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 serious injuries sustained by a 38-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On October 2, 2020, at 3:38 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury the Complainant sustained subsequent to his arrest in North York.

According to the TPS, on October 1, 2020, at 9:00 p.m., police officers responded to an apartment on Jayzel Drive for a domestic disturbance. After their arrival and upon further investigation, the Complainant was arrested inside the apartment without incident. The Complainant was escorted out of the apartment and into the hallway. While walking down the hallway, the Complainant rammed his head against the wall before the police officers could control him. Emergency Medical Services were called to assist. The Complainant was transported via ambulance to William Osler Health Centre (WOHC) in Etobicoke. It was learned during the Complainant’s medical assessment that he had suffered a fractured skull, a brain bleed and what was described as a “mid-line shift”. Further to the Complainant’s diagnosis, he was transferred to St. Michael’s Hospital Trauma Unit.

The Scene

The Complainant sustained his injury in a hallway of an apartment building located on Jayzel Drive.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

Police In-car Camera System (ICCS):

The following is a synopsis of the ICCS footage dated October 1, 2020.

• 9:56 p.m. - Video commenced. Audio commenced 30 seconds later as the flashing emergency lights were activated. The dispatcher provided call details.

SO #1 and SO #2 drove to Jayzel Drive.

• 9:58 p.m. - SO #1 and SO #2 arrived at Jayzel Drive.

The dispatcher provided further description of the persons [now known to be CW #2 and the Complainant] involved.

Police vehicle remained parked outside with the police radio on.

SO #1 and SO #2 spoke to CW #1 and confirmed the apartment number.

• 10:00 p.m. - Female voice heard. Appeared to have opened the apartment door. Voices still picked up by microphones but are of lesser quality due to distance away from police vehicle.

Either SO #1 or SO #2 asked if they could come in.

• 10:01 p.m. - “What’s going on?” and, “Are you okay?” were heard from a male voice consistent with SO #1 or SO #2.

• 10:04 p.m. - Either SO #1 or SO #2 said, “Alright buddy, you’re under arrest for assault…,” but the rest was muffled.

Male voice [now known to be the Complainant] said, “I never assaulted nobody.”

The Complainant said the same thing repeatedly and raised his voice each time.

Either SO #1 or SO #2 told the Complainant to relax.

The audio was disturbed, consistent with movement and a struggle.

The Complainant yelled and verbally protested his arrest.

No other voices were raised.

The Complainant was told to relax again.

The sounds of a struggle continued for about 60 seconds.

With his voice raised, the Complainant continued to verbally challenge the arrest.

• 10:07 p.m. - The police officers’ appeared to be trying to explain the arrest to the Complainant.

The Complainant started to say, “Yes sir. Yes sir.”

• 10:09 p.m. - On the police radio, a female voice said, “One in custody.”

• 10:13 p.m. - Sounds of movement.

The Complainant, in a raised voice, said, “She’s charging me with assault?”

The Complainant further raised his voice in an angry fashion and said something to the effect of, “You’re charging me?” and then, “I didn’t do anything.”

A thump was heard.

• 10:14 p.m. - About 17 seconds after the thump, either SO #1 or SO #2 contacted the dispatcher and requested an ambulance, advising that the Complainant “just smashed his head into the wall”.

• 10:15 p.m. - Female voice [now known to be WO #1] asked if SO #1 and SO #2 needed them.

Either SO #1 or SO #2 said they were just in the hallway.

Either SO #1 or SO #2 asked the Complainant if he wanted to sit up.

• 10:16 p.m. - Either SO #1 or SO #2 said they were getting an ambulance “for you”.

• 10:17 p.m. - Either SO #1 or SO #2 asked the dispatcher to run the Complainant.

• 10:20 p.m. - It sounded as if the Complainant was conversing with SO #1 or SO #2 and they asked him if he wanted to sit or stand. He seemed to raise his voice and started to yell but what he was saying was not discernable.

• 10:23 p.m. - The Complainant spoke in a raised voice. What he said was not discernable.

Dispatcher provided CPIC [Canadian Police Information Centre] information regarding a person with an alias that was consistent with the Complainant.

• 10:27 p.m. - It was suggested the Complainant sit down.

The Complainant was yelling about not going to jail and protesting the validity of the arrest.

Either SO #1 or SO #2 read the Complainant his rights and caution.

The Complainant continued to yell.

• 10:33 p.m. - The Complainant yelled that his head was “fucking hurting”.

• 10:34 p.m. - Either SO #1 or SO #2 said that the Complainant had smashed his head off the wall.

A female voice consistent with CW #2 was heard in the background.

The Complainant told CW #2 he knew he was an idiot.

• 10:35 p.m. - Sounds consistent with ambulance on scene, paramedics attending to the Complainant.

• 10:38 p.m. - Either SO #1 or SO #2 said to the dispatcher that the Complainant was being transported to Etobicoke General Hospital (EGH), noted to be WOHC.

• 10:40 p.m. - ICCS ended.

Jayzel Drive – Closed-circuit Television (CCTV) Video

The following is a synopsis of the video footage dated October 1, 2020:

• Floor 1 [2] 9:40:09 p.m., 27 seconds in length

CW #2 entered the camera’s view while walking down the hallway, away from the camera. She was followed by the Complainant who turned back toward the camera and waved to someone who was not seen. The Complainant was half turned toward the camera speaking to someone while he walked. [It is known that they had just left their apartment]. The Complainant was seen running toward CW #2 when the clip ended.

• Floor 2, 9:42:18 p.m.
The Complainant and CW #2 are seen walking from the far end of the hallway toward the camera. CW #2 was in front of the Complainant. Both stop at the elevators and the Complainant pressed the elevator call button.

The Complainant was seen speaking to CW #2. After a moment he slapped the right side of his own face two times with his right hand. He then leaned against the elevator door with his left hand, continued speaking to CW #2, and slapped his face again.

The Complainant began walking toward CW #2 who walked away from him, picking up her pace as she walked. The Complainant caught up to her at the stairwell door, grabbed her with his right arm around her shoulder and tried to pull her through the doorway. CW #2 was able to pull away and enter back into the hallway.

CW #2 looked distraught and walked towards the elevators. The Complainant walked after her and pushed her into the elevator. Both were out of the camera’s view once inside the elevator.

• Floor 1, 9:43:11 p.m., 33 seconds in length

CW #2 and the Complainant exited the elevator and walked towards their apartment out the camera’s view. The Complainant had his right hand on CW #2’s upper back, apparently guiding her towards the apartment.

• 10:00:49 p.m., 64 seconds in length

SO #1 and SO #2 entered the hallway from the stairwell door closest to the camera. Both walked away from the camera to the far end of the hallway and then returned, walking toward the camera and out of its view as they continued towards the Complainant’s apartment.

• 10:14:49 p.m., 4 minutes and 49 seconds in length

At 10:15:01 p.m., SO #1 and SO #2 entered the camera’s view walking the Complainant towards the elevators. The Complainant was seen to be handcuffed to the rear. SO #1 was to his right while SO #2 was to the Complainant’s left. Each police officer was holding the respective right and left arm of the Complainant. Both police officers were slightly behind the Complainant due to the width of the hallway.

At 10:15:06 p.m., the Complainant suddenly and violently stepped to his right and purposely slammed his head against the hallway wall. Both police officers still had a hold of his arms when he did this. They guided the Complainant to the floor where the Complainant laid on his stomach. SO #1 moved the Complainant onto his left side while SO #2 spoke into the microphone of his portable radio. Neither police officer was seen to do anything to cause the Complainant to hit his head against the wall.
The Complainant lay motionless for approximately one minute. When he did begin to move his movements were minute and he remained prone on the floor.

WO #1 and WO #2 attended to the hallway at 10:16:25 p.m. Any movement by the Complainant was blocked from view by the police officers. It appeared that SO #1 was speaking to the Complainant. WO #1 and WO #2 walked back toward the apartment and out of view.

At 10:18:25 p.m. SO #2 walked toward the Complainant’s apartment leaving SO #1 alone with the Complainant. The Complainant was conscious and moving/rolling on the floor. SO #2 returned and, at 10:19:03 p.m., SO #1 helped the Complainant to a seated position.

• 10:19:27 p.m., 7 minutes 42 seconds in length

SO #1 and SO #2 both spoke to the Complainant who appeared to be responding. The Complainant continued to sit on the floor and was moving his head, body and legs.

At 10:22:17 p.m. SO #1 and SO #2 helped the Complainant to his feet, SO #1 to the Complainant’s right and SO #2 to the left. Both held onto an arm and all were facing the camera. The Complainant’s legs were extremely wobbly, and he appeared quite talkative with the police officers.

WO #1 returned to the hallway from the apartment, had a conversation with SO #2 and returned toward the apartment. She returned and had a conversation with the Complainant. The Complainant appeared to be responding to WO #1.

At 10:26:35 p.m., SO #1 and SO #2 turned the Complainant around and walked him to the elevators. They entered an elevator at 10:27:11 p.m. and were out of the cameras view. WO #1 walked back toward apartment 402.

• 10:33:12 p.m., 31 seconds in length

WO #1 and WO #2 return to the hallway and entered the elevator.

Police Communications Recordings

The recordings began at 9:55:06 p.m. on October 1, 2020 and concluded at 3:26:38 a.m. on October 2, 2020. The following summary is not inclusive of every radio transmission and phone call but details those relevant to the SIU investigation.

• 9:55:06 p.m. - CW #1 called the 911 operator reporting that a man [known to be the Complainant] and been seen on security cameras pulling a female [known to be CW #2] into an apartment at Jayzel Drive. The incident had been reported to him by another tenant and he had reviewed the security footage. CW #1 said that the apartment was known for previous domestic problems.

CW #1 did not see any injury but noted that CW #2 had been crying. He further informed the 911 operator that she had tried to enter a stairwell and the Complainant had pulled her back and forced her into the apartment.

CW #1 provided a description of the Complainant and CW #2.

While CW #1 was reporting the incident, he was reviewing the security footage and commented, “This is weird. He’s slugging himself.”

Some of CW #1’s conversation with the 911 operator was inaudible due to the call being dispatched to police at the same time.

• 9:56:30 p.m. - The dispatcher requested any units to respond to a ‘Hot Shot’, unknown trouble at Jayzel Drive. She broadcast that the complainant saw an altercation in the staircase and viewed video footage of a male forcing a female back into the apartment. The complainant did not see any injuries because the female was covering her face.

• 9:56:54 p.m. - SO #1 and SO #2 asked to be put on the call.

• 9:57:17 p.m. - WO #1 and WO #2 asked to be put on the call. The dispatcher indicated that the female tried to run away but the male forced her back into the unit. The dispatcher further advised that the couple were guests of the tenant of the unit.

• 9:58:23 p.m. - The dispatcher broadcast the description of the Complainant and CW #2 as provided by CW #1.

• 10:01:44 p.m. - SO #1 and SO #2 arrived at Jayzel Drive.

• 10:02:32 p.m. - SO #1 and SO #2 advised they were on scene and all was in order.

• 10:09:35 p.m. - WO #1 and WO #2 informed the dispatcher that one person was in custody [known to be the Complainant].

• 10:14:20 p.m. - SO #1 and SO #2 requested DAS [ambulance] to attend the floor for a 27-year-old male, conscious, breathing, just smashed his head into the wall. The dispatcher immediately called Toronto Ambulance Service to attend.

• 10:17:52 p.m. - SO #1 and SO #2 asked the dispatcher to query the Complainant. The dispatcher said a police code indicating the Complainant was not on file.

• 10:23:27 p.m. - WO #1 and WO #2 asked the dispatcher to query the Complainant using a different surname. The dispatcher informed that the other surname showed ‘caution violence, caution family violence, prohibited firearms connected to robberies and imitation weapons, accused court action, accused firearms related, awaiting disposition for spousal assault, utter threats and fail to comply with probation.’ Conditions on file were not to communicate with a woman with the same first name as CW #2 [believed to be the same person], not to enter the city of Quinte West, and the usual firearms conditions.

• 10:25:19 p.m. - The dispatcher further advised the person with the alternative surname had conditions to keep the peace and be of good behavior, attend court when required and not to attend Walmart in Quinte West.

• 10:38:33 p.m. - SO #1 and SO #2 advised that an ambulance was on scene and would be transporting the Complainant to EGH.

• 10:47:32 p.m. - SO #1 and SO #2 provided a starting mileage of 8182 and advised they had left (the scene) about one minute ago.

• 2:39:43 a.m. – A police officer informed he would be travelling on board the ambulance going to St. Michael’s Hospital [known to be with the Complainant].

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Computer-assisted Dispatch Event Details Report;
• Email from TPS Regarding Initial Information;
• Email from TPS-Additional Case Information and Disclosure;
• General Occurrence and Supplementary Reports;
• Injury Report- the Complainant;
• Notes of the WOs;
• ICCS video recordings;
• Communications recordings; and
• TPS-Civilian Entities.

The material events in question are clear on the evidence gathered by the SIU thanks to a video recording that captured the incident, statements from each of the two subject officers and interviews with three civilian witnesses. Owing to the gravity of his injuries, the Complainant was incapable of providing a statement.

Just before 10:00 p.m. of October 1, 2020, CW #1, an employee of an apartment building located on Jayzel Drive, Toronto, called 911 to report a disturbance involving a man and woman staying in an apartment. CW #1 indicated that he had viewed CCTV video from surveillance cameras in the building in which the man had pulled the female into the apartment and that the female had been crying. The man was the Complainant. The woman was CW #2. Officers were dispatched to investigate.

SO #1 and SO #2 were the first officers to arrive at the scene at about 10:00 p.m. They spoke with CW #1, viewed the video footage in question, and then proceeded to the apartment. The tenant, CW #3, greeted the officers and allowed them into the unit, indicating that the Complainant and CW #2 were in a bedroom.

Once at the bedroom, SO #2 escorted the Complainant out into the living room to talk while SO #1 remained with CW #2 and CW #3. CW #2 acknowledged that she had been assaulted by the Complainant and further noted that the Complainant was in violation of a non-contact order by being in her presence. Satisfied that he had reasonable grounds to arrest the Complainant, SO #1 walked to the bedroom and announced that the Complainant was under arrest.

The Complainant objected to his arrest and began to struggle with SO #1 as the officer took holds of his hands and brought them around his back. By this time, WO #1 and WO #2 had arrived in the apartment to render assistance. When the Complainant’s resistance proved too much to overcome while standing, the officers forced his upper torso onto the living room sofa to better control him. In this position, with SO #2 using his body weight to keep the Complainant pinned to the sofa, the officers were able to secure his arms in handcuffs.

The Complainant was stood up and escorted outside the apartment into the hallway with SO #1 and SO #2 on either side of him each holding an arm; the former on the Complainant’s right side, the latter on his left. As they walked down the hallway toward the elevator, the Complainant suddenly jerked himself to the left before swinging his head to the right and striking the wall. The Complainant lost consciousness after the impact and collapsed to the floor, the officers still with a hold of his arms. SO #2 quickly called for an ambulance while SO #1 placed the Complainant on his side in the recovery position.

Within 30 – 60 seconds, the Complainant came to and asked to be stood up on his feet. On his own power with the officers still by his side, he walked to the elevator and descended with the officers to the ground floor. Once outside the building, the Complainant was sat down on the curb while they waited for the ambulance.

Paramedics arriving on the scene placed the Complainant on a stretcher, loaded him in the ambulance and took him to hospital. The Complainant was eventually diagnosed with severe head injuries including a fractured skull and brain bleed.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code -- Criminal negligence causing bodily harm

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

221 Every one who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years

On October 1, 2020, the Complainant was arrested by TPS officers, taken to hospital and diagnosed with serious head injuries. The arresting officers – SO #1 and SO #2 – were identified as the 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 injuries.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. The offence is premised, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was any want of care in the manner in which SO #1 and SO #2 exercised custody over the Complainant that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s injuries and was sufficiently egregious as to attract criminal sanction. In my view, there was not.

The Complainant was clearly in lawful police custody at the time of the events in question. Based on the information received on dispatch of the 911 call that had come in, and what he personally discerned having viewed video of the Complainant’s interaction with CW #2 and spoken with CW #1, SO #1 had reasonable grounds to believe that the Complainant had committed an assault.

The Complainant objected to his arrest and resisted the officers’ efforts inside the apartment to secure him in handcuffs. The officers were able to quickly overcome the Complainant’s struggle with their superior manpower and take him into custody. No strikes were delivered by the officers.

Having been arrested and handcuffed, I am satisfied that SO #1 and SO #2 comported themselves within the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. With an officer on either side of the Complainant and each holding onto an arm, they were uneventfully walking the Complainant down the hallway to the elevator when he suddenly propelled his head toward the right and into the hallway wall. It is plain and obvious that this is where the Complainant’s injuries occurred as he collapsed immediately after impact and lost consciousness for a while. It is also clear that there was little if anything the officers could have done to prevent the Complainant doing what he did. The act happened quickly and without warning, leaving the officers little if any time to thwart the Complainant’s intentions. Nor could they have known in the circumstances that the Complainant was at risk for such an act of self-harm. Once the damage had been done, SO #1 and SO #2 acted quickly to secure medical attention for the Complainant. On this record, I am unable to say that the manner in which SO #1 and SO #2 exercised custody over the Complainant was substandard.

In the result, as I am satisfied that SO #1 and SO #2 conducted themselves lawfully throughout their interaction with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: March 22, 2021

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit