SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OCI-077


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 injury a 26-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU

On March 12, 2022, at 1:43 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant. PRP advised that, at 3:10 a.m., the Complainant was arrested for domestic assault on Williams Parkway at Dixie Road, Brampton. The Complainant had stopped on the roadway and assaulted the Civilian Witness (CW). After being placed in cells, the Complainant complained that he had been sucker punched by a police officer causing several injuries. He was taken to Brampton Civic Hospital. At 1:20 p.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured jaw and right hand.

The scene was held, and the involved police vehicle was at PRP 21 Division. The CW had been interviewed before the Complainant’s injury was confirmed. She alleged that the Complainant had beat her up at a party. As a result, the Complainant was beaten by three men, which caused his injuries.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 03/12/2022 at 3:05 p.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 03/12/2022 at 4:20 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”): 26-year-old male; interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on March 15, 2022.

Civilian Witness 

CW  Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on March 15, 2022.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right.

The subject official was interviewed on April 13, 2022.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #6 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between March 16 and 17, 2022.


The Scene

The scene was on the north side of Williams Parkway, east of Dixie Road, Brampton.

A SIU forensic investigator arrived at the scene at 4:20 p.m. on March 12, 2022. The scene was photographed and released to the PRP.

The SIU forensic investigator attended PRP 21 Division and examined WO #1’s PRP vehicle, which was a white Dodge Charger. The vehicle was photographed. In the rear passenger seat area, there were stains that appeared to be drops of blood. A swab was taken of the blood, and the vehicle was released to the PRP.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

The SO
The SO’s BWC was activated inside a building [now known to be the booking area of the PRP 22 Division] at 4:31 a.m., on March 12, 2022. This was during the booking process of the Complainant. The Complainant sat on a bench and faced the booking counter; he was handcuffed with his hands behind his back. The Officer in Charge, WO #4, entered behind the booking counter and told the Complainant he was going to ask him questions. The Complainant replied, “Fucking constables.” The Complainant made a motion to a police officer behind the counter and said, “This guy is nice.” He then pointed in the direction of the camera and the SO, and said, “He is a goof.” The Complainant asked to be taken to the hospital. The Complainant repeated several times that the police “messed” him up. He indicated he had a broken hand and jaw. The Complainant claimed that he was sucker punched, handcuffed, and thrown on the ground. At 4:35 a.m., the SO stated that he had spoken to the Complainant’s girlfriend, the CW. The CW told the SO that the Complainant had been in a fight with three of his friends.

At 4:35 a.m., a police officer, WO #1, was seen to stand to the side.

At 4:36 a.m., the Complainant asked to call his lawyer and repeated that he had a broken hand and jaw. The Complainant shouted over the top of WO #4 as WO #4 asked questions. The Complainant repeatedly shouted insults in the direction of the SO’s camera. The Complainant asked to be sent to the hospital. WO #4 made a telephone call and, at 4:50 a.m., the Complainant was lodged in a cell.

WO #1
WO #1’s camera was activated as she sat in the front seat of her police vehicle. The entire video depicted the steering wheel, dashboard and out the windshield of the police vehicle. The audio started 30 seconds after the video. A man’s voice [now known to be the Complainant] could be heard in the rear seat. The video was recorded after the Complainant’s arrest.

WO #1 read the charge of ‘assault’. She cautioned the Complainant and read him his ‘rights to counsel’. The Complainant shouted over WO #1. The Complainant said, “Did you talk to her?” The Complainant then said, “You witnessed two police officers beat me up.” WO #1 replied, “Nobody beat you up.” At 5:33 minutes, WO #1 turned the sound off for what appeared to be a telephone call and the sound stayed off for the duration of the footage.

At 4:13 a.m., WO #1 drove into a building [now known to be PRP 22 Division] and the video ended.

WO #5
WO #5’s camera was activated at 3:16 a.m. The video depicted a young woman, the CW, standing on a snow-covered area. The CW appeared to be upset. She spoke with WO #5.

An ambulance arrived on scene and, at 3:18 a.m., the CW entered the ambulance followed by WO #5. WO #5 described the circumstances to a paramedic. She then obtained the CW’s wallet with her permission and exited the ambulance to do a name check. The CW asked where the Complainant was, and told WO #5 that he was her boyfriend. The paramedic was told that there had been multiple calls, and multiple police vehicles could be seen.

At 3:29 a.m., another police officer showed up outside the ambulance. The police officer pointed to WO #5’s camera. WO #5 said, “Oh yeah,” and the sound to her camera was turned off. Another officer, who wore ‘acting sergeant’ insignias on top of his shoulder [now known to be WO #2], stood in front of WO #5 as she spoke. The video ended at 3:40 a.m. after WO #5 entered the driver’s seat of a police vehicle.

WO #6
WO #6’s camera started to record at 3:13 a.m. and recorded for 7:29 minutes. At 3:14 a.m., a police vehicle stopped, and WO #6 exited the vehicle and approached a parked, fully marked police vehicle. A voice inside the police vehicle was heard to say, “Over there.”

WO #6 turned around and continued to walk [now known to be eastbound on Williams Parkway] on the sidewalk area. A woman’s voice [now known to be WO #5] was heard to say, “You okay, you’re not in trouble.” A police officer [now known to be WO #3] stood beside WO #5, and WO #3 left and started to walk back in the direction of emergency lights from police vehicles.

A woman stood on the snow and appeared to be in distress.

At 3:14 a.m., an ambulance arrived and the woman, the CW, and WO #5 entered the ambulance.

WO #6 walked back to the area where the original police vehicles were located, and he walked around. At 3:21 a.m., he entered a PRP SUV.

PRP Booking Video
The Complainant was brought into the booking room at 4:26 a.m. on March 12, 2022. The video went until 4:51 a.m.

Due to the view being obstructed, it was not possible to see if the Complainant had any apparent injuries. Eventually, the Complainant was stood up, the handcuffs were removed, and a pat-down search was performed on him. The Complainant took off his jacket; he was wearing a T-shirt.

PRP Communications Recordings
On March 12, 2022, two telephone calls were received by the PRP. Both callers reported that there was a domestic dispute on Williams Parkway east of Dixie Road. A man [now known to be the Complainant] had smashed a woman’s [now known to be the CW] head into the sidewalk. The CW screamed and cried for help.

Further information indicated that the Complainant and the CW had screamed at each other for approximately 20 minutes, and passing cars were honking their horns. The Complainant kept drop-kicking the CW to the ground and then yelled, “Get up, I’ll break you, get up, I’ll kick you, are you done.” The Complainant dragged the CW eastbound on Williams Parkway towards MacKay Street.

The Complainant eventually walked away from the CW towards MacKay Street when the PRP arrived.

At approximately 3:10 a.m., PRP dispatched WO #2, WO #5, WO #1, WO #3 and the SO. Dispatch advised that the involved parties had walked eastbound on Williams Parkway towards MacKay Street. Dispatch provided a brief description of the man and the woman.

WO #2 advised dispatch that he was on scene at Williams Parkway and Dixie Road.

At 3:13 a.m., an ambulance was dispatched to the scene.

Dispatch was advised that the CW was in the ambulance.

WO #1 advised dispatch that the Complainant was in custody and he was being transported to PRP 22 Division. WO #1 broadcast that the Complainant was banging his head off the cruiser glass.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from PRP between March 14 and 21, 2022:
  • Activity Log;
  • Event Chronologies (x2);
  • Notes-WO #4;
  • Notes-WO #3;
  • Notes-WO #2;
  • Notes-WO #1;
  • Notes-WO #6;
  • Notes-WO #5;
  • Person Details Report;
  • Communications recordings;
  • Prisoner Details Report;
  • Directive - Incident Response;
  • Directive - BWC;
  • Custody video;
  • