Director's Report Details

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

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

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: 

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

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

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

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injury a 31-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.

Notification of the SIU

On March 9, 2022, at 4:30 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to PRP, at 9:44 a.m., March 9, 2022, PRP officers attempted to arrest the Complainant for several robberies. PRP tactical police officers attempted to box-in the Complainant while he was driving a stolen vehicle, but he was able to escape and fled on foot. A foot chase ensued, and a conducted energy weapon (CEW) was discharged. The Complainant was taken to the ground in the area of 243 Queen Street East, Brampton. He complained of a sore ankle and was taken to the Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH). At 3:25 p.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured right ankle.

The Scene

On March 9, 2022, a SIU forensic investigator attended the area of the arrest of the Complainant on Queen Street East, Brampton. There were two scenes: 243 Queen Street East and 245 Queen Street East. Both scenes were secured. A vehicle, reportedly used by the Complainant, was at the 243 Queen Street East location. The scene was located on the east side of the building, which was Toronto Car Sales. The vehicle was secured with police tape and identified as a Hyundai Tucson. The rear passenger side window was smashed. The location and the Tucson were photographed.

The second scene was on the sidewalk at 245 Queen Street East, which was a retail plaza. A Ford SUV PRP vehicle was contained in the scene. The vehicle, through investigation, was found not to be involved in the incident.

A third scene, where the Complainant was reportedly knocked down, was identified at the west side of 245 Queen Street East, but it was not held.

Both scenes were searched for any CEW components, blood spatter or other evidence, with negative results.




Figure 1 - Parking lot area in front of 245 Queen Street East

Physical Evidence

On March 10, 2022, a SIU forensic investigator attended the PRP Tactical Unit. In the garage was a black Ford SUV tactical vehicle. The vehicle had no damage. This vehicle had reportedly boxed-in the Hyundai. The tactical vehicle was photographed.

The SIU forensic investigator then attended the armament cleaning room where PRP turned over CEW 1, which was a Taser X2, issued to WO #2. Also turned over was CEW 2, which was a Taser X2, issued to WO #1.
CEW 1 was photographed. It contained two cartridges. Both cartridges appeared intact. The data downloaded from the weapons indicated that cartridge 1 of CEW 1 was triggered on March 9, 2022, at 9:43:54 a.m., for an associated discharge of four seconds. There was no trigger activity associated with CEW 2.




Figure 2 – WO #2’s CEW

The SIU forensic investigator also examined and photographed the unmarked PRP vehicle driven by the SO. The vehicle had no damage.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

Video Footage - Toronto Car Sales, 243 Queen Street East, Brampton

The front of the building was located on the south side of Queen Street East, facing north.

At 9:56 a.m., the camera captured a black Tucson SUV enter the lot and stop facing the bottom of the L of the L-shaped building.

At 10:01 a.m., a large black SUV [now known to be a police vehicle driven by WO #4] entered the lot off Queen Street and bumped into the rear of the Tucson to pin the Tucson against the building. This police vehicle was followed onto the lot by another unmarked black vehicle. A police officer [now known to be WO #1] exited the passenger side of WO #4’s vehicle, took cover behind the door, and appeared to call out commands in the direction of the Tucson. As WO #1 approached the Tucson, the Complainant exited the driver’s door of the Tucson. He ran in an easterly direction across the driveway to the driveway of 245 Queen Street East. WO #1 carried a C8 rifle and ran to the rear of WO #1’s vehicle and then eastbound across the driveways in pursuit of the Complainant.
When the Complainant reached the second driveway, he started to run northward towards Queen Street. At the same time, an unmarked police vehicle [now known to be driven by the SO] followed and turned slightly into the Complainant. The Complainant was struck by the left front quarter-panel of the SO’s vehicle by the wheel well. The SO’s vehicle bumped the right side of the Complainant, who continued to run but lost his balance. The Complainant fell to the ground but got back up and ran several more strides eastbound on the south sidewalk of Queen Street East, where he fell again.

At 10:01 a.m., the Complainant was engaged by three officers. Owing to the distance and the number of bodies involved, the details of the engagement on the ground could not be discerned.

Video Footage - 247 Queen Street East, Brampton

The front of the building was an apartment complex with multiple business premises on the ground floor. The building was located on the south side of Queen Street East and faced north. There was one camera that afforded a view of 245 Queen Street East. There was no date or time stamp on the recording.

At 4:17 minutes into the video, the Complainant was seen to run into the screen from the left side, eastbound, on the south sidewalk of Queen Street East. The Complainant fell to the ground and was quickly engaged by three officers. Because of the distance the camera was from the scene, and the number of police bodies over the top of the Complainant, the details of the arrest could not be made out.

PRP Booking Video

The Complainant was brought into the booking area at 4:20 p.m., on March 9, 2022. He had his right leg in a cast and supported himself with crutches. The footage was unremarkable and ended at 4:41 p.m.

PRP Communications Recordings

The dispatch recording was one minute and 14 seconds in duration.

At 9:44 a.m., a detective asked dispatch to show himself, other RU (Robbery Unit) police officers and the Tactical Rescue Unit (TRU) on scene at 243 Queen Street East. They had the Complainant in custody for robbery and required one or two uniform police officers to attend. The officer advised all was in order.

At 9:45 a.m., two officers were dispatched.

At 9:46 a.m., the detective advised dispatch that an ambulance was required for CEW probe removal. He also requested a tow truck for a stolen motor vehicle tow.

At 10:00 a.m., an officer advised dispatch that the Complainant was to be transported to BCH and he required another unit to attend to either follow the ambulance or remain with the stolen vehicle.

At 10:08 a.m., the officer advised dispatch he was in the ambulance and was en route to the BCH.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from PRP between March 10 and 28, 2022:

• Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
• Booking video;
• Incident History;
• Video Footage (243 Queen Street East);
• Video Footage (247 Queen Street East);
• Notes-WO #4;
• Notes-WO #3;
• Notes-WO #2;
• Notes-WO #1;
• Occurrence Reports;
• Communications recordings;
• Cell video;
• PRP Directive - Incident Response;
• PRP Emails-Vehicle Maintenance; and
• Police Vehicle Operations Training – the SO.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:

• Peel EMS - Ambulance Call Report.

The material events in question are clear on the evidence gathered by the SIU, including video footage that largely captured the incident, and may briefly be summarized. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the morning of March 9, 2022, the Complainant, while operating a stolen Hyundai Tucson, brought his vehicle to a stop in front of a north facing wall of the business at 243 Queen Street East, Brampton. As he sat in the driver’s seat of the vehicle, a black SUV approached and struck the Hyundai’s rear end, pinning it against the wall. A police officer emerged from the passenger aside of the SUV holding a rifle and directing the Complainant to exit with his hands up. The Complainant opened the driver’s door and ran eastward across the parking lot onto the driveway of an adjacent business at 245 Queen Street East.

The officer who had emerged from the SUV – WO #1 – was the leader of a TRU team that had been deployed that morning to effect the Complainant’s arrest. He and his team had received information from the PRP Robbery Unit that the Complainant was wanted for robbery offences, armed with a crowbar, and driving a stolen vehicle. Having tracked the Complainant to the address at 243 Queen Street East, the plan was for WO #1’s SUV, driven by WO #4, to immobilize the Hyundai against the wall and thereafter to effect a gunpoint arrest. Another pair of TRU officers – WO #3 and WO #2 – would follow in their SUV.

Once onto the driveway of the business at 245 Queen Street East, the Complainant turned left and ran northward as WO #3 and WO #1 pursued him on foot. Before he could reach the road, an unmarked police vehicle drove up along his right side and nudged him off stride. Seeing the Complainant take flight, the SO, among the Robbery Unit investigators who had discretely staged in the area, drove towards the Complainant to assist in the apprehension. The contact sent the Complainant tumbling to the ground. He quickly picked himself up, took several additional strides and again fell to the ground on the south sidewalk of Queen Street East.

WO #3 and WO #1 were quickly on the Complainant - the former using his body weight to maintain the Complainant pinned to the ground; the latter delivering a short kick and punch to the upper body of the Complainant. The officers were soon joined by other officers, including WO #2. The Complainant struggled against the officers’ efforts to control his arms. He was eventually handcuffed after WO #2 deployed her CEW against the back of his legs.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured right ankle.

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,

The Complainant suffered a serious injury in the course of his arrest by PRP officers on March 9, 2022. One of the officers – the SO – was identified as a subject official for purposes of 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.
I am satisfied that the Complainant was subject to lawful arrest. The TRU officers had reason to believe that the Complainant had participated in several robbery offences and had confirmed the fact that the vehicle he was operating had been stolen prior to their engagement.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO was legally justified. While the use of a motor vehicle as an interdiction mechanism is inherently dangerous, I am unable to conclude it was an unreasonable maneuver in the circumstances. The Complainant was in full flight at the time seeking to avoid arrest - it was apparent that he had no intention of stopping and there was a real risk that he would make good his escape had not the SO intervened as he did. The balance of competing interests was also not such as to make the tactic prohibitive. The Complainant was being pursued for serious crimes of violence and the officers were entitled to adopt a more aggressive posture to ensure his capture in the interests of public safety. Finally, it is evident on the video footage that the SO approached the Complainant at moderate speeds and made only so much contact with him as was necessary to cause him to lose his balance.

Additional force was applied to the Complainant after he fell for a second time, including a kick by WO #1 and a CEW discharge by WO #2, but here too the evidence fails to reasonably make out a case for excessive force. The officers who dealt with the Complainant at this time described him as struggling, refusing to release his arms and attempting to stand up. The Complainant did not provide any countervailing evidence and the video footage, taken at a distance, was unhelpful with respect to the details of what was transpiring on the ground. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the force used by the officers was disproportionate to the nature and extent of the Complainant’s reported resistance.

In the final analysis, though it remains unclear precisely when the Complainant’s ankle was broken during his interaction with the police, I am satisfied on reasonable grounds that his injury is not attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the involved officers. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: July 7, 2022
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit