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 an injury a 32-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.

Notification of the SIU

On October 24, 2020, at 3:44 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) of an injury the Complainant sustained during his arrest.

TPS reported that, about 10:17 a.m., a man called 911 to report that another man, the Complainant, was beating up a woman in the area of Wilson Avenue and Keele Street. The Complainant was seen punching and dragging the woman by the neck. At some point, the woman fought back in the area of the Burger King on Wilson Avenue.

When police officers arrived, the Complainant fled, and a foot pursuit was initiated. Witness Officer (WO) #1 was able to eventually tackle the Complainant to the ground in the area of 1112 Wilson Avenue. The Subject Officer (SO) assisted at some point. When the Complainant stood up, he complained that his knees were sore.

The Complainant was taken to St. Joseph’s Hospital (SJH) where he was diagnosed with a left patella fracture.

The Complainant was transferred to 31 Division, and was to be sent to 32 Division for the evening.

The Team

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

Complainant:

32-year-old male, interviewed and medical records obtained

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary

Subject Officer

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

The Scene

The Complainant sustained his injury on the north side of 1112 Wilson Avenue. The area is described as an older retail plaza with an asphalt parking lot.

Physical Evidence

In-Car Camera (ICC) Synopsis – WO #1’s Vehicle

On October 24, 2020, WO #1’s police vehicle was equipped with an ICC. The following is a synopsis of the relevant ICC recordings.

The recording is date and time stamped, beginning at 10:22:10 a.m. and having a duration of 0028:42 hrs. The audio and video components were out of sync making it difficult to correlate the two. WO #1 and the SO are known to have been dispatched to the area of Wilson Avenue and Keele Street in relation to a male [known to be the Complainant] and a female who were fighting.

The dispatcher was heard broadcasting a description of the two people and advised that the woman had gone into the Burger King Restaurant while the Complainant had run towards Wilson Street on foot. One of the police officers broadcasted that the Complainant was in the car dealership [known to be 1128 Wilson Avenue] parking lot, across from the Rexall.

WO #1 drove his police vehicle onto a grassy area to the rear west side of the dealership. The Complainant was seen hiding among the cars. He stood up and ran east when WO #1 drove near the lot. The Complainant ran out of the camera’s view. WO #1 broadcasted that the Complainant was heading back toward the CIBC. WO #1 described the Complainant’s physical appearance and noted he was wearing red pants and a plaid shirt. WO #1 turned his police vehicle around and drove to Pleasant Home Boulevard, north from Wilson Avenue and east into the rear parking area behind 1112 Wilson Avenue.

The SO was heard to broadcast, “We got him, one in custody,” and provide the address as the rear of 1112 Wilson Avenue. As WO #1 drove into the parking lot, his ICC captured a view of the SO kneeling overtop of the Complainant, who was prone and face down on the parking lot.

The SO’s police vehicle was stopped facing to the west with its emergency lights activated. A parked SUV was next to the SO’s police vehicle, facing north towards a concrete wall. The SO and the Complainant were to the west side of the parked SUV and the north side of the SO’s police vehicle. WO #1 stopped his police vehicle to the southside of the SO’s police vehicle, past where the SO and the Complainant were located. The position of his police vehicle did not allow the ICC to capture the physical interaction between the Complainant and the police officers.

The SO was heard telling the Complainant numerous times to put his hands behind his back. The Complainant yelled incoherently. The SO was heard to say, “I told you to get on the ground. Why didn’t you listen to me?” The Complainant replied that he did (listen).

When the Complainant was told to get up, he could be heard complaining of pain and saying he could not bend his left knee. The SO was heard to say that the Complainant had gone down ‘pretty hard’. An ambulance attended the scene but was not seen in the ICC’s view. A man [believed to be a paramedic] was heard asking the Complainant what he could do for him. The Complainant replied, “I don’t know. I can’t bend this knee. When I dropped on it, it…” The paramedic asked, “So you said you fell on it?” The Complainant responded by saying he could not move it. The recording concluded at 10:50:52 a.m.

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 sources:

• Closed-circuit Television (CCTV) Business #1 on Wilson Avenue; and
• CCTV Business #2 on Wilson Avenue.

CCTV Business #1 on Wilson Avenue

The time stamp on the recordings was inaccurate, beginning at 3:00 p.m. and concluding at 4:20 p.m. [It is known that the time of the incident was at approximately 10:20 a.m.]

At 4:04:54 p.m., a male wearing a black coat was seen to walk northerly across the windows at the front of the business, toward Wilson Avenue. The quality of the image is poor, but this person is believed to be the Complainant.

At 4:05:15 p.m., a TPS cruiser arrived in the parking lot and stopped in front of the business.

At 4:05:33 p.m., two TPS officers entered via the main doors, walked to the service counter and then back out of the business at 4:05:50 p.m. [These police officers are believed to be the SO and WO #1.]

Neither the Complainant nor the woman were seen to enter the business.

CCTV – Business #2 on Wilson Avenue

The CCTV footage is time stamped with the date October 24, 2020, beginning at 9:56:45 a.m. and concluding at 10:41:10 a.m.

At 10:24:30 a.m., the Complainant and a woman were seen walking westerly along the south sidewalk of Wilson Avenue. They were walking arm in arm and nothing appeared amiss. The Complainant was wearing red pants, a black coat, and dark shoes. A plaid shirt could be seen extending below the bottom of his coat. When they got to the area beside the Burger King Restaurant, they stopped and hugged each other. They continued a short distance to a bus stop where the woman was seen to pull away from the Complainant. They continued walking westerly, the woman several paces behind the Complainant.

At 10:25:30 a.m., they were out of the camera’s view.

At 10:28:33 a.m. they re-entered the camera’s view walking east along the south sidewalk. The woman was approximately six metres behind the Complainant. Both walked toward the front of the Burger King Restaurant and were out of the camera’s view at 10:28:43 a.m.

At 10:32:30 a.m., two TPS cruisers [believed to be the SO and WO #1] drove east on Wilson Avenue past the Complainant, who was standing at the roadway, and turned into the Swiss Chalet / Burger King parking lot. The Complainant then walked north across Wilson Avenue and out of the camera’s view.

At 10:34:21 a.m., two police cruisers [believed to be the SO and WO #1] drove out of the parking lot heading west on Wilson Avenue.

Police Communications Recordings

The following is a synopsis of the audio communications involving members of the TPS and communications staff at TPS during the incident of October 24, 2020.

• 10:17 a.m. – 911 call to TPS dispatch. Report of a male assaulting a female in the area of 2737 Keele Street. Both parties walked towards the Burger King Restaurant at Wilson Avenue and Keele Street;
• 10:23 a.m. – The SO is in the area and requests a description of the involved persons;
• 10:26 a.m. – Dispatch responds with a physical description of the male and female. Male is wearing red pants.
• 10:27 a.m. – Dispatch advises the male saw police in the area and took off on foot;
• 10:29 a.m. – The SO and WO #1 both in area. The SO advises he would check eastbound;
• 10:30 a.m. – WO #1 radios the male is running on Wilson Avenue by the car dealership. He advises he was going out on foot;
• 10:31 a.m. – WO #1 advises the male now running westbound towards the CIBC bank;
• 10:31 a.m. – The SO advises, “Got him, one in custody”;
• 10:32 a.m. – The SO - rear of plaza at 1112 Wilson Avenue;
• 10:33 a.m. – WO #1 requests EMS to location at rear of plaza;
• 10:34 a.m. – WO #1 reports EMS required as male went down hard and needs his knee checked;
• 10:55 a.m. – WO #1 – riding with EMS to St. Josephs Hospital, the SO to follow in his cruiser;
• 11:30 a.m. – WO #1 – arrives at hospital;
• 2:27 p.m. – WO #1 and the SO relieved at hospital by TPS officers; and
• 3:20 p.m. – The Complainant released from hospital and transported to police station.

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;
• Email from TPS regarding location of arrest;
• General and Supplementary Occurrences;
• Notes-the SO;
• Notes-WO #2;
• Notes-WO #1;
• TPS Injury Report-the Complainant;
• ICC video recording; and
• TPS Witness List.

Materials obtained from Other Sources

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

• CCTV Business #1 on Wilson Avenue;
• CCTV Business #2 on Wilson Avenue; and
• The Complainant’s medical records from SJH.

The following scenario emerges from the weight of the evidence collected by the SIU, which included statements from the Complainant, the SO, and WO #1, who also participated in the arrest, as well as video recordings that captured the incident in parts. At about 10:20 a.m. on October 24, 2020, the SO and WO #1 were dispatched to Keele Street and Wilson Avenue in Toronto following a 911 call to police of a woman being assaulted by a man in the area. The man in question was the Complainant.

The SO and WO #1 arrived at the scene in separate cruisers. The officers checked business premises located at the southeast corner of the intersection with negative results before the Complainant was located in the area of a car dealership on Wilson Avenue west of Keele Street.

The Complainant was aware that the police were looking for him and tried to escape capture by hiding behind vehicles in the dealership. When it became apparent that WO #1 was following him in his cruiser, the Complainant ran eastward behind a plaza situated at the northwest corner of the intersection.

At about the same time, the SO, in his cruiser, turned into the plaza driveway off Keele Street and was traveling west along the back of the building when he came across the Complainant. The officer stopped his cruiser, exited and ordered the Complainant to the ground. The Complainant remained standing. The SO repeated his direction and then proceeded to ground the Complainant when he again failed to lower himself. The officer affixed the Complainant’s right arm in a handcuff but struggled with the left arm because of the Complainant’s resistance, prompting a knee strike to the Complainant’s right side.

WO #1 arrived on scene shortly after the knee strike and assisted the SO in securing both of the Complainant’s hands behind his back.

Following his arrest, the Complainant complained of pain in his left knee and was seen to be limping. An ambulance was called and transported the Complainant to hospital where he was diagnosed with a fracture of the left patella.

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,

On October 24, 2020, the Complainant was seriously injured in the course of being arrested by TPS officers. 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 injury.

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. Based on the information they had been provided at dispatch, to the effect that a male matching the Complainant’s description had just been seen punching a woman in the area and grabbing her by the neck, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officers were without lawful grounds in arresting the Complainant for assault.

Nor is there sufficient evidence, in my view, to reasonably establish that the SO and/or WO #1 used unlawful force in effecting their purpose. Knowing that a male of the Complainant’s description had been seen a moment ago to be violent and was actively fleeing from police, the SO’s request that the Complainant lower himself to the ground would seem a reasonable one, as was the officer’s decision to force the issue when the Complainant refused to do so. The takedown itself does not appear on the evidence to have been executed with undue force, albeit it appears the Complainant hit the ground hard and injured his knee in the process. Thereafter, aside from a single knee strike, which appears to have been of little consequence as the Complainant himself fails to mention it in his account, the SO and, later, WO #1, wrestled with the Complainant for a brief period before he was handcuffed. In light of the evidence indicating that the Complainant refused to willingly surrender both his arms, I am not satisfied that this level of force was excessive in the circumstances.

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO and WO #1 acted other than lawfully in the course of their engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against either officer. The file is closed.



Date: April 12, 2021

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit