SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-TCI-041


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 50-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU

On February 12, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to TPS, on February 12, 2022, at 1:37 a.m., TPS police officers responded to an assault call at a residence in the area of Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue in which two men were reportedly fighting. When police officers arrived, one of the men, the Complainant, had left the area. Police officers later found the Complainant near Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue. He was taken into custody after a foot pursuit and a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) was discharged. The Complainant was taken to North York General Hospital (NYGH) and diagnosed with fractured ribs.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 02/12/2022 at 10:15 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 02/12/2022 at 10:35 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The civilian witness was interviewed on March 3, 2022.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
SO #3 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 Interviewed
WO #4 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #5 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #6 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on February 25, 2022.


The Scene

The interaction between TPS officers and the Complainant commenced on Yonge Street north of Sheppard Avenue West, and ended up on Harlandale Avenue west of Yonge Street after the foot pursuit.

Photographs of the locations were taken by a TPS Scenes of Crime Officer and copies were provided to the SIU.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Data – SO #2

Seq #



Cartridge Info






C1: 25’ Standard

C2: 25’ Standard





C1: Deployed


3 seconds




C1: Deployed

C2: 25’ standard

13 seconds




C1: Deployed

C2: 25’ standard





C2: Deployed

5 seconds





SPPM End of Transmission






C1: Deployed

C2: Deployed

104 seconds

Figure 1 – SO #2’s CEW

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

TPS 911 Call and Radio Communications

On February 12, 2022, at 1:36:56 a.m., the TPS received a 911 call from a citizen stating that someone had run to his door and asked him to call 911. The caller said he was calling from an address [near Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue] in North York and that he had been asked to call 911 as there was an assault happening at a residence next door. The caller stated that the police had been at the same address two or three days ago.

At 1:38:39 a.m., SO #2 and SO #1 were dispatched to attend the residence for an assault. They arrived at the address at 1:44:49 a.m.

At 2:03:05 a.m., SO #1 requested an ambulance for a male who was punched and possibly kicked in the head. SO #1 stated that the incident involved an assault. He requested another police unit attend their location. WO #1 and SO #3 advised that they could attend. SO #1 advised that the fire department was on scene and the suspect in the assault [now known to have been the Complainant] was no longer at the location. He advised that the victim was being taken to NYGH.
At 3:09:42 a.m., SO #2 stated over the radio that he and SO #1 were in a foot pursuit at Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue. He further stated they were at the Pizza Pizza at Yonge and Sheppard.

At 3:11:39 a.m., a police officer broadcast that they had the Complainant in custody. WO #6 advised he was nearby and WO #1 stated that a CEW had been deployed. SO #3 requested that an ambulance attend to remove CEW probes. The dispatcher made a call for an ambulance to attend the location.

At 3:19:24 a.m., WO #2 stated, “Can we get a wagon to our position. Man is still being resistive…we are right at Yonge and Harlandale just north of Sheppard.” WO #6 requested a rush on the wagon as the Complainant was aggressive. WO #2 subsequently called dispatch, cancelled the wagon, and stated that they had the Complainant’s legs restrained and he was handcuffed. SO #2 advised dispatch that the Complainant was being transported via ambulance to NYGH.

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage – SO #2 and SO #1’s Police Cruiser

On February 12, 2022, at 3:14:06 a.m., the police cruiser was parked on the west side of Yonge Street, facing north in the southbound lanes just south of Harlandale Avenue. WO #2 walked from Harlandale Avenue, entered the police cruiser, and drove it onto Harlandale Avenue parking it across the road facing southwest.

SO #1 and SO #2 walked the Complainant to the front passenger side of the police cruiser. SO #2 was on the Complainant’s right side and SO #1 was on his left. He had his hands handcuffed behind his back. The Complainant pulled in a southward direction and SO #1 and SO #2 forced him onto the front hood, passenger side. He fell to the ground and continued pulling away in a southward direction. SO #1 fell to the ground while holding the Complainant on his left side. SO #2 landed on top of the Complainant on his right side. Five other police officers came from the east and began assisting by holding the Complainant on the ground. WO #1 placed leg restraints on the Complainant’s legs while SO #1, WO #2, SO #2 and WO #3 held him down. SO #1, SO #2 and WO #2 brought the Complainant to a standing position and walked him to the passenger side of the police cruiser.

At 3:22:42 a.m., the Complainant was lying in the rear seat on his left side facing the front of the police cruiser talking to himself. The passenger side door was closed. The driver side door was open, and a police officer was standing outside the open door. WO #3 opened the passenger side door and spoke to the Complainant. WO #3 asked the Complainant if he was good, and he replied that he was. WO #3 told him there was an ambulance en route and paramedics would examine him as a CEW had been deployed and as he had injuries to his face. The Complainant thanked WO #3 and apologized for all the trouble he had caused.

At 3:26:27 a.m., WO #3 and another police officer assisted the Complainant to a seated position. He was advised that he was on camera. He was asked by WO #3 if he had any weapons on him and he replied he did not. The Complainant stated he had no idea what was going on. WO #3 again explained to him that he had been “tasered.” WO #3 asked the Complainant if he had ingested any drugs or alcohol, to which the Complainant shook his head and said he had not.
At 3:34:21 a.m., paramedics arrived and began speaking to the Complainant, who remained sitting in the backseat. The paramedics asked him what had happened, and he told them he did not really know. The Complainant told them he had broken ribs on his left side. He indicated he had Crohn’s disease and chronic pain from previous medical conditions. He indicated he had no pain in his legs and was able to walk to the ambulance. WO #3 told him not to repeat what he had done earlier, or he would end up on the ground again. The Complainant exited the police cruiser, making grunting sounds, under his own power, and police officers assisted in walking him to the ambulance.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – SO #2

At 1:51:01 a.m., SO #2 and SO #1 were approached in their police cruiser by a man reporting that he had been violently assaulted by his roommate, the Complainant. The assault included the Complainant armed with a pair of scissors and stomping on the man’s head, and had taken place at a residence they shared at [address provided in the area of Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue].

SO #2, SO #1, SO #3, and WO #1 attended the residence and searched for the Complainant for the purpose of arresting him. The Complainant was not located but a tenant of the upper floor of the residence informed SO #2 of a last known direction of travel for the Complainant.

At 3:09:40 a.m., SO #2 exited the passenger side of the police vehicle and began to run after a man [known to have been the Complainant]. His BWC was active but did not capture audio. The Complainant was carrying a green reusable shopping bag. He stopped running, turned towards SO #2, and then began to run again. SO #2 had a CEW in his right hand. The Complainant turned west through the pathway at 4812 Yonge Street and SO #2 followed at a distance.

The Complainant stopped and turned towards SO #2 with the grocery bag in his right hand. SO #2 stopped approximately four to five metres from the Complainant and brought the CEW up in a firing stance pointed at the Complainant. There was still no audio recording at this time. The Complainant turned away from SO #2 again and started to run west on the pathway at 4812 Yonge Street followed by SO #2.

The Complainant turned north in the alley at the west end on the pathway that ran north-south between Harlandale Avenue and Sheppard Avenue West. SO #2 followed, and his silhouette could be seen on the wall of the adjacent building. His CEW was still raised and pointed towards the Complainant.

At 3:10:06 a.m., the BWC footage began to reveal audio information. A voice could be heard behind SO #2 saying, “Did you hit him with the taser” [believed to have been SO #1]. SO #2 replied, “Nope,” as the Complainant was seen turning east on Harlandale Avenue and running down the centre of the road. SO #2 called out, “[Complainant’s first name], hands up,” as the Complainant stopped running, but continued walking away from SO #2 with his hands at his side.

SO #2 deployed his CEW from a distance of approximately five to six metres and the probes hit the Complainant in the upper back left side and lower back right side (waist area). The Complainant made an audible sound when hit by the probes and his back arched. He then fell on his right side and rolled one complete rotation to his left beside a grey four-door car. The CEW could be heard on the audio.

SO #2 arrived over the Complainant, who was wincing with both his hands clenched in a fist. SO #2 grabbed his right arm with his right hand. The officer ordered him to give up his hands and to let him see his hands. The Complainant was lying on his left side next to a parked car. SO #2 was at his waist and attempting to move the Complainant’s right hand behind his back with both hands, but the Complainant’s arm appeared to be locked in a 90-degree angle as he resisted SO #2’s efforts. SO #2 continued to tell the Complainant to show his hands. SO #1 had now arrived and could be heard yelling, “Get on the fucking ground.” There was no sound of the CEW at this time and it was no longer in SO #2’s right hand.

SO #1 delivered a knee strike with his right knee into the left upper back of the Complainant. SO #1 then forced the Complainant’s upper body to the ground. The Complainant called out, “Help, call the police.” SO #1 made a police radio broadcast, “…[Inaudible]…outside the Pizza Pizza, Yonge and Sheppard.” A TPS dispatcher then requested additional units to attend the Pizza Pizza at Yonge and Sheppard.

The Complainant was still on his left side with his left arm on the ground extended upwards towards his head. SO #1 and SO #2 were attempting to control his right arm. SO #1 said, “Stop fighting, stop resisting,” as he delivered four to five blows to the chest area of the Complainant. SO #2 also stated, “Stop resisting.” Following the blows, the Complainant’s resistance subsided and SO #2 was able to place a handcuff on his right wrist, while SO #1 continued to press down on the Complainant’s shoulders and head.

SO #2 asked the Complainant to put his hands behind his back and he replied, “No, I didn’t do anything.” He then started to pull his right arm under himself and SO #2 grabbed hold of the second cuff and attempted to stop the Complainant from pulling his arm under him. SO #1 delivered the first of six to eight downward strikes with his closed left fist to the upper body/head are of the Complainant. SO #2 again commanded the Complainant to give up his other hand. SO #1 could be heard saying, “Give me your other fucking hand,” as he used his right hand to punch, with a closed fist, the Complainant.

At 3:11:35 a.m., SO #3 arrived near the head of the Complainant, and WO #1 near the feet. An unidentified police officer [through process of elimination believed to have been SO #3] delivered two kicks with the toe of his right boot to the upper left shoulder/side of the Complainant as the police officers continued to command the Complainant to show them his hands. The Complainant called for help.

SO #2 began to gain control of the Complainant’s right arm as SO #1 assisted in rolling him to the right, exposing his left arm. The Complainant then attempted to pull his right arm free again without success saying, “Alright, alright.” His left arm was secured in the handcuffs and his arms were handcuffed behind his back.

The Complainant was brought to his feet. A CEW could be seen on the ground at his feet. He was taken to the front driver’s side of a grey TPS SUV police cruiser (WO #1 and SO #3).
SO #2 picked up the CEW from the ground after WO #1 asked to whom it belonged. He started to wind the monofilament wire around the device when WO #1 directed him to put it back on the ground where it had been. WO #1 returned the CEW to the ground next to a grey vehicle. SO #1 could be heard and seen saying, “He (the Complainant) has to be searched for any more weapons.” A CEW probe could be seen hanging from the waistband of the Complainant’s coat.

The Complainant was walked from the side of SO #3’s police cruiser east on Harlandale Avenue towards a second grey TPS Ford Explorer police cruiser operated by SO #1 and SO #2. SO #1 was on his left side and SO #2 on the right. As they neared the front of the police cruiser, the Complainant attempted to break free moving to his right. He was then pushed up against the passenger side front corner of the police cruiser. The police officers then attempted to take the Complainant to the ground, and he moved right, started to climb a snowbank and was brought to the ground face down on the snowbank. SO #1 could be heard saying, “Where are you going, what are you doing, the fight’s done.”

Leg restraints were applied to the Complainant’s ankles before he was lifted onto his feet and taken to the passenger side rear door of SO #1 and SO #2’s police cruiser. He was placed in the police cruiser and lay across the backseat. The doors were left open, and he was monitored by SO #2 until the arrival of an ambulance that had been called due to wounds to the Complainant’s face.

SO #1 and SO #2 were speaking, and SO #2 stated that the Complainant needed to be located and arrested to prevent him from going back to the residence of the assault victim [name provided] and assaulting him or someone else again. WO #3, on the passenger side of the vehicle, asked the Complainant if he wanted to sit up and he replied that he did. As he was brought to an upright position, the Complainant grimaced in pain and said, “My ribs are broken.”

At 3:54:14 a.m., SO #1 and SO #2 were travelling in the ambulance with the Complainant to the hospital. SO #2 informed him that he was under arrest and read him his ‘Charter’ rights and a police caution.

BWC Footage – SO #1

From 3:13:32 a.m. to 3:26:13 a.m., SO #1 could be seen directing the Complainant, whose hands were handcuffed behind his back, towards the front driver’s side fender of a grey Ford Explorer police cruiser. SO #1 was on the right side of the Complainant. SO #2 conducted a search of the Complainant’s person and asked if he had any knives or needles or anything sharp that could harm him.

SO #1 was noticeably out of breath as he requested that an ambulance respond as the Complainant was in custody and a CEW had been deployed. He picked up a CEW that was lying on the roadway beside a grey four door vehicle. There were probe wires extending from the CEW towards the Complainant. The CEW was given to SO #2, who returned it to his holster. SO #1 explained that he left his police vehicle behind as he ran after SO #2 who was in foot pursuit of the Complainant. Other police officers [known to be WO #2, WO #3, SO #3 and WO #1] were now present.

SO #1 explained that the Complainant had been arrested for the assault at [address provided]. The Complainant could be seen to be bleeding from a wound near his left eye and temple. A CEW wire was hanging from the rear waist band area of the Complainant’s coat. The Complainant appeared calm and was not making any complaints of pain or injury.

At 3:17:27 a.m., SO #1, on the left side, and SO #2, the right side, escorted the Complainant east on Harlandale Avenue towards another grey Ford Explorer police cruiser. After having walked to the other police cruiser on his own power, the Complainant suddenly attempted to pull away from the police officers and a struggle ensued. SO #1 asked the Complainant, “What are you doing,” as he was pushed into the side of the police vehicle. The struggle continued and SO #1 told the Complainant to get on the ground. The Complainant could be seen to be face down on a snowbank with SO #2 on his right side asking him, “What are you doing, you are already handcuffed.” SO #1 could be seen and heard to be slipping on ice and falling to the ground to the left of the Complainant.

The Complainant’s legs were bound with leg restraints. SO #1 complained that he injured his back. The Complainant was rolled into a seated position before being assisted to his feet. He was then carried to the passenger rear door of SO #1 and SO #2’s waiting police vehicle by WO #2 and SO #1. At the police vehicle, the Complainant was assisted into the rear seat laying on his side.

BWC Footage – SO #3

At 3:12:31 a.m., SO #1 and SO #2 pushed the Complainant up against the front driver’s side hood of a marked SUV police cruiser. WO #1 stood close by. The left side of the Complainant’s face was bloodied; he was handcuffed with his hands behind his back. SO #1 and SO #2 struggled to gain control of the Complainant. The Complainant turned his head towards the police officers. WO #1 and SO #3 stepped in to assist.

At 3:12:58 a.m., the audio activated on SO #3’s BWC. One of the police officers was out of breath as he spoke. A single CEW probe and wire were observed above the Complainant’s handcuffed hands, attached to the waistband of his jacket. A police officer requested emergency medical services to the scene to remove the CEW probes. The Complainant yelled. Police officers began to search him, and a police officer warned to watch for needles. WO #3 and WO #2 were observed in the background. SO #1 requested that a police officer retrieve his police vehicle from Yonge Street, and WO #2 volunteered.

The Complainant stated, “Get the fuck out of here.” A police officer replied, “[Complainant’s first name], we are the police.” The Complainant was told to face over the hood of the police cruiser and told to relax. The police officers continued to search the Complainant. A police officer talked to him to calm him down. The Complainant denied having knives and needles on him when questioned. A police officer placed a mask on the Complainant’s face and the search was completed.

The Complainant was calm as he remained bent forward over the driver’s side hood of the police cruiser. SO #1 explained that the Complainant had just beaten up his roommate, so they were looking for him. The police officers had discussions about prior calls with the Complainant, which included one from earlier that day of harassment. The Complainant made no complaints of injury.

At 3:17:27 a.m., the Complainant was escorted by SO #1, on his left, and SO #2, on his right, from the driver’s side of the SUV police cruiser on Harlandale Avenue towards Yonge Street. The Complainant walked along with no issue. Yelling was heard in the distance as SO #3’s attention turned down Harlandale Avenue. There was a commotion involving SO #1, SO #2 and the Complainant. The Complainant was positioned ahead of SO #1 and SO #2. SO #1 was down on both knees along with the Complainant. The Complainant got to his feet and continued forward towards the snowbank on the edge of the roadway as he attempted to pull away from SO #1 and SO #2. A police officer ran to assist and blocked the camera view. SO #1 slipped on the ice falling to the ground on his left side. A police officer stated, “What are you doing, what are you doing?” SO #1 stood up, slipped, and fell a second time to the ground on the left side of the Complainant.

SO #2 remained on the Complainant’s right side and yelled at the Complainant, “Chill the fuck out.” Several police officers stood by to assist. Leg restraints were applied to the Complainant, and he was instructed to calm down as he had almost injured SO #1 and SO #2.

The Complainant was assisted up and escorted to the rear passenger seat of the police cruiser by SO #1 and SO #2 and a third police officer. The Complainant was placed in the recovery position.

BWC Footage – WO #1

At 3:11:17 a.m., WO #1 was a passenger in a TPS police cruiser. The police cruiser turned north onto Yonge Street from Sheppard Avenue and then west onto Harlandale Avenue, stopping just west of the intersection. WO #1 exited the police cruiser and ran around the front of it towards the south.

SO #1 and SO #2 were on the ground holding the Complainant down. SO #3 was standing over top. Police officers yelled, “Give us your hands.” WO #1 ran to the lower part of the Complainant and took hold of his legs. A police officer was heard to say, “Cuff him. Cuff him. I am trying to get his other hand.” The Complainant was lying on his left side on the asphalt facing a parked silver vehicle. His right hand had one handcuff on it. SO #2 was holding the Complainant’s right arm while SO #1 pushed down on his right shoulder.

At 3:11:54 a.m., the Complainant was grunting while a police officer stated, “Give me your other hand. Put your fucking hands behind your back. Put your hands behind your back.” WO #1 remained at the Complainant’s feet while SO #2 was at his mid-section, SO #3 was near his upper body, and SO #1 was above his head. The Complainant was brought to a standing position. SO #2 was holding his right arm while SO #3 held his left arm. His hands were handcuffed behind his back. WO #1 stated over the radio, “We have one in custody. Taser deployed. Units slow down.” SO #1 grabbed the Complainant by the right arm and pushed him against the front driver’s side of WO #1 and SO #3’s police cruiser.

SO #2 removed a wire from his CEW. WO #1 stated, “Leave it there. Leave it there.” SO #2 placed his CEW and the wire on the ground beside a parked civilian vehicle. SO #1 and SO #3 continued holding the Complainant against the front of the police vehicle in a standing position. The Complainant yelled, “Help. Help.” WO #1 stated, “[name of the Complainant]. The guy from [address associated to the assault call]. He assaulted his roommate. So, the victim, he went to NYGH. Hey buddy watch for needles eh. Does he have a probe?”

SO #2 and SO #3 held the Complainant against the police vehicle while SO #1 completed a pat down search. WO #1 stated, “Don’t pull it, we will get paramedics to pull it.” He then called his dispatch over the radio and requested that paramedics attend to remove the CEW probe.

WO #1 walked towards WO #6 who had just arrived. WO #1 stated, “So this is the [address provided]. So, the guy that was assaulted, he was stomped in the face.” WO #1 then saw somebody in the driver seat of the silver vehicle. WO #6 pointed to SO #2’s CEW on the ground and stated, “Whose taser is that?” WO #1 told the civilian driving the silver vehicle to stay in the car and not to leave. [2] He then walked with WO #6 in an eastward direction towards Yonge Street. WO #1 began explaining to WO #6 what had transpired. He muted his BWC while speaking to WO #6.

At 3:16:54 a.m., WO #1 unmuted his BWC and walked back towards the area in which the Complainant was being held up against the police vehicle. He told SO #3 that they were going to leave and attend the hospital. He then told SO #1 that an ambulance was on their way and not to pull the probe. SO #1 was standing on the left side of the Complainant holding him against the front of the police cruiser. WO #1 told him that he needed his police cruiser so he could drive to the hospital. SO #1 stated, “OK, let’s walk him over to another police cruiser.” SO #1 and SO #2 began walking the Complainant in an eastward direction towards Yonge Street.

