door. The two tussled briefly before WO #1 delivered a series of punches to the complainant's head area. Shortly after, the complainant was handcuffed and subsequently brought to 43 Division and lodged in a cell. Early the following day, a special constable (SEW #1) attended the cell to retrieve the complainant to speak with duty counsel. The complainant refused to exit the cell and then prevented the special constable from closing the cell door by continually positioning a leg to block its closure. Additional officers attended and, following a struggle, removed the complainant from the cell in order to place them in another cell. The second cell had a "D" ring that could be used to further restrain the complainant while in the cell. The complainant refused to cooperate with the relocation and was dragged from the first cell to the second cell and forced inside. Just inside the second cell, the complainant grabbed hold of the SO's left leg. The officer reacted by punching the complainant six times to the head, after which the complainant let go of the leg. Additional officers entered the cell and assisted in handcuffing the complainant to the "D" ring. The complainant was transported to hospital later that same day. Their left eye was swollen and their nose had started bleeding. They were diagnosed with a fracture of the left orbital bone.
firearm_discharge · 2024-Q1
Decision of the acting executive director of the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team in the matter of a police shooting causing injury near Bonnyville in early 2024 | released in 2026
firearm_discharge · 2024-Q2
Decision of the acting executive director of the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team in the matter of a shooting near a lake in Alberta in early 2024 | released in late 2025
custody_death · 2021-Q1
Decision of the acting executive director of the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team in the matter of a death in police cells in a city in Alberta in early 2021 | released in late 2025
use_of_force · 2023-Q4
Decision of the acting executive director of the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team in the matter of a use of force by the police service officers in late 2023
firearm_discharge · 2025-Q4
A decision was made in the matter of a shooting involving the RCMP in Grande Prairie in late 2025.
firearm_discharge · 2024-Q2
A decision was made in the matter of a police shooting in Edmonton in early 2024.
firearm_discharge · 2026-Q1
A decision was made in the matter of a shooting involving the RCMP near Grande Prairie in early 2026.