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 28-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On July 30, 2021, at 8:10 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s injury.

The PRP advised that on July 30, 2021, at 4:17 p.m., a PRP police officer attended a call for a man [now determined to be the Complainant] in the area of Highway 403 and Hurontario Street in Mississauga. The police officer encountered the Complainant on the roadway. The police officer deployed his Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) but it did not have any effect on the Complainant. The Complainant ran onto Highway 403 where he was struck by a vehicle travelling eastbound. The vehicle was then struck by a second vehicle.

The Complainant was transported to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and treated for his injuries. The Complainant was diagnosed with fractures to his nose, ribs, and shoulder.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 07/30/2021 at 8:15 p.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 07/30/2021 at 8:44 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

28-year-old male; declined to participate in investigation

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between August 3, 2021 and October 25, 2021.

Subject Officials

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on October 25, 2021.

The Scene

On July 30, 2021, SIU forensic investigators attended Highway 403 at the Hurontario Street overpass, Mississauga, to conduct an investigation.

At 10:25 p.m., forensic investigators arrived at the scene. The scene had been properly secured and protected by closing off the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane and lane one of the eastbound Highway 403 near the Hurontario Street overpass. Highway 403 was a four-laned highway including the HOV lane at this point.

There were two vehicles within the confines of the scene:

Vehicle One was a silver 2005 BMW 330I. The vehicle was oriented east approximately 50 metres east of the Hurontario Street overpass. There was extensive windshield damage and collision damage to the rear end of the vehicle.



Figure 1 - The BMW with extensive windshield damage.




Figure 2 - The rear damage to the BMW.

Vehicle Two was a black 2015 Acura TLX. This vehicle was oriented east in the eastbound HOV lane approximately 40 metres behind Vehicle One near the overpass. There was front end collision damage to this vehicle.



Figure 3 - The front damage to the Acura.

Nearby were two shoes of the same make. One shoe was in the eastbound HOV lane and the other shoe was in the westbound HOV lane on the other side of the Jersey crash barrier. Further east of the shoes and Vehicle Two was a red bandana with CEW wire close by and an area of suspected bloodstaining.

At 10:55 p.m., forensic investigators set up the Total Station device and, at 11:45 p.m., forensic investigators completed the scene measurements.

On July 31, 2021, at 12:05 a.m., forensic investigators released the scene and vehicles to the PRP.

At 12:30 a.m., forensic investigators arrived at the initial contact area of the police with the Complainant and noted the following involved police cruiser, secured and guarded by a PRP officer.

Vehicle Three was a Ford Explorer. The vehicle was a marked police cruiser displaying graphics adopted by the PRP. The cruiser was parked on Hurontario Street near the Highway 403 eastbound exit ramp. The cruiser’s engine was not running and there was no emergency lighting activated. There was nothing of evidentiary value on this cruiser. Forensic investigators conducted a ground search from the cruiser back towards the highway area and found nothing of evidentiary value. At 12:45 a.m., forensic investigators released the cruiser to the PRP and exited.

At 1:00 a.m., forensic investigators arrived at PRP Division 12, 4600 Dixie Road, Mississauga. At 1:04 a.m., forensic investigators received evidence of interest to this investigation consisting of a silver pocketknife, and a Taser X26 CEW containing two cartridges, one deployed and one live. Forensic investigators photographed the knife and then proceeded to download the CEW data.

At 1:21 a.m., forensic investigators benchmarked the CEW with a ten-second firing. At 1:22 a.m., forensic investigators downloaded an “Offline Report” to a laptop. The times on the laptop and issued cell phone were in agreement.

At 1:29 a.m., forensic investigators returned the CEW with the live cartridge and the knife to the PRP. Forensic investigators collected a CEW deployed cartridge. A police equipment receipt was tendered. At 1:45 a.m., forensic investigators exited PRP.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The following scenario emerges from the weight of the evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the SO and several civilian eyewitnesses to the events in question.

In the afternoon of July 30, 2021, the SO was in his cruiser on the Highway 403 eastbound off-ramp to Hurontario Street when his attention was drawn to the Complainant. The Complainant was on his feet making his way down a line of cars on the off-ramp asking for money, and angrily banging on the windows of refusing motorists. The officer pulled onto the shoulder of the southbound lanes of Hurontario Street, just south of the ramp, exited, and approached the Complainant, telling him to stop. The Complainant uttered profanity at the SO, and continued to make his way down the line of vehicles.

The Complainant continued to walk away from the officer after being told he was under arrest for aggressive solicitation. He refused to turn around and get on the ground. A further distance down the off-ramp, the Complainant turned to confront the SO and uttered a series of profanities at the officer. The SO drew his CEW, and pointed it at the Complainant. The Complainant stepped forward toward the officer and was met by the probes of a CEW discharge. The Complainant screamed and ripped the CEW wire from the probes, after which he ran back up the off-ramp in the direction of Hurontario Street.

The SO pursued the Complainant as he turned to travel north on Hurontario Street. The Complainant jumped over a guardrail just north of the Highway 403 eastbound on-ramp onto an embankment that led down to the eastbound lanes of the highway. The officer followed him down the embankment, repeatedly yelling at the Complainant to stop, and watched as the Complainant entered onto live lanes of traffic.

Eastbound motorists approaching the Hurontario Street overpass were forced to take evasive action to avoid hitting the Complainant. As he entered onto the HOV lane of the highway, just east of the overpass, the Complainant was struck by a vehicle, sending him hurtling through the air. He landed on the north shoulder of the eastbound lanes, picked himself up and moved eastward a few metres before coming to a rest on the ground against the centre highway median.

The SO had seen the Complainant being struck by the vehicle. The officer made his way across the eastbound lanes of the highway, reached the Complainant, and radioed for an ambulance.

The Complainant was transported from the scene to the hospital. He was diagnosed with multiple fractures.

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 219, Criminal Code -- Criminal negligence causing death

(a) in doing anything, or

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

Section 221, Criminal Code -- Criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm

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.

Sections 2 and 6, Safe Streets Act - Arrest without warrant for aggressive solicitation

On July 30, 2021, the Complainant was struck and seriously injured by a vehicle as he crossed the eastbound lanes of Highway 403 in Mississauga. Moments before the collision, the SO had attempted to arrest the Complainant. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, identifying the SO as the subject official. The investigation has now concluded. 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 injuries.

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. The Complainant was belligerent with motorists refusing to give him money, prompting one such motorist to complain about his behaviour to the SO as the officer pulled onto the Highway 403 eastbound off-ramp to Hurontario Street. Told to stop, the Complainant ignored the officer and continued to aggressively seek money from motorists waiting on the off-ramp. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the SO had lawful grounds to arrest the Complainant under section 6 of the Safe Streets Act.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO, in an effort to take the Complainant into custody, was legally justified. The Complainant challenged the officer’s arrest authority and refused to surrender peacefully. Instead, he moved away from the officer while continuing to ask motorists for money. On this record, confronted by a combative individual on the off-ramp of a major highway, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO acted with excess in resorting to his CEW when the Complainant moved toward him in an aggressive fashion. Given their location, engaging the Complainant in a physical altercation would have been a risky proposition. The use of the CEW, on the other hand, held the potential to immediately immobilize the Complainant and assume prompt custody over him, mitigating the dangers of traffic in the area. Through no fault of the officer, the Complainant was able to overcome the incapacitating effects of the weapon by ripping away the wires from the probes.

Lastly, there is no reason to believe that the Complainant’s injuries were occasioned, in whole or in part, by any criminal want of care on the part of the SO. The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. Liability for the offence, reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons, is predicated, in part, on a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. To reiterate, the SO was within his rights in seeking to arrest the Complainant for aggressive solicitation. Arguably, he could have chosen to refrain from taking action given their precarious position on a highway off-ramp. On the other hand, the Complainant had been threatening motorists by banging on their vehicles, and had given every indication that he would continue to do so. On this record, the officer’s decision to intervene when and how he did was a reasonable one.

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than lawfully throughout his engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: November 25, 2021


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit