SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OCI-008
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Mandate of the SIU
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.
Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:
- The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person.
- Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault.
- Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person.
- Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.
- Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.
- Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published.
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy ActPursuant to section14 (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 that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.
- The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials;
- 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, 2004Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.
Other proceedings, processes, and investigationsInformation may also have 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.
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 a serious injury sustained by a 35-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
Notification of the SIUOn January 15, 2022, at 1:19 p.m., Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant. The PRP reported that on January 15, 2022, at 8:51 a.m., the Subject Official (SO) had observed a vehicle with unattached licence plates and followed it to a parking lot at Forestwood Drive, Mississauga. The driver, the Complainant, exited the vehicle, briefly spoke to the SO, and then jumped over a wall, landing 12 feet below on frozen ground. The SO arrested the Complainant a short distance away. The Complainant was transported to the Trillium Health Partners (THP) Credit Valley Hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured left heal.
The TeamDate and time team dispatched: 01/17/2022 at 9:17 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 01/17/2022 at 9:40 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):35-year-old male interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on January 18, 2022.
Subject OfficialsSO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed
Witness OfficialsWO #1 Not interviewed, but notes and body-worn camera (BWC) footage received and reviewed
WO #2 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
The Scene There were two specific scenes at Forestwood Drive, Mississauga. One scene was on the second storey of a multi-level parking lot. The second was in and around the area of an apartment building’s lobby.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence 
BWC Footage – the SOThe BWC footage was 24 minutes and 13 seconds in length, and was activated on January 15, 2022, at 8:52 a.m.
Upon the SO activating his BWC, he was positioned at a parking lot at Forestwood Drive, Mississauga. Facing north, he observed the Complainant. The Complainant limped heavily as he was walked towards the front lobby area of the apartment building and the SO yelled for him to stop; however, he was ignored. The SO then used his police radio to request the assistance of additional PRP officers and provided a description of the Complainant’s clothing.
The SO ran down the parking lot ramp and caught up to the Complainant, who was ordered to stop, reveal his hands, and lay down on the ground. These commands were ignored. The SO unholstered and pointed his conducted energy weapon (CEW) at the Complainant, who continued refusing his directions. When the Complainant arrived at the lobby door, he attempted to open one; however, the SO delivered a kick to his right thigh and he fell backwards. The SO then holstered his CEW and took physical hold of the Complainant, who actively struggled. The two went to the ground and eventually the Complainant’s arms were held behind his back. The SO requested additional PRP officers for assistance.
At 8:56 a.m., WO #1 arrived, and the Complainant’s hands were handcuffed behind his back.
The Complainant refused to provide his identity but informed the SO of where his mother resided. He attempted to contact her, but there was no answer.
A short time later, WO #2 and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) arrived, and the SO provided an explanation of what had occurred. After hearing this, the Complainant alleged that the SO pushed him off the upper level of the parking lot; the SO denied this.
The Complainant was placed onto an EMS stretcher and transported to the THP Credit Valley Hospital.
The remainder of the BWC footage contained nothing of evidentiary value.
BWC – WO #1The BWC footage was 19 minutes and 55 seconds in length, and was activated on January 15, 2022, at 8:56 a.m.
Upon the BWC’s activation, WO #1 was in his PRP cruiser as he arrived at the lobby of an apartment building on Forestwood Drive, Mississauga. The SO was observed to be leaning over top of the Complainant, who was on the ground with his arms being held behind his back. The Complainant yelled that he suffered from mental health issues and that his left ankle was broken. WO #1 assisted the SO in handcuffing the Complainant’s arms behind his back.
When asked for his name, the Complainant refused to provide it. The Complainant was then re-positioned into a sitting position while awaiting the arrival of EMS.
At 9:00 a.m., WO #2 arrived. The SO informed him that the Complainant did not have any identification and that he may have a broken his left ankle after jumping off the parking lot partition. The Complainant denied this and alleged that the SO had pushed him off the parking lot, an allegation that the SO refuted. The Complainant was asked for his mother’s name. He refused to provide it, but indicated where she resided.
At 9:06 a.m., a paramedic entered the lobby and the SO informed the paramedic that the Complainant had jumped to the ground from a 12-foot-high wall.
The remainder of the footage contained nothing of evidentiary value.
Forestwood Drive Apartment Building Security Camera Footage On January 25, 2022, at 11:02 a.m., SIU investigators obtained four video surveillance recordings for the apartment on Forestwood Drive, Mississauga. The recordings were date and time-stamped for January 15, 2022, and began at 8:51 a.m. and concluded at 9:08 a.m.
Recording one was of a driveway that led to a ramp for an exterior multi-storey parking lot at Forestwood Drive, Mississauga. Recording two was specific to the ramp that led to the second level of the parking lot. Recording three was of the lobby’s exterior. Recording four captured the lobby’s interior.
The video footage revealed that on January 15, 2022, at 8:51 a.m., a fully-marked PRP cruiser (driven by the SO) followed a Honda SUV (driven by the Complainant) up a ramp that led to the second level of a parking lot at Forestwood Drive, Mississauga. The Honda SUV backed into a parking space and the PRP cruiser stopped directly at its front. The Complainant was seen to exit the Honda SUV and walk to the passenger door of the PRP cruiser where he spoke with the SO, who was seated within. They talked for five seconds, after which the Complainant ran to the northeast corner of the parking lot and jumped over a cement partition to the ground below. This occurred quickly and the SO had little opportunity to react; however, when the officer walked to the area where the Complainant had jumped, he observed him on the ground, in obvious pain, as he attempted to limp towards the building.
The SO eventually ran down the ramp after the Complainant, unholstered his CEW and pointed it at him. It appeared verbal commands were directed at the Complainant, who continued limping towards the lobby doors.
Upon his arrival, the Complainant attempted to open the door and the SO delivered one leg strike to the Complainant’s right thigh. The Complainant fell backwards but managed to gain entrance to the lobby. The SO holstered his CEW and attempted to take physical control of the Complainant, who was seen actively resisting. Eventually, the Complainant was taken to the ground by the SO and a struggle ensued as he attempted to handcuff the Complainant’s hands behind his back. In the course of the struggle it appeared the officer kneed the Complainant on one or two occasions with moderate force.
A short time later, WO #1 arrived and the two PRP officers handcuffed the Complainant.
WO #2 and EMS later attended, and the Complainant was removed on a stretcher at 9:08 a.m.
Materials Obtained from Police Service The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the PRP:
- PRP Communications Recordings;
- PRP Communication Audio Dispatch Report;
- PRP Event Chronology;
- PRP Occurrence Details;
- PRP Person Details Report – the Complainant;
- PRP BWC footage for the SO;
- PRP BWC footage for WO #1; and
- Notes of WOs and SO.
Materials Obtained from Other SourcesThe SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the following other sources:
- Medical Records from THP Credit Valley Hospital; and
- Four surveillance video recordings from an address on Forestwood Drive, Mississauga.
Shortly before 9:00 a.m. of January 15, 2022, the Complainant arrived at an address on Forestwood Drive, Mississauga. He was operating a Honda SUV with plates that were not registered to the vehicle. The Complainant drove onto the open second level of a parking structure, and backed his vehicle into a parking spot against the partition of the level. Within seconds, a police cruiser pulled in front of the Honda with its passenger side and came to a stop.
The cruiser was operated by the SO. He had followed the Complainant home upon discovering the irregular licence plates. Through the front passenger side window of his vehicle, the officer explained that the Complainant was not allowed to drive the Honda.
The Complainant approached the front passenger side window and spoke briefly with the SO, after which he ran eastward along the side of his parked Honda, jumping over the partition. The Complainant suffered a fractured left foot on impact with the ground below.
Hobbled by the jump, and favouring his left foot, the Complainant limped slowly towards the lobby entrance doors of the apartment building. He was followed by the SO, ordering him to stop. The Complainant reached the lobby doors and managed to gain entrance despite the officer attempting to keep the doors closed. There followed a physical altercation inside the doors in which the Complainant struggled against the SO’s efforts to secure him in custody.
With the assistance of a second officer, WO #1, the Complainant was handcuffed to the back.
Paramedics arrived at the scene and transported the Complainant to hospital, where he was diagnosed with his injury.
Section 12(1) Highway Traffic Act – Violations as to number plates
(a) defaces or alters any number plate, evidence of validation or permit;(b) uses or permits the use of a defaced or altered number plate, evidence of validation or permit;(c) without the authority of the permit holder, removes a number plate from a motor vehicle or trailer; and(d) uses or permits the use of a number plate upon a vehicle other than a number plate authorized for use on that vehicle;(e) uses or permits the use of evidence of validation upon a number plate displayed on a motor vehicle other than evidence of validation furnished by the Ministry in respect of that motor vehicle; or(f) uses or permits the use of a number plate or evidence of validation other than in accordance with this Act and the regulations,
Section 217(2) Highway Traffic Act – Arrest without warrant
Analysis and Director's Decision
The SO did not cause or contribute to the Complainant’s injury by doing or failing to do anything in contravention of the criminal law. The SO was within his rights in seeking to speak with the Complainant and investigate him for a Highway Traffic Act infraction given the improper plates affixed to his vehicle. And the injury was not the result of any force brought to bear by the SO, nor any want of care by the officer. Indeed, the SO was still in his cruiser having briefly spoken with the Complainant through the front passenger window when he suddenly bolted towards the partition and jumped over, a fall of several metres. Thereafter, there is no evidence to suggest that the police were lax in arranging for medical treatment once the Complainant was safely in custody. On this record, it is evident that the Complainant is alone responsible for his fractured foot. 
In the result, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than lawfully in connection with the circumstances surrounding the Complainant’s injury. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case, and the file is closed.
Date: May 13, 2022
Electronically approved by
Special Investigations Unit
- 1) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]
- 2) Though not the focus of the SIU investigation, it would not appear that the SO committed a criminal offence in his dealings with the Complainant after the jump. The Complainant had been operating a vehicle with improper licence plates, thereby subjecting himself to arrest pursuant to sections 12(1) and 217(2) of the Highway Traffic Act. Thereafter, a kick and up to two knee strikes delivered by the officer would not seem a disproportionate use of force given the nature and extent of the Complainant’s physical resistance to his arrest. [Back to text]
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.