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 sustained by a 24-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On August 17, 2020, at 4:12 p.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

The YRP reported that at 9:38 a.m., YRP police officers responded to the Bakersfield Park, Vaughan, for a male armed with a boxcutter and scissors. Uniform officers arrived and were confronted by the Complainant.

The Complainant went at the officers with the weapons and they backed up to their cruisers with the in-car camera running. Uniform officers deployed their Conducted Energy Weapons (CEWs) twice with negative results. The Complainant fled into the park.

YRP officers contained the park and the Emergency Response Unit (ERU) responded. The Complainant was confronted by ERU and refused to drop the weapons. Two ERU officers deployed their CEWs with negative results. One of the ERU officers shot the Complainant four times with an Anti-Riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN), knocking the weapon out of his right hand.

The Complainant was taken to MacKenzie Health Centre in Richmond Hill and admitted under the Mental Health Act (MHA). The Complainant was sedated, and subsequently examined and found to have a fracture to his right hand.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Complainant:

24-year-old male, did not respond for an interview

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Interviewed
WO #6 Interviewed

Subject Officers

SO Declined interview, as is the subject officer’s legal right. Notes received and reviewed.

The Scene

The incident unfolded in Misty Sugar Park, a large open greenspace surrounded by residential housing and a public school.

Scene Diagram

Forensic Evidence

CEW Analysis

A total of four CEWs were deployed during the course of this incident.

The CEW assigned to WO #6 was triggered at 10:08:54 a.m., at which time Cartridge 1 was deployed for a duration of two seconds. It was triggered again at 10:10:25 a.m., at which time Cartridge 2 was deployed for a duration of five seconds.

The CEW assigned to the SO was triggered at 10:10:15 a.m., at which time Cartridge 1 was deployed for a duration of five seconds. It was triggered again at 10:10:21 a.m., still with Cartridge 1 deployed, for a duration of two seconds. It was a triggered a third time at 10:10:25 a.m., at which time Cartridge 2 was deployed for a duration of five seconds.

The CEW assigned to WO #1 was triggered at 10:11:08 a.m., at which time Cartridge 1 was deployed for a duration of two seconds. It was triggered again at 10:11:11 a.m., at which time Cartridge 2 was deployed for a duration of five seconds.

The CEW assigned to WO #5 was triggered at 10:11:42 a.m., at which time Cartridge 1 was deployed for a duration of two seconds. It was triggered against at 10:11:46 a.m., at which time Cartridge 2 was deployed for a duration of 13 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

Cellular Telephone Video

A cellular telephone video was recorded by a citizen. The video was two minutes and 54 seconds in length and captured the entire interaction between YRP police officers and the Complainant.

The camera zooms in on the Complainant walking westward across the grassed grounds and into the soccer field. He is holding what appears to be a pair of scissors in his right hand.

The Complainant walks through a debris field on the soccer pitch, which appears to include papers strewn about.

A male voice is heard to say, “Get down.” Shortly thereafter, a “pop” sound is heard.

The SO and WO #1 come into the camera’s view east of the Complainant, who continues to walk eastward in the officers’ direction. WO #1 is holding a shield across his chest. The officers are standing near the southern post of a soccer net by the east side of the field.

Another “pop” sound is heard, followed by the SO firing his ARWEN. The Complainant is within a few metres of the officers and walking in their direction.

The SO fires the ARWEN a second time, following which the Complainant stops his advance still facing the officers. The scissors are still in his right hand.

The SO is seen drawing his CEW. Another “pop” sound is heard, followed shortly thereafter by another “pop” sound.

Shortly thereafter, the ARWEN is fired again and the Complainant’s right hand flings backward momentarily. There follows another ARWEN discharge and, again, the Complainant’s hand is flung backwards. He appears to still have the scissors or a part of the scissors in his hands.

WO #5 is seen approaching on foot from behind the Complainant and fires his CEW at the Complainant. Seconds later, WO #6 approaches from behind the Complainant, north of WO #5, and discharges his CEW.

Moments later, the SO and WO #1 slowly approach the Complainant, still standing, and force him to the ground. Other officers arrive at the scene of the grounding and are huddled around the Complainant.

The Complainant, handcuffed, is assisted to his feet.

In-car camera system (ICCS) Footage from WO #4’s Cruiser

The SIU received ICCS footage from the cruisers of several involved officers. The footage from WO #4’s cruiser, summarized below, best captured the force used by the SO and WO #1.

At 10:07:39 a.m., either WO #1 or the SO say to the Complainant, who is walking eastward through the soccer field, to drop the scissors several times. The Complainant is told that “we don’t want to hurt you”. The Complainant continues to advance throughout these utterances.

At 10:07:50 a.m., the sound of an ARWEN being discharged is heard. A second later, there is another sound of an ARWEN being discharged. The Complainant continues to walk forward.

At 10:07:53 a.m., the sound of a CEW being discharged is heard. The Complainant stops his advance forward and stands in position.

At 10:07:59, the sound of a CEW being discharged is heard. The Complainant flinches, but remains standing.

10:08:09, the sound of a CEW being discharged is heard. The Complainant flinches, but remains standing.

At 10:08:15 a.m., an ARWEN discharge is heard and the Complainant’s right hand is seen to flinch backwards.

At 10:08:19, an ARWEN discharge is heard and the Complainant’s right hand is seen to flinch backwards. He remains standing.

At 10:08:35 a.m., WO #5, who has approached the Complainant from behind, appears to discharge his CEW at the Complainant.

At 10:08:38 a.m., the sound of another CEW discharge is heard. The Complainant remains standing.

At 10:08:41 a.m., WO #6, who has also approached the Complainant from behind, appears to discharge his CEW at the Complainant. The Complainant remains standing.

10:08:45 a.m., the SO and WO #1 move and take physical hold of the Complainant, who is wrestled to the ground. Multiple officers huddle over the Complainant.

At 10:09:24 a.m., the Complainant is lifted to his feet. He is handcuffed.

Communications Recordings

911 And Communications Recordings

The review of the 911 and communications recordings provided the following timeline of events.

The initial 911 call was received at 9:38:19 a.m. The first unit was dispatched at 9:42:41 a.m. and en route to the scene at 9:42:46 a.m., arriving at 9:51:04 a.m.

WO #2 and an undesignated officer were the initial officers dispatched followed by WO #5 responding at 9:43:08 a.m.

ERU officers - the SO and WO #1 - responded at 9:43:49 a.m., however, they were some distance from the scene.

WO #6 responded to the call at 9:45:48 a.m.

Once at the scene, YRP officers attempted to de-escalate the situation and keep the Complainant contained within the confines of the soccer field. The Complainant was in possession of a pair of scissors that he refused to drop and continually told the attending YRP police officers that they would have to shoot him.

The SO and WO #1 arrived on scene at the soccer field at about 10:05:53 a.m. The Complainant immediately turned his attention towards them. WO #1 delivered the first of two CEW deployments at 10:09:04 a.m., followed by the SO’s deployment of both CEW cartridges. The Complainant did not react. The SO then deployed four ARWEN projectiles. Both WO #6 and WO #5 then deployed their respective CEWs. The Complainant was subsequently subdued at about 10:09:21 a.m.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Notes of WOs;
• Communication recordings;
• CCS recordings; and
• EW download reports;

The material events in question are clear thanks to interviews with a number of witness officers who participated in the arrest and a cell phone video recording that captured the incident. In the morning of August 17, 2020, the YRP received a 911 call from a male reporting that the Complainant was in mental distress in the middle of a soccer field. He explained that the Complainant had a pair of scissors and a box cutter. The male was concerned that the Complainant might hurt himself or others. YRP officers were dispatched to the scene – the grounds of Bakersfield Public School off of Mistysugar Trail, Thornhill.

