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 a serious injury a 42-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.

Notification of the SIU

On November 17, 2020, the York Regional Police (YRP) reported that on November 16, 2020, the Complainant attended #1 District YRP in Newmarket to fill out an OIPRD (Office of the Independent Police Review Director) complaint form.

While there, the Complainant informed a sergeant that he had sustained a fracture to his sternum after an encounter with police officers. The Complainant did not provide any medical documentation to substantiate his allegation.

YRP confirmed that on October 8, 2020, at about 7:00 p.m., the Complainant was causing a disturbance at a restaurant in King City. When police officers arrived, there was a verbal and physical altercation between the Complainant and the officers. The Complainant was eventually grounded, placed under arrest, and charged under the Trespass to Property Act (TPA). He was released from custody and driven away from the scene by a family member.

The police officers involved were Subject Officer (SO) #1, SO #2 and Witness Officer (WO) #1. WO #2 had arrived after the arrest.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Complainant:

42-year-old male interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 nterviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed
WO #2 Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

Subject Officers

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right
SO #2 Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

Timeline/Delay in Investigation

This incident occurred on October 8, 2020. As a result of his injury, the Complainant was not able to report his complaint to the YRP until November 16, 2020. It was at that time that the Complainant was made aware of the existence of the SIU and its mandate by the YRP police officer assisting him in making his OIPRD complaint form. On November 17, 2020, the YRP reported the matter to the SIU.

This was a scheduled response. The Complainant was contacted by the SIU on November 17, 2020, and he and CW #1 were interviewed on November 19, 2020 and the SIU Medical Release Forms forwarded to the Complainant for signing. Witness police officer interviews were conducted on December 2, 2020.

The Medical Release forms were returned to the SIU by the Complainant on December 3, 2020, and forwarded to the family doctor and respective X-ray clinic on December 4, 2020. The SIU received the health records on December 8, 2020.

The final civilian witness interview took place on December 23, 2020, as that witness was unavailable prior to that date.

Although SO #2 was designated as a subject officer on November 26, 2020, it was not until January 25, 2021, that the SIU was notified that SO #2 wished to participate in an SIU interview and provide copies of his notebook entries. SO #2 was interviewed by the SIU on February 3, 2021.

The Scene

The scene was located at a restaurant in King City. The Complainant’s interaction with SO #1 and SO #2 took place in the restaurant vestibule or lobby.

As this incident came to the attention of the SIU some six weeks after it occurred, and it was a scheduled response, SIU Forensic Investigators did not process the scene.

The following scenario emerges on the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the Complainant, one of the two subject officers – SO #2, and several civilian eyewitnesses to the events in question. The investigation was also assisted by a review of cell phone video footage that captured the incident in parts. As was his legal right, SO #1 chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of October 8, 2020, SO #1 and SO #2 were dispatched to a restaurant in King City. The manager had called 911 to report a disturbance in the restaurant involving the Complainant. According to the manager, the Complainant was angry and out of control, and he feared the Complainant would soon start assaulting his wife and perhaps others in the restaurant. By the time the 911 call concluded, the manager reported that the Complainant had been forced into the vestibule area of the premises but was banging on the doors to the restaurant trying to re-enter.

The Complainant and his wife, CW #1, had visited the restaurant for dinner. It seems that the Complainant and a table of male patrons nearby began to argue. The restaurant’s management tried to calm the situation by asking the Complainant and CW #1 to locate to another area of the dining hall. The suggestion incensed the Complainant, who blamed the other party for instigating the row. When he refused to relocate and continued causing a scene, the Complainant was asked to leave the restaurant.

SO #1 was the first officer on scene, followed within minutes by SO #2. The officers encountered a belligerent Complainant in the restaurant’s vestibule. They repeatedly directed the Complainant to leave the premises and warned him that he would be arrested for trespassing if he did not vacate. The Complainant was adamant that he would not leave. As far as the Complainant was concerned, he had done nothing wrong. At about 7:31 p.m., the Complainant was told he was under arrest by the officers for trespassing.

The Complainant resisted his arrest by refusing to release his arms to be handcuffed by the officers. The officers grappled with the Complainant, each with a hold of one of his arms, attempting to bring him under control. The struggle moved from the centre of the vestibule to the northwest corner of the room where the Complainant’s upper body was temporarily pushed up against a glass wall. The officers then turned the Complainant toward the northern door of the vestibule, whereupon it appears that the Complainant struck the edge of the doorframe before he was forcibly taken to the floor. Shortly thereafter, SO #1 and SO #2 were able to wrest control of the Complainant’s arms, bring them around his back, and restrain them in handcuffs.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was assisted to his feet and escorted to SO #1’s cruiser, parked on the street outside the restaurant, where he was placed in the backseat. The Complainant informed SO #1 that he had been injured in their altercation, but refused an ambulance when one was offered.

The Complainant was released at the scene into the custody of his wife and in-laws, and issued a provincial offence notice for trespass.

Several days after his arrest, the Complainant attended a health clinic to have X-rays done. His family doctor subsequently contacted him to advise that he had sustained a fractured sternum.

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,

Section 2(1), Trespass to Property Act -- Trespass an offence

Section 9 (1), Trespass to Property Act – Arrest without warrant on premises

9 (1) A police officer, or the occupier of premises, or a person authorized by the occupier may arrest without warrant any person he or she believes on reasonable and probable grounds to be on the premises in contravention of section 2.

On October 8, 2020, the Complainant was arrested by YRP officers and suffered a serious injury in the process. The arresting officers – SO #1 and SO #2 – were identified as subject officers for purposes of the SIU investigation. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either officer 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. Regardless of who was to blame for the disturbance in the restaurant, the Complainant had no right to remain on the premises having been repeatedly told by the business’s manager and owner to leave. The same was true when the officers, acting on behalf of the premise owners, told the Complainant he had to leave. Having refused multiple opportunities to do so, the Complainant was clearly subject to arrest and forcible eviction under section 9 of the Trespass to Property Act.

Thereafter, I am satisfied that the officers did not exceed the limits of reasonably necessary force in effecting the Complainant’s arrest. The video evidence establishes that the Complainant physically resisted arrest. Though no blows were struck by any party, the Complainant struggled against the officers’ efforts to take control of his arms so he could be handcuffed. After a period of time in which the officers grappled with the Complainant on their feet to secure his arrest, they decided, reasonably in my view, to up their level of force by performing a takedown. With the Complainant on the ground, SO #1 and SO #2 could legitimately expect an easier time of subduing the Complainant. In fact, that is precisely what occurred. Once on the floor in a prone position, the officers were able in short order to handcuff the Complainant’s arms behind his back. The takedown itself, it should be noted, was not needlessly aggressive or heavy-handed; rather, the officers seem to have taken some care in guiding the Complainant to the ground in a slow and controlled fashion.

In the result, while it may well be that the Complainant fractured his sternum in the course of his altercation with SO #1 and SO #2, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either officer comported himself other than lawfully in the course of the engagement. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case and the file is closed.


Date: April 26, 2021