SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OCI-025
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 the serious injuries a 23-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.
Notification of the SIUOn January 27, 2022, at about 6:50 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant. PRP advised that at 2:30 a.m. PRP police officers had responded to a call regarding a Kijiji deal at a residence near Winston Churchill Boulevard and Erin Centre Boulevard, Mississauga. The Complainant tried to flee the scene and rammed a PRP cruiser. He then fled on foot and ran into another vehicle.
The Complainant was arrested and taken to 11 Division where he complained of a sore arm. He was taken to Credit Valley Hospital and diagnosed with multiple fractures to his left arm. When he was discharged, he was returned to 11 Division where he was awaiting a bail hearing.
PRP further advised that the scene was released but PRP had since re-secured it.
The TeamDate and time team dispatched: 01/27/2022 at 7:27 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 01/27/2022 at 8:55 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):23-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on January 27, 2022.
Civilian Witness (CW)CW Interviewed
The civilian witness was interviewed on January 27, 2022.
Subject Officials (SO)SO #1 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed
SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
Witness Officials (WO)WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Not interviewed
WO #4 Not interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on January 31, 2022.
The SceneThis incident occurred on the roadway of a residential subdivision near Winston Churchill Boulevard and Erin Centre Boulevard, Mississauga. The incident occurred at about 2:45 a.m. of January 27, 2022, while the area was lit by artificial lighting. The asphalt-paved roadway was narrowed and obstructed by plowed snowbanks as this occurred nine days after a major snowstorm.
Forensic EvidenceThe SIU forensic investigator documented the scene after it was re-secured by PRP.
Scuff marks were visible on the front hood of a minivan that was parked at a residence on the street. The van was seen in Body-worn Camera (BWC) recordings to be the vehicle against which the Complainant was initially contacted by SO #1 before he was grounded.
Examination of the involved cruisers revealed damage consistent with slow speed impact damage to the front bumpers of two fully marked Dodge Challenger vehicles that contacted the Volkswagen SUV the Complainant was driving. The damage was consistent with observations from BWC recordings detailed in this report.
Figure 1 – Damage to the driver’s side of the Volkswagen
Figure 2 – Damage to the passenger’s side of the Volkswagen
Figure 3 – The front-end damage to SO #1’s vehicle
Figure 4 – Scuff marks on hood of the minivan
BWC RecordingsPRP released copies of the recordings of all five BWCs worn by involved police officers. Recordings from WO #1’s, SO #1’s and SO #2’s BWCs captured events related to the police officers’ interactions with the Complainant.
SO #1’s BWC captured a view of his cruiser stopping after colliding into the right side of the Complainant’s SUV at slow speed. SO #1 exited the vehicle at 2:46:33 a.m. and ran to the front of the vehicle while the Complainant jumped out of the SUV’s front passenger door window. As SO #1 crawled across the hood of his cruiser, the Complainant was seen falling to the ground.
The video indicated the Complainant was grounded by 2:46:44 a.m. A male police officer was heard repeatedly saying, “I got his arm,” as the Complainant yelled and swore at the police officers.
SO #2’s BWC recording captured him exiting his cruiser and running west on the road. SO #1’s cruiser was visible, stopped ahead of SO #2’s cruiser and in contact with the right side of the SUV. As SO #2 approached, SO #1 entered the video frame at 2:46:37 a.m. as he grabbed the Complainant about the waist while they approached a red minivan parked in a driveway.
The Complainant was grounded within five seconds of the initial physical contact as he yelled at the police officers to get off him. As SO #1 and SO #2 restrained the Complainant, SO #1 was positioned on the Complainant’s left side while SO #2 was positioned on his right side.
At 2:46:44 a.m., the Complainant’s arms were extended onto the road surface while his head and shoulders were elevated. SO #1’s left arm then extended under the Complainant’s head before reaching up and taking hold of him in a headlock. After SO #2 extended the Complainant’s right arm to his side, the Complainant’s upper body was lowered to the ground by 2:46:47 a.m. About six seconds later, SO #1 pulled his left arm from the headlock and, two seconds later, it appeared he had hold of the Complainant’s left arm as he brought it behind his back at 2:46:58 a.m. The arm was held behind his back until SO #2 brought the Complainant’s right hand behind his back and SO #1 secured the handcuffs at 2:47:12 a.m.
WO #1 arrived at the scene from the opposite end of the street of SO #1’s and SO #2’s approach and stopped his cruiser behind the SUV. As the footage audio activated at 2:46:05 a.m., he stepped out of the cruiser while speaking to someone out of view, saying, “…something about you overpaying.” While speaking to the person, now known to be the CW, the SUV’s brake lights activated, followed by the reversing lights. As the SUV reversed towards WO #1’s cruiser, a siren was briefly heard. The SUV then drove forward while turning sharply to the left. WO #1 entered his cruiser and drove forward, colliding with the SUV’s left side. WO #1 exited the cruiser and yelled at the driver, now known to be the Complainant, “Get out.” The Complainant exited the front right door window and fell to the ground with his arms extended at 2:46:39 a.m.
The Complainant immediately stood and ran while SO #1 approached him from behind and grabbed him, after which the two men ran into the front right hood area of a parked red minivan. Meanwhile, SO #2 arrived and assisted SO #1 in grounding the Complainant at 2:46:44 a.m.
WO #1 then turned and walked away to approach and subsequently arrest the CW.
Residential Surveillance Video RecordingsA canvass conducted by the SIU revealed that although several residences in the area where this incident occurred were equipped with surveillance cameras, none recorded any of the events as all motion-activated devices were aligned to view areas that were not affected by this incident on the roadway.
PRP 11 Division Video RecordingsSurveillance recordings from PRP 11 Division station consisted of video-only recordings with no audio. The recordings were unremarkable, capturing only video of the Complainant’s movements about the station and while he was lodged.
Materials Obtained from Police ServiceUpon request, the SIU received the following materials from PRP between January 27, 2022, and February 8, 2022:
- Communications recordings;
- BWC footage;
- Custody video;
- Notes-WO #2;
- Notes-WO #1;
- Notes-SO #1;
- Activity Log for the Complainant;
- Directive - Incident Response;
- Directive - Suspect Apprehension Pursuits;
- Disclosure Log-Custody Video;
- Occurrence Report; and
- Prisoner Details Report.
Materials Obtained from Other SourcesThe SIU received the following record from other sources:
- Medical Record – the Complainant.
In the early morning of January 27, 2022, PRP officers were dispatched to a residence near Winston Churchill Boulevard and Erin Centre Boulevard, Mississauga. The resident of the home had contacted the police to report what he believed was a fraud in progress involving a recent Kijiji transaction. A male – the CW - had attended at his home seeking reimbursement for what the CW claimed was an overpayment in connection with an item the CW had purchased from him. The CW had arrived in the company of another man, who was waiting in a vehicle in front of the address.
The other man was the Complainant. He was operating a Volkswagen Tiguan. At the sight of police cruisers arriving at the address, the Complainant reversed his vehicle and then drove forward attempting to drive away. He was prevented from doing so by the officers. Observing the movement of the Tiguan, SO #1, approaching from the east, struck the passenger side of the Complainant’s vehicle as WO #1, approaching from the west, collided with the driver’s side. His vehicle stopped facing north, effectively wedged between the police cruisers, the Complainant scrambled from the driver’s seat to the front passenger’s seat and out through the open window of the passenger door onto the hood of SO #1’s cruiser.
SO #1 exited his vehicle and chased the Complainant over the hood. Following a very brief foot pursuit, the officer grabbed hold of the Complainant at about the same time as another police officer, SO #2. SO #2 had also responded to the scene in a cruiser operated by WO #4, which they had stopped directly behind SO #1’s vehicle on the road. The two officers brought the Complainant to the ground, after which they took control of the Complainant’s arms and handcuffed them behind his back.
Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to the station and then to hospital. He was diagnosed with fractures of his left elbow and wrist.
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,
Analysis and Director's Decision
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.
I am satisfied that SO #1 and SO #2 were in the lawful execution of their duties when they physically engaged the Complainant. That is to say, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officers were without grounds to detain the Complainant for investigation. In R. v. Mann,  3 SCR 59, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the power of police officers to briefly subject a person to a detention for investigative purposes where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is implicated in criminal activity. Given the nature of the complaint received by the police of a potential fraud in progress, the description of the suspects provided by the 911 caller, the time of day (the 911 call was received at about 2:27 a.m.), and the Complainant’s attempts to leave the area at the sight of the police cruisers, it would appear that there prevailed a constellation of objectively discernible facts giving rise to the requisite ‘reasonable suspicion’.
I am also satisfied that the force used by the officers was legally justified. In escaping through the open front passenger seat window of his vehicle after it had been boxed-in, the Complainant had made it clear that he had no intention of stopping for police. In the circumstances, it would seem that the officers were within their rights in forcing the Complainant to the ground once they caught up with him; in that position, any continuing effort by the Complainant to flee would be significantly compromised. Thereafter, there is no indication that the officers used anything other than their combined manpower to wrestle control of the Complainant and secure his arms in handcuffs; no strikes of any kind were delivered. This would not appear a disproportionate use of force.
It remains unclear when precisely the Complainant’s injuries were inflicted. In addition to the takedown executed by the officers, the evidence gives rise to the distinct possibility that they occurred when the Complainant fell to the ground of his own volition as he scurried off the hood of SO #1’s cruiser. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official comported himself unlawfully in their engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: May 27, 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) This is the same occurrence referenced above in SO #1’s BWC recording. [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.