The first to arrive, each in their own cruiser, were WO #5 and WO #2. They encountered the Complainant in the field and basketball court south of the school building. The Complainant, with a pair of scissors in his right hand, approached the officers. WO #5 and WO #2 exited their vehicles and attempted to engage the Complainant in dialogue. The Complainant indicated that he was “God” and directed the officers to shoot him. The officers told the Complainant they were there to help him and had no intention of shooting him. When the Complainant continued to advance on the officers, WO #5 and WO #2 returned to their vehicles for their own safety.

Other officers began arriving at the scene, including WO #3, WO #4, WO #6 and an undesignated officer. The undesignated officer attempted to speak with the Complainant from within her cruiser but was unable to make any inroads. The Complainant climbed onto the roof of her cruiser where he remained for a few minutes before he jumped off and made his way to the basketball court.

Shortly after 10:00 a.m., ERU officers – the SO and WO #1 – arrived at the park from the east side. The Complainant noticed their presence and began to walk in their direction, the scissors still in his right hand. WO #1 repeatedly directed the Complainant to drop the knife and indicated they were not there to hurt him. The Complainant did not respond in any way. When the Complainant neared to within three to five metres of the officers, WO #1 deployed his CEW. The Complainant flinched but remained on his feet with the scissors in his possession. WO #1 discharged his CEW again, with similar results. The SO then discharged two separate volleys, two shots each, from his ARWEN, as well as a number of CEW deployments in between. While one or more ARWEN shots appeared to strike the Complainant and break the scissors in his right hand, the Complainant remained standing with at least one of the scissors’ blades still in his grip.

Shortly after the final ARWEN discharge, WO #6 and WO #5 approached the Complainant from behind and discharged their CEWS at his back. The Complainant remained standing with the scissors or a part of the scissors in his right hand. Within moments of the final CEW discharge, however, WO #1 and the SO approached the Complainant, the former with a shield held up, and forced the Complainant to the ground. Other officers arrived to assist. The Complainant was dispossessed of the sharp object in his hand and handcuffed with his hands behind his back.

Following the Complainant’s arrest, he was taken in ambulance to hospital where he was admitted for psychiatric examination and diagnosed with a fracture of the right hand.

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 17, Mental Health Act -- Action by police officer

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

On August 17, 2020, the Complainant suffered a fracture of his right hand in the course of his apprehension by YRP officers. One of those 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. Given the information the officers had been provided at dispatch of the 911 call, indicating that the Complainant was in the throes of a mental health crisis in which he was threatening himself and others with a pair of scissors, and what they gathered first-hand as they arrived at the scene and attempted to engage with the Complainant, I am satisfied there were grounds to take the Complainant into custody pursuant to section 17 of the MHA.

As for the force that was used in the Complainant’s apprehension, I am also satisfied that it fell within the latitude of permissible force. Prior to the ARWEN and CEW discharges, YRP officers had attended at the scene and set up a perimeter around it to prevent the public’s access to the park but also the Complainant’s egress from the field. The Complainant had with him a pair of scissors and the officers were prudent in restricting his movements and those in the vicinity. Efforts were made by the officers at de-escalation. A number of them tried speaking with the Complainant, but he was unreceptive given his mental state at the time. It was only when the Complainant approached WO #1 and the SO at the east end of the soccer field to within a few metres that the officers discharged their weapons. Though faced with an edged object with the potential to inflict grievous bodily harm or death, the officers responded with less lethal weapons – their CEWS and an ARWEN. When this level of force, including the CEW discharges by WO #6 and WO #5, did not fell or otherwise incapacitate the Complainant, WO #1 and the SO moved in to physically subdue the Complainant and take him to the ground. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the force used by the police against the Complainant was other than a proportionate and commensurate response to the exigencies of the situation.

In the result, as I am not reasonably satisfied that the SO acted unlawfully in the force he used to take the Complainant into custody, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case and the file is closed.


Date: June 14, 2021


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit