Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving police officers where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. The Unit’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation. If, after an investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the officer. Alternatively, in all cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director does not lay criminal charges but files a report with the Attorney General communicating the results of an investigation.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”)

Pursuant to section 14 of FIPPA (i.e., law enforcement), certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• Confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by law enforcement agencies; and
• Information whose release could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding. 

Pursuant to section 21 of FIPPA (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this document. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• Subject Officer name(s);
• Witness Officer name(s);
• Civilian Witness name(s);
• Location information; 
• Witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence; and 
• Other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation.

Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (“PHIPA”)

Pursuant to PHIPA, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may have also been excluded from this report because its release could undermine the integrity of other proceedings involving the same incident, such as criminal proceedings, coroner’s inquests, other public proceedings and/or other law enforcement investigations.

The Unit’s investigative jurisdiction is limited to those incidents where there is a serious injury (including sexual assault allegations) or death in cases involving the police.

“Serious injuries” shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. “Serious Injury” shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault. Where a prolonged delay is likely before the seriousness of the injury can be assessed, the Unit should be notified so that it can monitor the situation and decide on the extent of its involvement.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into injuries a 28-year-old woman (the “Complainant”) suffered.

Notification of the SIU

On October 7, 2020, the Complainant notified the SIU that she had been injured in an interaction with Toronto Police Service (TPS) police officers.

The Complainant reported that on September 30, 2020, at about 8:30 a.m., police were called to her residence near Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue regarding a domestic dispute. When police officers arrived, they pushed her to the ground and she was arrested. The Complainant was two months pregnant. She was taken to North York General Hospital (NYGH) because of a fever. She told medical staff she had complications with her pregnancy and was assessed. After about six hours, medical staff could not detect a heartbeat for the baby and the fetus was removed. The Complainant did not tell medical staff she was pushed to the ground during her arrest.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Complainant:

28-year-old female interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed

The Scene

The Complainant was arrested inside her residence near Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue. The scene was not preserved or examined.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence, and was able to locate the following source:

• Closed-circuit Television (CCTV) footage from the Complainant’s building.

CCTV Footage from the Complainant’s Building

At 8:15 a.m., the camera depicts the front entrance to the building. There are two marked TPS police cruisers operated by the SO and WO #1 parked to the right of the front doors to the building. The police officers exit their respective police cruisers and enter the front door to the building.

At 8:41 a.m. (separate video system time believed to be off), the Complainant enters the elevator with WO #1. She is handcuffed to the back. WO #1 places a medical mask on the Complainant and has a hold of her by her right elbow. The elevator stops at a floor and WO #1 motions to someone not to enter the elevator. The elevator door closes. The elevator stops and WO #1 and the Complainant exit. WO #1 escorts the Complainant along the hallway. WO #1 pulls the right shoulder portion of the Complainant’s sweater up over her shoulder as it is slipping down.

At 8:35 a.m., WO #1 and the Complainant exit the lobby doors. WO #1 has hold of the Complainant’s right arm. The Complainant walks with no issue. WO #1 escorts the Complainant to the driver’s side back door of a police cruiser. He appears to pat down the Complainant’s lower legs. She takes a seat in the back of the police cruiser and WO #1 sits in the driver’s seat.

At 8:36 a.m., another TPS police cruiser enters the driveway and parks in front of the lobby doors. Two police officers [now known to be WO #2 and WO #3] exit the vehicle. Both police officers walk to WO #1’s vehicle. WO #1 gets out of his vehicle and the three police officers stand next to the driver’s side. One police officer, either WO #2 or WO #3, walks to the back-passenger side of WO #1’s vehicle.

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the TPS:

• Computer-assisted Dispatch Event Details Report;
• Notes-the SO;
• Notes-WO #2;
• Notes-WO #3;
• Notes-WO #1; and
• Procedure - Domestic Violence.

Materials obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from non-police sources:

• Medical Records-NYGH;
• Medical Records-Women’s Care Clinic; and
• CCTV video footage from the Complainant’s building.

The following scenario emerges from the weight of the evidence collected by the SIU, which included statements from the Complainant, the SO, WO #1 (the other arresting officer) and a civilian eyewitness. The investigation was also assisted by video recordings captured by security cameras of parts of the events in question.

In the morning of September 30, 2020, the SO and WO #1 arrived at an address near Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue on the 16th floor of the building. They had been dispatched to the address following a call to police about a domestic disturbance in which one of the parties had been assaulted. The call was made by CW #1, the Complainant’s ex-partner. He had called to complain that the Complainant, who resided in the 16th floor unit that he leased, had struck him in the head with a cell phone.

As the officers were speaking with CW #1 in the hallway outside the residence, the Complainant exited the unit appearing as if she was leaving for the day. The officers asked to speak with her about the domestic disturbance and she replied that she would provide a statement later as she was heading to work and had a medical appointment that morning. When told that she could not leave before the officers had had a chance to speak with her, the Complainant acquiesced and re-entered the unit with the officers and CW #1.

Once in through the front door, the SO attempted to explain the reason for the officers’ visit. The Complainant was unreceptive and tried to exit through the door. The SO again explained that he could not simply let her leave while he was investigating the matter and then decided to arrest the Complainant when she would not relent.

The Complainant resisted her arrest. As the officers grabbed the Complainant’s arms, she purposely dropped to the hallway floor on her knees adjacent to the bathroom and attempted to free herself from their hold. The officers lifted her onto her feet, placed her front first against the wall, and secured her arms behind her back in handcuffs.

Following the Complainant’s arrest, she was taken to 32 Division and then to hospital when, in response to COVID-19 screening questions, she answered that she had a fever.

At hospital, the Complainant underwent a series of tests and was eventually diagnosed with an early intrauterine pregnancy or missed abortion. A fetal heart beat could not be detected but her treating physician could not rule out the possibility that the fetus was still viable. Nor could he rule out that the Complainant had suffered a miscarriage but had not passed the fetus from her womb – a missed abortion.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code -- Protection of persons acting under authority

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

The Complainant terminated her pregnancy on October 2, 2020. Two days before, the Complainant had been arrested by TPS officers. It is the Complainant’s contention that the force used on her in the course of the arrest had rendered her fetus unviable. The SO was one of the arresting officers and identified as the subject officer for purposes of the SIU investigation. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s arrest and any harm done to her fetus.

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law. I accept that the officers were proceeding to lawfully take the Complainant into custody when they took hold of her in the residence. Given what the SO and WO #1 had been advised on dispatch about the nature of the 911 call that had come in from CW #1, and what they were personally able to gather once at the scene, it would seem they had reasonable grounds to believe that the Complainant had committed an assault and was subject to arrest.

I am unable to place much if any weight on the Complainant’s rendition of events. Her account is belied by the evidence of CW #1, who witnessed the arrest, and that of the involved officers. The Complainant was also materially mistaken about the manner in which she was treated while being escorted to the police cruiser as evidenced by security camera footage, which contradicted her account.

With respect to what remains of the evidence, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO, or WO #1 for that matter, used excessive force. At its highest, the SO used his body weight to temporarily control a resistant Complainant after she had dropped to the floor and refused to surrender her arms to be handcuffed. The officer did not place his knee on her stomach, nor is there indication of any strikes having been delivered by either officer. Thereafter, the Complainant was simply raised to her feet, handcuffed without further incident and escorted uneventfully to the waiting cruiser to be taken to the station. On this record, there is insufficient evidence to reasonably believe that the SO’s conduct was not rationally and proportionately connected to overcoming the Complainant’s resistance.

In the final analysis, whether or not the Complainant’s fetus was viable on the day in question and, if not, whether that was because of the circumstances that marked the Complainant’s arrest by the SO and WO #1, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO conducted himself other than lawfully. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case, and the file is closed.


Date: April 12, 2021

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit