Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.

Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.

A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.

In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injury a 63-year-old man (the “Complainant”) sustained.

Notification of the SIU

On September 30, 2021, the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU and reported the following.

The TPS was in receipt of a report from the Office of the Independent Police Review Director regarding an incident that occurred on July 16, 2021, at a residence on Huntingdale Boulevard, Scarborough. TPS police officers had attended the residence to assist with a property removal. The affected person, the Complainant, became upset with his son, Civilian Witness (CW) #2, and physically attacked him. The Complainant’s wife, CW #3, intervened to protect her son. She pushed her husband back into his chair. The Complainant then directed his aggression towards his wife. The Subject Official (SO) actively restrained the Complainant to stop him getting at his wife. The Complainant then called 911 to report that he had been assaulted by the SO.

The Complainant subsequently visited the hospital - the Scarborough Health Network - Birchmount Site (SHN-BS). A small fracture was located, which doctors advised could have occurred while the Complainant was restrained by police.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 09/30/2021 at 12:29 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 10/01/2021 at 11:14 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

63-year-old male interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on October 1, 2021.

Civilian Witnesses

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

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between October 4, 2021 and November 22, 2021.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on November 16, 2021.

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed

The witness official was interviewed on October 27, 2021.

The Scene

The scene was located inside a residence on Huntingdale Boulevard, Scarborough.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[1]

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage

The ICCS video was obtained from a TPS police vehicle for its audio footage in connection with the events in question on July 16, 2021. The following is a summary of the information contained therein.

At 8:27 a.m., the SO and the WO met with CW #2 and CW #1 on the street in front of the residence on Huntingdale Boulevard. CW #2 and CW #1 discussed with the police officers the issues they were having in retrieving their property from the residence they shared with CW #2’s parents. The WO suggested waiting for the property owner of the residence to arrive so that they could determine the right of access to the property.

At 8:34 a.m., the owner of the residence arrived and confirmed that CW #1, CW #2 and CW #3 were the names on the lease, and he was aware the locks had been changed in violation of the lease agreement.

At 8:35 a.m., the police officers could be heard knocking at a door. A conversation ensued through the window, and the Complainant and CW #3 could be heard to open the door and speak with the police officers and the owner.

At 8:36 a.m., one of the police officers said that she believed there was a mental health issue the Complainant did not appear to understand why they were there. The police officers asked to speak with CW #3 only. The discussions involved the Complainant’s lack of cooperation in settling the matter. The police officers concluded that since CW #2’s and CW #1’s names were on the lease, they had the right to enter the residence and collect their property. The SO suggested that a sergeant be called to respond to the situation.

At 8:47 a.m., one of the police officers could be heard to say that she did not push the Complainant, that in his (the Complainant’s) attempt to push by her, he came into contact with her, and that if he attempted the same thing again he would be arrested. She then said to the other police officer that this may be an attempt to say that he had been assaulted when he had not. Part of a telephone conversation was heard between a police officer and another person. A suggestion was made that the Complainant could be arrested for Obstruct Police. As this conversation happened, CW #3 agreed to let the parties into the residence to remove their property.

At 8:50 a.m., the police officers entered the residence with all four parties and asked that they not talk with each other as the property was removed.

At 9:39 a.m., the audio in the recording ended.

Police Communications Recordings

On July 16, 2021, the TPS received a telephone call from CW #1, who requested that police attend a residence on Huntingdale Boulevard to assist in letting CW #1 into the residence to remove her and her husband’s belongings. CW #1 stated that her in-laws had changed the locks and her name was on the lease.

At 8:05 a.m., the WO and the SO were dispatched. Information was broadcasted that CW #1 was trying to move property and the in-laws were preventing them from doing so.

At 9:52 a.m., the TPS received a telephone call from the Complainant. The Complainant was asked by the call-taker what the problem was, and he stated, “Well this police officer assaulted me.” The Complainant said the police grabbed his hand and broke it. The Complainant identified himself.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials and documents from the TPS between October 22, 2021 and November 6, 2021:

• Event Details Report;
• Notes-the WO;
• Notes-the SO;
• Procedure - Landlord and Tenant Disputes;
• Communication Recordings; and
• ICCS Footage.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU received the following records from other sources on October 13, 2021:

• Medical Record SHN-BS.

The following scenario emerges from the weight of the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the Complainant, several of his family members present at the time of the events in question, and the SO.

In the morning of July 16, 2021, the Complainant’s son and daughter-in-law – CW #2 and CW #1, respectively – arrived at his residence on Huntingdale Boulevard, Toronto. They had left the residence following a dispute with the Complainant, and had returned to collect their furniture and belongings. When the Complainant refused them entry, CW #1 called the police.

The SO and her partner, the WO, were dispatched to the address. The officers satisfied themselves that CW #2 and CW #1 had a legal right to enter the premises, and were able to persuade the Complainant to let them in to collect their things.

The Complainant was belligerent as his son and daughter-in-law, and movers they had hired, walked about the home collecting property. His wife – CW #3 – tried to keep him seated and calm in the dining room. On one occasion, the Complainant stood from his seat and approached his son in an aggressive manner. CW #3 intervened to restrain the Complainant and attempted to walk him back to his seat. Concerned that his behaviour had escalated to the point of imminent violence, the SO also interceded by grabbing hold of the Complainant’s wrist and escorting him back to his chair. She and the WO had to that point largely been spectators standing in the hallway by the front entrance.

The Complainant protested the SO’s conduct and exclaimed that he had been assaulted and injured. He contacted 911 to complain about the SO, but refused an offer of an ambulance.

At hospital, later that day, the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured right shoulder.

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,

On September 30, 2021, the TPS notified the SIU that they were in receipt of information in which it was alleged that a man – the Complainant – had suffered a serious injury in an interaction with a TPS officer on July 16, 2021. The SIU initiated an investigation and identified the SO as the subject official. The investigation is 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 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.

In the instant case, the officers had spoken with the property owner and, having assured themselves that CW #2 and CW #1 were named parties on the lease at the residence on Huntingdale Boulevard, rightfully concluded that they had every right to enter the residence to collect their belongings. Having been invited to the scene to keep the peace as CW #2 and CW #1 collected their property, it follows that the officers were also lawfully placed inside the residence.

I am further satisfied that the SO comported herself lawfully when she took hold of the Complainant to guide him away from his wife and son. The Complainant was angry with his son and daughter-in-law and at times gave the impression of wanting to attack them physically. The evidence indicates that the SO took hold of the Complainant believing that he was about to assault his wife. The SO reported that she took hold of the Complainant’s wrist without undue force and for a very brief period to guide him back to his seat. In the circumstances, there is no evidence that the SO used anything other than reasonable force in the execution of her duties to preserve the peace and prevent a reasonably apprehended assault.

The mechanism of the Complainant’s fracture remains unclear, and there is good reason to believe that the SO had very little, if anything, to do with the fracture. That said, the medical evidence was unable to exclude a direct application of force as being the cause of the fracture. Be that as it may, as I am satisfied for the foregoing reasons that the SO used only lawful force throughout her engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case, and the file is closed.

Date: January 28, 2022

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit