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).
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.
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 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_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 subject officer arrived on scene with another officer shortly before a certain time, 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 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 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 individuals and determined that there were grounds to believe that one of them had been assaulted by the affected person. Fearing their 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 and their dog arrived at the site of the vehicle from which the affected person had fled. Joined by other officers, the police dog handler 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 police dog handler 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 their right hand.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police witnesses 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. They did authorize the release of their notes. In the early morning of early 2026, a constable and the subject officer were dispatched to an area in Toronto, following a 911 call. The caller did not address the call-taker but utterances were heard in the background suggesting an ongoing and potentially violent disturbance involving a male and female. The officers entered the home despite objections from the woman who opened the door – the affected person. The affected person was placed under arrest by a constable after they observed a male – the affected person – with a cut to the forehead. The affected person refused to cooperate as the constable sought to question them about what had happened. Standing on a second floor landing, the affected person asked the officers to leave and then called 911 asking for additional officers. The constable and the subject officer told the affected person to disconnect the 911 call as they were the police. When they failed to do so, they warned that they would be arrested for public mischief. Shortly after, the officers took hold of the affected person to take them into custody. The affected person refused to surrender their arms to be handcuffed and was grounded. On the floor, they resisted the officers’ efforts to control their arms behind the back and was met with a punch to the face by the subject officer. Moments later, as the struggle continued, the subject officer delivered two punches to the affected person’s head in quick succession. It would take another five minutes, during which a constable kicked the affected person once or twice in the legs and exhorted them verbally to give up their arms, before the officers wrestled control of their arms behind the back and secured them in handcuffs. The affected person was transported to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a broken nose.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
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 his legal right, the subject officer chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes. In the early morning of 2026, the complainant was driving in Brampton when a police cruiser started to follow his vehicle attempting to pull him over. The complainant did not stop for the cruiser. He turned into some side streets, ultimately losing control of his vehicle because of icy road conditions and striking parked cars. The complainant exited his car and fled the scene on foot through some backyards. An officer was on patrol when his ALPR registered a hit on the complainant’s vehicle, indicating that the registered owner was a suspended driver. The officer briefly chased the complainant on foot and broadcast he was subject to arrest for failing to remain at the scene of an accident. The complainant made his way home to the area of the collision scene. The subject officer was waiting for him in the area and grabbed a hold of the complainant, throwing him to the ground, just as he was attempting to enter a house. The officer kept the complainant pinned to the ground with his body weight for a period before he was joined by another officer, responding to the scene. The complainant struggled against the officers’ efforts to control his arms and bit an officer’s finger. The subject officer kneed the complainant in the left ribs and pulled him onto his left side. The parties continued to wrestle for control of the complainant’s arms and the subject officer delivered another knee strike to the torso. With the arrival and intervention of additional officers, the complainant was handcuffed to the back and taken into custody. The complainant was charged with multiple offences and released at the scene. He subsequently attended hospital and was diagnosed with a fractured left rib.
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 a certain time, 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_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police witnesses and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes. In early 2026, two officers were dispatched to a location in Toronto following a 911 call. The caller did not address the call-taker but utterances were heard in the background suggesting an ongoing and potentially violent disturbance involving a male and female. The officers entered the home despite objections from the woman who opened the door – the affected person. The affected person was placed under arrest by one of the officers after he observed a male – the affected person – with a cut to the forehead. The affected person refused to cooperate as the officer sought to question him about what had happened. Standing on a second floor landing, the affected person asked the officers to leave and then called 911 asking for additional officers. The officers told the affected person to disconnect the 911 call as they were the police. When he failed to do so, they warned that he would be arrested for public mischief. Shortly after, the officers took hold of the affected person to take him into custody. The affected person refused to surrender his arms to be handcuffed and was grounded. On the floor, he resisted the officers’ efforts to control his arms behind the back and was met with a punch to the face by one of the officers. Moments later, as the struggle continued, the officer delivered two punches to the affected person’s head in quick succession. It would take another five minutes, during which the other officer kicked the affected person once or twice in the legs and exhorted him verbally to give up his arms, before the officers wrestled control of his arms behind the back and secured them in handcuffs. The affected person was transported to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with a broken nose.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person 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 neighborhood after the homeowners contacted police to report a person attempting to break into their home. Two officers were the first on scene, arriving at about 3:10 a.m. 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 affected person 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 affected person under some items and bit into their left arm. The affected person gave no reaction. The subject officer approached their dog and the affected person and released the dog’s hold, after which the affected person was taken into custody. The affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fracture of the left elbow and dog bites to the left arm.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
In the evening of early 2026, the affected person was with their partner, an off-duty officer, in Toronto when the two quarreled and the affected person left the area. They made their way to a bridge over a river and called the officer using a passerby’s cellphone, stating they were going to commit suicide. The officer called police to report that the affected person was in mental health crisis and threatening to harm themselves. Two officers, including a subject officer, drove to the area and approached the bridge. As they exited their vehicle, the affected person jumped from the bridge and landed on the frozen river below. The 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 their removal. The affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with serious injuries.
injury · 2021-Q3
Decision in the matter of an injury during an arrest by the police in Edmonton in mid 2021 | released in early 2026
firearm_discharge · 2025-Q1
Decision in the matter of a police shooting in early 2025 | released in 2026
firearm_discharge · 2024-Q1
A decision was made in the matter of a police shooting involving the Calgary Police Service and the RCMP in early 2024.
firearm_discharge · 2024-Q2
A decision was made in the matter of a police shooting in Edmonton in early 2024.
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
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
firearm_discharge · 2024-Q3
Decision of the acting executive director of the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team in the matter of a police shooting in Edmonton in mid-2024
firearm_discharge · 2024-Q2
A decision was made in the matter of a police shooting in a city near Edmonton. The incident occurred in mid-2024.
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
firearm_discharge · 2024-Q3
Decision of the acting executive director of the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team in the matter of a police shooting in Edmonton in Q3 2024