SIU Director’s Report - Case # 18-OCI-160
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Mandate of the SIU
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.
- 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 investigationsInformation 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.
“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 sustained by a 40-year-old male.
Notification of the SIUOn May 30, 2018 at 2:55 p.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) reported an injury to the Complainant. The YRP advised that at approximately 11:05 a.m., a number of 4 District Criminal Investigative Branch officers attended a residence on Major Mackenzie Drive West seeking to arrest the 40-year-old Complainant on a number of historical criminal warrants. The Complainant was first seen driving a motor vehicle away from the residence. He drove only a short distance before he stopped the vehicle and fled on foot. The police officers chased the Complainant through a number of backyards and over fences before he was apprehended and taken to the ground. After he was taken into custody, the Complainant complained of severe pain in his left hand. He was later taken to the Major Mackenzie Health Hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured left fifth digit (pinky finger).
The TeamNumber of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Complainant:40-year-old male interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed
Civilian WitnessesCW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
Witness OfficersWO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Interviewed
WO #6 Interviewed
WO #7 Interviewed
WO #8 Interviewed
WO #9 Interviewed
Subject OfficersSO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right.
Materials obtained from Police ServiceUpon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents provided by the YRP:
- CAD Detailed Call Summary;
- Email from CW #1 re Arrest – June 4, 2018;
- Follow-up Duty Report – Witness Officer (WO) #5;
- Notes of WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5, WO #6, WO #7, WO #8 and WO #9.
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,
Analysis and Director's Decision
The facts are clear on the evidence collected in the SIU’s investigation, which benefitted from interviews with all of the principal players, including the Complainant and the SO, and a number of independent eyewitnesses. There was some evidence suggesting that the Complainant was punched, kicked and choked by the officers while on the ground even though he offered no resistance. However, this evidence was refuted by multiple credible and independent eyewitnesses who were well positioned to see the Complainant struggling against the officers’ efforts to handcuff him.
Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are restricted in their use of force to that which is reasonably necessary in the execution of a lawful duty. The Complainant was a wanted man on a number of outstanding arrest warrants and the officers were within their rights in deciding to take him into custody. When the Complainant decided to resist his arrest, they were also within their rights to apply some force to effect his arrest. In my view, the force that was used – a forcible takedown to the ground followed by what appears to have been a grappling match with a single knee strike delivered by WO #1 to the Complainant’s upper right arm – was a proportional and reasonable response in the context of a man who fled from his arrest, refused to get on his knees as directed and then struggled as the officers tried to secure him in handcuffs. In the result, while the Complainant’s injury may well have resulted from his encounter with the police, I am satisfied that the force used by the officers, including the SO, was legally authorized. Consequently, there are no grounds for proceeding with charges in this case and the file is therefore closed.
Date: May 2, 2019
Original signed by
Special Investigations Unit
The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.