SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OCI-039


This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.

Mandate of the SIU

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.

Information Restrictions

Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019

Pursuant 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 Act

Pursuant 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. 
Pursuant to section 21 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following: 
  • 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, 2004

Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information 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.

Mandate Engaged

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 injuries a 34-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU

On February 11, 2022, at 3:42 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On February 10, 2022, at 10:05 p.m., officers came across a vehicle being driven erratically at Brickstone Mews and Arbutus Way, Mississauga. A check of the licence plate revealed the vehicle to be stolen. Officers lost sight of the vehicle but began to check the area.

Officers found the vehicle in an underground parking lot at 4011 Brickstone Mews. As the officers were approaching it, the Complainant exited the vehicle and the officers pursued him of foot. Officers deployed a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) twice in the underground.

The Complainant fell down in the underground, got up and continued to run out onto Burnhamthorpe Road. He fell again in the live lanes of Burnhamthorpe Road and the officers arrested him.

The Complainant complained of pain and was taken to the Credit Valley Hospital, where he was diagnosed with a broken ankle.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 02/11/2022 at 4:28 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 02/11/2022 at 5:25 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on February 11, 2022.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on March 2, 2022.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Notes reviewed; interview deemed not necessary
WO #2 Interviewed

The witness official was interviewed on February 11, 2022.


The Scene

On February 11, 2022, at 7:20 a.m., the SIU Forensic Investigator attended at the P1 parking level of 4011 Brickstone Mews. Anti-felon Identification Discs (AFIDs), a CEW barb and wire, CEW blast doors, a baseball cap, and cellular phone were all visible along a route from the parking level to a hallway up one floor, along the hallway and then down a set of stairs to an exit door that led to Burnhamthorpe Road.

An open, metal fire door separated Areas One and Two. A security camera dome was on the ceiling in Area Two (near the metal fire door that separated Areas One and Two). Both areas were well lit with overhead lighting. The concrete floor was painted grey and the block-formed walls were painted white. The handrails were fastened to the walls adjacent to the stairs. The stairs had groove nosing on them. The metal fire exit door near the bottom of the stairs (Area Two) led to Burnhamthorpe Road.

A Honda HRV was parked in a cordoned area. A PRP officer was guarding this vehicle. There were tools and tool kits that were collected on the backseat of her police cruiser.

The Honda had a noticeable layer of dirt on it. A sunroof was partially open. A set of bolt cutters, a laptop/tablet, and cables were on the front passenger seat. A security-type briefcase was partially open, and a Cuisinart box were on the rear seat of the vehicle. The ignition did not appear tampered with.

The SIU Forensic Investigator completed the scene examination, taking photographs and measuring it for forensic mapping purposes. The CEW’s AFID barbs, wires and blast doors were collected. The SIU obtained security camera video footage.

Figure 1 - CEW barb and wire at the scene

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

The SIU Forensic Investigator examined a CEW model X2. There were two spent cartridges in the weapon. Both had pieces of broken wire attached to the spent cartridges. The two spent CEW cartridges were collected by the SIU Forensic Investigator.

The CEW was activated and dry-fired to create a reference mark. A CEW report was generated. The CEW and the battery were returned to the PRP.

Figure 2 – CEW and two cartridges

Forensic Evidence

CEW Report

The SIU Forensic Investigator reviewed the CEW report generated on February 11, 2022. The report indicated the following.

On February 10, 2022, at 10:08:28 p.m.,[1] the CEW was triggered and Cartridge #1 was deployed for a duration of five seconds.

On February 10, 2022, at 10:08:31 p.m., the CEW was triggered and Cartridge #2 was deployed for a duration of two seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

PRP Communication Recordings

On February 15, 2022, the SIU received radio and telephone audio recordings from the PRP. The following is a summary of the pertinent communications.

Radio Transmissions

At 10:05:31 p.m., the SO reported that a stolen car had travelled past him on Brickstone Mews heading southbound to Burnhamthorpe Road and turned into the underground parking garage of the condo complex at 4011 Brickstone Mews. He provided licence plate information, and a dispatcher confirmed the vehicle was listed as “stolen”. WO #2 was also advised of the call.

At 10:07:20 p.m., the SO said he was in a foot pursuit going westbound on the southside of Burnhamthorpe Road at Brickstone Mews. WO #2 was on his way to the location.

At 10:08:10 p.m., the SO and WO #2 had a man - the Complainant - in custody at Burnhamthorpe Road and Parkside Village Drive.

Telephone Communications

All telephone recordings were of police officers contacting PRP dispatch in relation to administrative tasks.

Security Camera Video Footage

On February 11, 2022, the SIU obtained video footage and still photographs from the condo complex located at 4011 Brickstone Mews in Mississauga. The video recordings did not capture audio.

At about 10:03:38 p.m., a vehicle operated by the Complainant entered the condo complex through the underground ramp entrance to parking level one.

At about 10:04:05 p.m. to 10:04:36 p.m., the Complainant parked his vehicle in a spot on parking level one. An unmarked PRP vehicle driven by the SO and one marked PRP vehicle driven by WO #1 entered the underground ramp to parking level one. The SO and WO #1 parked underground on level one and exited their police vehicles. The Complainant ran into the stairwell to the right of his vehicle on parking level one followed by the SO.

At about 10:04:40 p.m., WO #1 went into the stairwell.

At an unknown time, the Complainant entered a hallway leading to the fire exit on the southside of the building. The SO followed behind with a CEW drawn in his right hand. The SO deployed the CEW as the Complainant opened the fire door leading into the hallway. The deployment had no effect. The Complainant turned right and ran towards the fire door exit. The SO followed and deployed his CEW a second time just as the Complainant reached a set of stairs leading down to the fire exit door. The stairs had approximately 18 risers. The Complainant jumped from the top of the stairs landing approximately eight stairs down and then fell to the bottom landing on his left leg. He immediately got up and exited through the fire exit door. The SO followed down the stairs and out the fire exit door.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – the SO

On February 14, 2022, the SIU obtained the SO’s BWC footage. The footage was recorded on February 10, 2022, beginning at 10:06:16 p.m., and was 38 minutes and 50 seconds in duration. The following is a summary of the footage.

At about 10:06:38 p.m. to 10:06:54 p.m., the SO exited his police vehicle and began running in the underground parking lot located at 4011 Brickstone Mews. The SO entered a stairwell and began running up a flight of stairs behind the Complainant.

At about 10:06:57 p.m. to 10:07:03 p.m., the SO yelled, “You are under arrest, stop.” The SO continued running up two flights of stairs and said, “Stop. You are gonna get tased,” at which point he took out his CEW and began running with it in his right hand.

At about 10:07:08 p.m. to 10:07:11 p.m., the SO entered a hallway and deployed his CEW as the Complainant exited through an interior fire door. The CEW deployment had no effect. The SO deployed his CEW a second time while the Complainant was at the top of a set of stairs leading down to an exterior fire exit door. The Complainant made a sound and then jumped down the set of stairs landing near the bottom beside the fire exit door.

At about 10:07:14 p.m. to 10:07:20 p.m., the Complainant got up from the ground and exited the fire exit door onto Burnhamthorpe Road. The SO continued following him westbound in the westbound live lanes of traffic on Burnhamthorpe Road. The SO said over his radio, “In a foot pursuit on Brickstone going westbound.” The Complainant crossed the median and ran into the eastbound lanes of Burnhamthorpe Road continuing west in the curb lane.

At about 10:07:27 p.m. to 10:07:33 p.m., the SO yelled, “Stop,” while running.

At about 10:07:45 p.m. to 10:07:52 p.m., the SO responded to the dispatcher saying he was on the southside of Burnhamthorpe running towards the Ovation City Building. He again yelled to the Complainant to stop. The Complainant turned northbound and ran towards the left turning lane of the eastbound lanes of Burnhamthorpe Road, at which time he fell onto his stomach. The Complainant turned onto his right side, and the SO grabbed him by the left shoulder and left arm and said, “Get on your fucking stomach. Give me your hands.”

At about 10:08:05 p.m. to 10:08:26 p.m., WO #2 arrived and parked his vehicle in the westbound left lane of Burnhamthorpe Road. The SO put the Complainant’s right hand behind his back while WO #2 put his left knee on the Complainant’s shoulder pushing his face towards the ground. The SO said over his radio, “I have got control of the male.” The SO placed handcuffs on the Complainant behind his back and brought him to a seated position.

At about 10:08:53 p.m., the SO told the Complainant he was under arrest for having possession of a stolen car.

At about 10:09:14 p.m. to 10:16:35 p.m., the Complainant was walked to the driver side of WO #2’s vehicle. The Complainant was searched, checked for CEW probes, and subsequently driven back to the underground garage.

At about 10:18:05 p.m., while exiting the police vehicle, the Complainant said his ankle was hurting. The SO stated, “Your ankle is hurting? You shouldn’t run then your ankle won’t hurt.”

At about 10:18:52 p.m. to 10:19:06 p.m., the Complainant walked to the SO’s police vehicle unaided and got into the rear passenger side seat. The SO asked WO #1 to meet him at the hospital.

BWC Footage – WO #2

On February 14, 2022, the SIU obtained WO #2’s BWC footage. The footage was recorded on February 10, 2022, beginning at 10:08:24 p.m., and was five minutes and 12 seconds in duration.

At about 10:08:24 p.m. to 10:08:55 p.m., WO #2 was standing over the SO and the Complainant on Burnhamthorpe Road in the left lane of the eastbound live lane of traffic. The SO placed handcuffs on the Complainant and brought him to a seated position. The SO said, “Alright, dude, let’s get up.” WO #2 stated, “Get off the road before you get hit.”

At about 10:09:10 p.m. to 10:09:56 p.m., WO #2 grabbed the Complainant by the right arm while the SO grabbed his left, and they assisted him to a standing position and walked him to WO #2’s police vehicle. The SO began searching the coat pockets of the jacket the Complainant was wearing and said, “Fuck man, you made me run. Anything I need to know about. Pipe, what is this? No needles? What’s your name again man, I forget.” The SO pulled a plastic bag out of the Complainant’s pocket and told him he was also under arrest for having a controlled substance.

At about 10:11:19 p.m. to 10:11:33 p.m., WO #2 began searching the Complainant’s clothing for signs of the CEW probes. He found one in the pant leg and one in the back of the coat. The Complainant stated, “Something hit my back.” The SO and WO #2 then confirmed no probes went into the Complainant’s skin. WO #2 removed a probe from the back of the Complainant’s coat and the left pant leg.

At about 10:12:01 p.m., the Complainant was placed into the rear passenger side seat of WO #2’s police vehicle. The SO read the Complainant his ‘rights to counsel’.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from PRP between February 11 and 16, 2022:
  • Event Chronology;
  • Notes-WO #1;
  • Notes-WO #2;
  • Notes-the SO;
  • Occurrence Details (x2);
  • Persons Details Report;
  • Communications recordings;
  • PRP Directive - Incident Response;
  • PRP Directive - Criminal Investigations;
  • TPS Occurrence (received from PRP);
  • Use of Force Training – CEW – the SO; and
  • BWC footage.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:
  • Medical Record-Mississauga Hospital; and
  • Security camera video footage from 4011 Brickstone Mews, Mississauga.

Incident Narrative

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may be summarized in short order. They were captured by security cameras and police BWCs.

In the evening of February 10, 2022, the Complainant was operating a stolen Honda vehicle. He had pulled into the underground parking of the building at 4011 Brickstone Mews, Mississauga, followed by a PRP unmarked cruiser. The officer – the SO – was on patrol in the area and had run a check on the vehicle’s licence plate to learn that it had been reported stolen in Toronto.

The Complainant exited his vehicle and started to run at the sight of the officer. He climbed a set of stairs and ran down a hallway to another set of stairs that led down to a fire exit door. The Complainant jumped part way down the staircase and tumbled the rest of the way to the landing before the door, after which he picked himself up and exited onto Burnhamthorpe Road West.

The SO had exited his cruiser in the underground parking and chased after the Complainant on foot. He fired his CEW twice, neither of which deployment was effective in incapacitating the Complainant. On Burnhamthorpe Road West, the officer ran after the Complainant westward on the roadway and eventually caught up with him a short distance from the exit door. The Complainant had suffered an injury in his flight from police, more than likely in his jump and fall down the stairs, and came to rest on the road, unable to continue.

Following his arrest, the Complainant complained of pain in his left foot. He was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left ankle.

Relevant Legislation

Section 25(1), Criminal Code -- Protection of persons acting under authority

25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
(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,
is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

Analysis and Director's Decision

The Complainant suffered a serious injury in and around the time of his arrest by a PRP officer on February 10, 2022. The officer – the SO – was identified as the subject official in the ensuing SIU investigation. 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 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 required or authorized to do by law.

Based on the officer’s checks of the licence plate affixed to the Honda the Complainant was operating, in which he learned that the vehicle had been reported stolen, I am satisfied the SO had lawful grounds to seek the Complainant’s arrest.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, namely, two CEW discharges, was legally justified. Though neither had any effect on the Complainant, as it seems the probes did not make it through his clothing to the skin, the tactic was a reasonable one. The Complainant, aware that he was being followed by an officer, aware also that he was subject to lawful arrest, was bent on escape. In the circumstances, when the Complainant failed to stop at the SO’s direction, even after he was warned of the pending use of the CEW, the officer was within his rights in discharging the weapon. Had it worked as intended, the CEW discharge would have immediately brought the Complainant’s flight to an end without itself directly inflicting any serious injury. It is of some concern that the second of the two deployments appears to have occurred as the Complainant was approaching a set of stairs. Complete neuromuscular incapacitation caused by a CEW in such cases can result in a completely helpless fall resulting in serious injuries. That said, the situation was a highly dynamic one that unfolded very quickly, and I am not satisfied that the risk would have been readily recognizable in the moment.

For the foregoing reasons, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than lawfully in his dealings with the Complainant. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: June 10, 2022

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Special Investigations Unit


  • 1) The times are derived from the weapon’s internal clock, and are not necessarily synchronous with actual time. [Back to text]
  • 2) 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]


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.