SIU – FTP – FilmThePolice.ca

(London, Ontario) Another SIU investigation has ended the same way many of them do: serious injuries, unanswered questions, and no charges.

According to the report, the man suffered serious facial fractures during his arrest, injuries serious enough to trigger the Special Investigations Unit’s mandate. Yet the officer whose actions caused the injuries refused to cooperate with investigators — and still walked away cleared.

Source: https://siu.on.ca/en/directors_report_details.php?drid=4967

The report openly states that the subject officer declined to be interviewed and refused to provide notes, something the law allows officers to do when they are under investigation.

Think about that.

The very officer whose conduct caused a broken orbital bone and nose simply declined to explain what happened — and the investigation continued without his testimony.

A System Where the Suspect Doesn’t Have to Talk

Under Ontario law, subject officers cannot be compelled to cooperate with SIU investigations. They can refuse interviews and withhold notes if they choose.

Meanwhile, other officers designated as witnesses are required to cooperate and provide statements, highlighting the stark difference in obligations.

In any other criminal investigation, the suspect refusing to speak would raise serious red flags.

In police investigations?

It’s treated as routine.

Broken Bones — Still “No Crime”

The SIU acknowledged the man’s injuries occurred during a violent struggle while officers attempted to arrest him. The officer reportedly responded with punches during the altercation and deployed a Taser during the fight, after which the man was eventually handcuffed.

The injuries were severe enough that hospital staff diagnosed fractures to the orbital bone and nose.

Yet the SIU ultimately concluded there were “no reasonable grounds” to believe a criminal offence occurred.

That conclusion rests heavily on a familiar legal shield: section 25 of the Criminal Code, which allows police to use force if it is considered reasonably necessary while performing their duties.

In practice, that standard often means that once police say a suspect resisted arrest, almost any level of force can be justified.

The Accountability Gap

The real problem is structural.

Police can:

Use significant force
Leave a suspect with serious injuries
Refuse to cooperate with investigators

And the system still concludes there are no grounds for charges.

The SIU’s mandate requires proof of a criminal offence before charges can be laid — a high legal threshold that many critics say virtually guarantees police will be cleared unless the misconduct is undeniable.

The Bottom Line

A man walked away from this encounter with multiple facial fractures.

The officer whose actions caused those injuries declined to explain himself to investigators.

And once again, the final result is the same conclusion Ontarians see again and again in SIU reports:

No charges. Case closed.

For many critics, cases like this raise a troubling question:

If police can seriously injure someone and then refuse to cooperate with the investigation, is there any real accountability at all?

(Toronto, Ontario) The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) has once again concluded that police officers who used extreme levels of force during an arrest committed no crime. According to the SIU’s own summary, the man was Tasered, pepper-sprayed, punched, kicked and kneed by officers before ending up with facial fractures. Yet the agency still determined there were “no reasonable grounds” to charge any officer.

Source: https://siu.on.ca/en/directors_report_details.php?drid=4978

If that sounds familiar, it should. It follows the same pattern seen in countless SIU decisions: a civilian is seriously injured, the force used is described as “significant,” but the officers walk away without consequence.

The Force Used Was Extreme — Even By SIU’s Own Admission

The SIU itself acknowledged that the amount of force used was “significant and subject to legitimate scrutiny.”

That phrase is doing a lot of work.

When a person is Tasered, sprayed with pepper spray, punched, kicked and kneed, the situation has already escalated far beyond basic arrest tactics. Those are multiple levels of force stacked on top of each other — electrical weapon, chemical weapon, and physical strikes — all deployed against the same individual.

And the result?

A man left with broken facial bones.

Yet the conclusion was essentially:

The force looked bad, but we can’t prove it was criminal.

This is the accountability loophole that shields officers in nearly every SIU investigation.

“We Were Scared” — The Universal Justification

The entire structure of use-of-force law heavily favors police testimony. Officers only need to convince investigators that they perceived a threat.

Once that claim is made, almost any level of force can be justified.

In practice, the standard becomes:

If officers say they feared for their safety
And the suspect resisted or tried to flee
Then almost any force becomes legally acceptable

This creates a dangerous dynamic where the officer’s subjective fear becomes the legal shield for whatever happened next.

Broken bones?
Tasers?
Pepper spray?
Repeated strikes?

As long as the officer claims fear, the system often calls it “reasonable.”

The Cooperation Problem — Police Can Refuse to Participate

Another structural flaw rarely discussed is that officers do not have to fully cooperate with SIU investigations.

Under the SIU Act:

Officers designated as subject officials cannot be compelled to provide interviews.
They also do not have to submit their notes.

Think about that for a moment.

The very people being investigated for potential crimes are legally allowed to decline to explain their actions.

Imagine a civilian under investigation for assault being told:

“You don’t have to talk to investigators or provide notes.”

That’s exactly the privilege officers receive.

This alone undermines the entire concept of independent oversight.

The SIU’s Impossible Standard

The SIU Director must decide whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a criminal offence occurred.

That is a criminal prosecution standard, not an accountability standard.

In reality, that means officers are only charged when the evidence is overwhelming — usually involving video that makes the conduct impossible to defend.

Anything less, and the default outcome becomes:

Case closed. No charges.

A System That Almost Never Charges Police

The SIU was created in 1990 to restore public confidence in police oversight. But the numbers tell a different story.

Across thousands of investigations involving deaths, shootings and serious injuries, only a small fraction result in charges.

The pattern has become predictable:

Someone is seriously injured or killed.
The SIU launches an investigation.
Months later, a report acknowledges troubling force.
The conclusion: no criminal charges.

The Real Problem: Structural Immunity

The issue isn’t just this case.

It’s the system.

Police are being investigated by an agency that:

Cannot force officers to talk
Cannot compel officers to provide notes
Must meet a high criminal threshold to lay charges
Often relies heavily on police testimony about perceived threats

In other words, the system is designed to avoid charges unless the misconduct is undeniable.

Bottom Line

A man suffered serious facial fractures after officers used multiple forms of force — Tasers, pepper spray, punches, kicks and knees.

The SIU itself admits the force was “significant.”

Yet once again, the conclusion is the same one Ontarians have heard for decades:

No charges.

Because when police say they were afraid, the system almost always believes them.

And that’s why public confidence in police oversight continues to erode.