WO #3, WO #2, SO #3 and WO #1 along with WO #6 were standing in a group next to the initial police cruiser (WO #1 and SO #3). A grunt sound was heard, and the five police officers started walking eastward towards Yonge Street. A second grunt was heard, and SO #2 and SO #1 fell to the ground in front of their police cruiser, parked closer to Yonge Street. SO #2 was laying on top of the Complainant who was face down in a snowbank. A police officer yelled, “What are you doing? What are you doing? You are in cuffs. Chill the fuck out.” WO #6 called for ankle restraints. WO #1 pulled leg restraints out of SO #2’s duty belt while SO #2 leaned over the Complainant holding him onto the snowbank.

SO #1 and SO #3 also assisted in holding the Complainant on the ground. WO #1 placed leg restraints on the Complainant with the assistance of other officers. The Complainant was laying on his left side on the road with the upper half of his body on the snowbank and his head facing towards the east. WO #3 stood over top the Complainant holding him on the ground, and talked to him. He asked the Complainant to calm down and explained that the police were trying to get him assistance.

WO #3, SO #1 and SO #2 brought the Complainant to an upright standing position and assisted him into the rear of the police cruiser. WO #1 walked back to his police cruiser.

BWC Footage – WO #2

The footage from WO #2’s BWC commenced after the Complainant attempted to get away from SO #2 and SO #1 as he was being escorted handcuffed to a police cruiser. The footage was consistent with the footage viewed from the BWCs of SO #2, SO #1 and WO #1 but from slightly different angles.

BWC Footage – WO #3

The footage from WO #3’s BWC commenced after the Complainant attempted to get away from SO #2 and SO #1 as he was being escorted handcuffed to a police cruiser. The footage was consistent with the footage viewed from the BWCs of SO #2 and SO #1, WO #1 and WO #2 but from slightly different angles.

BWC Footage – WO #6

At 3:12:54 a.m., WO #6 arrived on Harlandale Avenue and stopped facing west behind a marked TPS grey Ford Explorer [known to been operated by SO #3 and WO #1] with its emergency lights activated. As he arrived, there was a radio transmission requesting that an ambulance be sent for the removal of CEW.

The remaining footage from WO #6’s BWC was consistent with the footage viewed from the BWCs of SO #2, SO #1 and WO #1 but from slightly different angles.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials from the TPS between February 13, 2022, and April 1, 2022:
  • General Occurrence Report;
  • Event Details Report;
  • Communications recordings;
  • Procedure – Arrest;
  • Procedure – Use of Force;
  • Procedure – Body Worn Camera;
  • Injury Report – Arrest;
  • Injury Report – CEW;
  • Notes-WO #3;
  • Notes-WO #2;
  • Notes-WO #6;
  • Notes-WO #5;
  • Notes-WO #1;
  • Notes-WO #4;
  • BWC footage-SO #2;
  • BWC footage-SO #1
  • BWC footage -SO #3;
  • BWC footage-WO #1;
  • BWC footage-WO #3;
  • BWC footage-WO #2;
  • BWC footage-WO #6;
  • ICCS footage - SO #3 and WO #1’s police cruiser;
  • ICCS footage – SO #1 and SO #2’s police cruiser;
  • Scene photographs; and
  • Video footage from the Rio Can REIT Centre on Yonge Street. [3]

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:
  • Medical records from NYGH; and
  • Medical records from St. Michael’s Hospital.

Incident Narrative

The following scenario emerges from the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the Complainant and a number of officers present at the time of his arrest. The material events in question were also largely captured by police BWCs. As was their legal right, none of the subject officials chose to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of their notes.

In the early morning of February 12, 2022, the Complainant was in the area of Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue West when he was confronted by police officers. He immediately ran north on the west side of Yonge Street with the officers in foot pursuit. Past the McDonald’s on the northwest corner of the intersection, the Complainant turned to run west along a pathway until its end, at which point he headed north along another pathway towards Harlandale Avenue. Once on Harlandale Avenue, the Complainant travelled east a short distance before he was struck in the back by the probes of a CEW that had been fired by one of the officers.

The officers in pursuit were SO #1 and SO #2. Earlier that morning, they had responded to the scene of an assault at a residence in the area of Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue. A resident of the home had reported being assaulted by the Complainant, who had left the premise before the officers’ arrival. While on patrol in the area, the officers had observed the Complainant in the area of Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue West. They parked their cruiser, disembarked, and began to chase after the Complainant.

SO #2 was the lead officer in pursuit. As the officer chased the Complainant northward on the pathway towards Harlandale Avenue, he fired his CEW. The discharge had no effect on the Complainant, who continued his flight onto Harlandale Avenue. Once on Harlandale Avenue running east, SO #2 fired his CEW again. This time, the discharge appeared to temporarily immobilize the Complainant before he fell to the ground by the driver’s side of a vehicle parked curbside on the south side of Harlandale Avenue.

SO #2 and SO #1 quickly reached the Complainant on the ground and engaged in a protracted struggle with him to secure his arms. They were soon joined by WO #1 and SO #3, the latter physically intervening to assist SO #1 and SO #2 with the Complainant. SO #1 delivered two knee strikes to the Complainant’s torso and multiple punches to his torso and head. The Complainant was also struck by two kicks to the back, likely, but not definitively, by SO #3. Following the last of these strikes, the Complainant’s arms were handcuffed behind his back by the officers.

The Complainant was assisted to his feet and escorted by the officers to the driver’s side hood of WO #1 and SO #3’s cruiser where he was searched.

A further struggle ensued moments later as SO #2 and SO #1 were walking the Complainant east along Harlandale Avenue towards the front of their cruiser, which had been driven to the scene by WO #2. The Complainant yanked his body to the right, or southward, attempting to free himself from the officers’ hold. SO #2 and SO #1 decided to take the Complainant to the ground. In the process, it appears the officers lost their balance on the slippery road and tumbled with the Complainant onto a snowbank. Leg restraints were affixed on the Complainant, who was again lifted to his feet, escorted to SO #2 and SO #1’s cruiser, and placed in the rear.

The Complainant was transported to hospital in ambulance from the scene. He was ultimately diagnosed with left and right-sided rib fractures.

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 was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on February 12, 2022. Three of the officers – SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3 – were identified as the subject officials 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 subject officials committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s arrest and 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.
I am satisfied that the Complainant was subject to arrest. The officers, having investigated the assault call and spoken with the alleged victim, had reason to believe that he had just perpetrated a violent assault with the use of a weapon – a pair of scissors.

I am further satisfied that the nature and extent of the force used by the officers in aid of the Complainant’s arrest was legally justified. When the Complainant ran from the officers on Yonge Street and then ultimately onto Harlandale Avenue, it was clear that he was intent on evading apprehension. The use of the CEW by SO #2 appears to have a reasonable tactic if the officers were going to catch the Complainant without inflicting serious injury. Once on the ground, there is no doubt that the strikes delivered by SO #1 amounted to significant force. That said, he and SO #2 were up against an individual strenuously resisting arrest whom the officers had cause to fear could be armed with a weapon. It was imperative in the circumstances that the Complainant be subdued as quickly as possible. In this context, I am unable to reasonably conclude that SO #1 used excessive force. Indeed, it was only after the final blow had been struck that the Complainant uttered words to the effect of, “Alright, alright,” indicating he was prepared to surrender at that time. The same may essentially be said of the kicks that SO #3 seemingly delivered as the struggle on the ground was unfolding. Lastly, the grounding that occurred as SO #1 and SO #2 were escorting the Complainant to their cruiser was made reasonably necessary by the Complainant’s continued resistance. Though handcuffed, he had attempted to pull free from the officers, and then continued to struggle against their efforts to bring him within their control. A takedown in such circumstances made sense in order to quell the Complainant’s fight and place him in a position where the officers could better manage his combativeness.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s serious injuries were incurred in the physical altercation that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe they are attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of SO #1, SO #2 and/or SO #3. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case, and the file is closed.

Date: June 10, 2022

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
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) Investigators reached out to this man, but he declined to provide an interview. [Back to text]
  • 3) This footage was reviewed and was found to be of no evidentiary value. [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.