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 apparent serious injury sustained by a 36-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On November 12, 2020, at 8:30 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s injury.

According to the TPS, on November 11, 2020, at about 8:04 p.m., TPS 41 Division officers were requested to assist paramedics at Lawrence East Subway Station with an unresponsive male. When police officers arrived, paramedics advised the Complainant’s complaint was medical in nature and police were no longer required. At about 8:27 p.m., Emergency Medical Services (EMS) called TPS for assistance when the Complainant began spitting and kicking a paramedic. When the same two police officers arrived, the Complainant was urinating in the ambulance. One of the officers used strikes to arrest the Complainant.

The Complainant was taken to Scarborough General Hospital (SGH) because his nose was bleeding. On November 12, 2020, the Complainant was diagnosed with a nasal bone fracture.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

 

Complainant:

36-year-old male, not interviewed [1]

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO Interviewed

Subject Officers

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

In-Car Camera System (ICCS) Data

On Tuesday, December 15, 2020, the SIU received two DVDs with ICCS data from the SO’s and WO’s police vehicles. The following is a summary of ICCS from the WO’s vehicle.

On November 11, 2020, at 8:28:37 p.m., the audio and video recording started. At 8:29:11 p.m., the WO parked her police vehicle behind a police vehicle [now known to be operated by the SO] in the curb lane. Both the WO’s and the SO’s police vehicles had their emergency lights activated.

The SO exited his police vehicle and met with the paramedics, who were standing outside the side door of the ambulance on the grassy sidewalk. The rear doors of the ambulance were closed.

At 8:29:22 p.m., the WO exited her police vehicle and went to the side door of the ambulance. Her body mic was activated. At 8:30:10 p.m., the SO and WO entered the ambulance via the side door. CW #1 and another paramedic remained outside the ambulance.

At 8:30:50 p.m., the SO said, “Are you gonna behave now?” The Complainant’s response was unintelligible. At 8:31:24 p.m., the SO said, “Are you gonna behave now or do you wanna go back to jail?” The Complainant’s response was unintelligible.

At 8:31:36 p.m., a paramedic supervisor [now known to be CW #2] arrived on scene and approached the paramedics on the grassy sidewalk. At 8:31:43 p.m., the SO said, “Stop it!” At 8:32:55 p.m., the SO advised the Complainant of his arrest, “You’re under arrest for assault police, okay? You can’t kick us like that.”

At 8:34:16 p.m., the SO told the Complainant that CW #1 was going to wipe blood off his face. The WO advised the Complainant was in custody and requested a wagon for transport. At 8:36:36 p.m., the Complainant began crying.

At 8:39:23 p.m., the WO requested one of the paramedics stay on board the ambulance with the SO. At 8:41:25 p.m., the WO returned to her police vehicle.

The SO’s ICCS footage did not further the investigation in any meaningful way, as it began recording at 8:51:56 p.m., effectively 21 minutes after his arrival on scene.

Police Communications Recordings

On January 22, 2021, at 11:31 a.m., the SIU received relevant communication recordings from the TPS. A summary of the material information contained therein follows.

On November 11, 2020, at 8:01:48 p.m., TTC requested police and EMS at Lawrence Avenue East SRT Station at 2444 Lawrence Avenue East for an unresponsive male [now known to be the Complainant]. The Complainant was lying on the ground near the collector’s booth by the bus platform and appeared to be conscious, breathing, and heavily intoxicated. At 8:03:59 p.m., the SO and WO were placed on the call.

At 8:14:16 p.m., the SO and WO arrived on scene with an ambulance [now known to be operated by CW #1 and another paramedic]. At 8:23:47 p.m., the ambulance dispatcher advised the Complainant’s complaint was medical in nature and he was being transported to SGH. Police were not required.
At 8:25:03 p.m., the ambulance dispatcher requested police assistance at the intersection of Midland Avenue and Lawrence Avenue East, as the Complainant had assaulted a paramedic [now known to be CW #1] in the rear of the ambulance. CW #1 had not sustained any injuries; however, both he and his partner were waiting outside the ambulance for police to attend. It was unknown if the Complainant had any weapons.

At 8:27:29 p.m., the SO and WO were dispatched to the west side of Midland Avenue and Lawrence Avenue East for unknown trouble. At 8:34:40 p.m., the WO advised the Complainant was in custody and requested a wagon for transport.

At 8:44:49 p.m., the SO advised the Complainant would be transported via ambulance to SGH. At 8:50:31 p.m., the SO was on board the ambulance for transport to SGH.

Materials obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the TPS:

The material facts in issue are relatively clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may be briefly summarized. Shortly before 8:30 p.m. of November 11, 2020, the SO and his partner, the WO, were dispatched to the area of Midland Avenue and Lawrence Avenue East to an ambulance that was parked curbside at the southwest corner of the intersection. The police had received notice that the patient in the ambulance – the Complainant – had become violent and kicked one of the paramedics – CW #1 – en route to the SGH.

The officers parked their separate cruisers behind the ambulance and exited to speak with the paramedics – CW #1 and his partner – standing by the open side-door of the ambulance. CW #1 told the SO that the Complainant had assaulted him and urinated in the ambulance, after which they decided to pull over and wait for police assistance.

The SO and WO entered the ambulance through the side-door and attempted to speak with the Complainant. The Complainant, who had earlier been picked up off the ground by paramedics at the Lawrence Avenue East subway in an intoxicated condition, levelled verbal abuse at the officers from his position on the stretcher. He also kicked the SO, at which point the officers decided to arrest him.

The Complainant resisted as the officers attempted to control his legs and arms. He continued to kick at the SO and was met with a punch to the face, after which his arms were handcuffed.

Following his arrest, with the SO in the ambulance and the WO following in her cruiser, the Complainant was transported to hospital.

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 November 11, 2020, the Complainant suffered a fractured nose in the course of his arrest by TPS officers. One of the arresting officers – the SO – was 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 authorized or required to do by law. While the Complainant appears to have been significantly intoxicated and not in complete control of his faculties at the time, when he kicked CW #1 and, then, the SO, he rendered himself subject to lawful arrest for assault.

Thereafter, there is insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that the SO acted with excess when he struck the Complainant in the course of effecting his arrest. Despite the officers’ repeated directions that he desist in his assaultive behaviour, and their attempts to wrestle control of his legs, the Complainant was able to persist in his behaviour and kick the SO on several occasions. In the circumstances, the SO was entitled to resort to a measure of force to immediately deter any further violence and I am satisfied he did so in a manner that was commensurate and proportional – a single punch in response to repeated kicks. Following the punch, the Complainant was handcuffed and there is no indication of any further physical violence by any party.

In the result, as I am unable for the foregoing reasons to reasonably conclude that the SO acted other than lawfully throughout his engagement with the Complainant despite the injury the officer inflicted, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case and the file is closed.


Date: April 19, 2021

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit