“When even the police won’t talk to the police, what chance does the public have?”
(Wingham, North Huron) The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) has closed its investigation into the March 4, 2026 arrest of (redacted), concluding there are no reasonable grounds to lay criminal charges against the Ontario Provincial Police officer whose knee likely fractured two of (redacted)‘ ribs.
But beyond that conclusion lies a report that should concern every Canadian who believes in transparency, accountability, and a free press.
The SIU openly acknowledges that the Subject Officer—the officer whose conduct was under criminal investigation—declined to be interviewed and declined to provide his notes. That is entirely “lawful” under Ontario legislation, but it raises an obvious question:
How can the public have confidence in an investigation when the one person at the centre of it never has to explain his actions?
Every civilian witness can be compelled.
Witness officers can be compelled.
Service employees can be compelled.
But the officer under investigation can simply say nothing.
That may be the law, but whether it inspires confidence in civilian oversight is another matter.
The Cameras Were Rolling… But Could Anyone Actually See?
Modern policing is increasingly sold to the public as being transparent because officers wear body cameras.
Yet according to the SIU itself, the most important moments of this incident were difficult to interpret because officers were packed so closely together that the body-worn cameras could not clearly capture what was occurring.
The report also states that once additional officers entered the booking area, the fixed booking-room camera became partially obstructed, preventing a full view of what occurred on the ground.
No one suggests the obstruction was deliberate. The SIU report does not make that finding.
But the result is the same.
When force was applied…
…when ribs were broken…
…when the critical seconds arrived…
the public is left without a clear, unobstructed view.
That is hardly the level of transparency body-worn cameras were intended to provide.
Two Broken Ribs. No Charges.
The SIU accepts that (redacted) suffered two fractured ribs while in police custody.
The report concludes the officer’s knee applied to (redacted) back was the likely cause of those fractures.
The Director ultimately determined that the force was legally justified under section 25 of the Criminal Code because officers were attempting to restrain someone they believed was “resisting”.
Reasonable people can disagree with that legal conclusion.
What cannot be disputed is that a 69-year-old man entered police custody with intact ribs and left with two fractures.
A Free Press Owner at the Centre
(Redacted) is well known locally for his involvement with independent journalism and municipal accountability.
For months leading up to this arrest, he and his team had been involved in highly publicized disputes concerning North Huron council meetings, public access, recording government proceedings, and allegations involving elected officials.
The SIU report does not conclude or comment that his role in the media played any part in his arrest or treatment, and there is no evidence in the report establishing such a motive.
Nevertheless, many members of the public are likely to view the investigation through that broader context because the events did not occur in isolation. They followed months of controversy involving public meetings, Charter issues, and criticism of municipal government.
Those surrounding circumstances are part of why public confidence matters so much.
Oversight That Depends on Silence
The SIU deserves credit for conducting an independent investigation and publicly releasing its report.
But this case also highlights a structural problem that has existed for years.
When the officer under investigation is legally entitled to remain silent…
When that officer does not have to provide notes…
When the most important video evidence cannot clearly show the critical moments…
When the investigation must reconstruct events primarily from surrounding evidence…
the public is left to wonder whether Ontario’s oversight system can ever fully answer the questions people actually have.
That concern is larger than this one investigation.
It applies to every SIU investigation.
Accountability Requires More Than Cameras
Police frequently encourage citizens to record interactions.
Body-worn cameras are promoted as protecting both officers and the public.
Yet cameras only improve accountability when they actually capture the event clearly.
Likewise, civilian oversight only builds confidence when investigators have access to the best possible evidence—including, many would argue, an explanation from the officer whose conduct is being scrutinized.
Without that, the public is asked to place enormous trust in a process where the central participant is under no obligation to speak.
The Real Question
The SIU has answered the legal question.
It found no reasonable grounds to lay criminal charges.
But another question remains unanswered:
Should Ontario continue to operate a police oversight system where the officer under investigation can refuse to answer investigators’ questions while the public is expected to accept the outcome as fully transparent?
That is no longer simply an SIU question.
It is a public policy question.
And one every Ontario citizen—regardless of their views on policing—should be asking.