One Charge, One Review, and the Trust That Policing Requires

There is a quiet accountability that must exist within any institution entrusted with the use of force—a recognition that the power to compel, to restrain, and to deploy tools designed to incapacitate carries with it a corresponding obligation to explain, to review, and, when necessary, to answer for. In London, Ontario, that obligation has now taken the form of a criminal charge against one of the city’s own police officers, following an internal review that found cause for concern in the circumstances surrounding an arrest earlier this year.

Constable Brandon Mihalides, 29, has been charged with one count of assault with a weapon in connection with the use of oleoresin capsicum spray—commonly known as pepper spray—during an arrest on April 29, 2026. The incident occurred shortly before 2 a.m., when a 33-year-old woman was taken into custody by London police officers. According to the London Police Service, pepper spray was deployed following her arrest .

The charge did not arise from a complaint alone but from a mandatory review process. In Ontario, the use of pepper spray by police is subject to use-of-force reporting requirements, and any deployment triggers an automatic review. During that review, “concerns were identified regarding the circumstances surrounding the use of force,” according to a police news release. The matter was subsequently referred to the London police’s Major Crime Section to investigate whether criminal conduct had occurred .

Following that investigation, Mihalides was charged and reassigned to what the service describes as “non-operational administrative duties”—a standard measure when an officer faces criminal allegations. He is scheduled to appear in court on December 30 .

The London Police Service has emphasized the importance of public trust in its handling of the matter. “Policing depends on public trust and confidence,” the service stated in its release. “Maintaining that trust requires police services to have effective systems of oversight and accountability, and to ensure that when concerns regarding police conduct are identified, they are addressed appropriately, transparently and thoroughly” . The statement reflects a recognition that the legitimacy of policing rests not only on the authority to use force but on the willingness to scrutinize its exercise.

This is not the first time this week that the conduct of a London police officer has drawn public attention. The London Free Press noted that the charge against Mihalides marks the second instance in a matter of days in which an officer’s actions have been called into question . The service has not released further details about the incident, citing the ongoing court proceedings.

For the woman who was arrested that April morning, the legal process now moves forward in a different forum—one where the conduct of the officer who deployed the spray will be examined and judged. For the London Police Service, the case represents a test of its commitment to the principles it has articulated: that oversight is not an inconvenience but a necessity, and that accountability, however uncomfortable, is the price of the trust that policing requires.

AI Image Disclaimer: All images in this article are AI-generated and are intended for illustrative purposes only.

Sources: CBC News, London Police Service, London Free Press, Global News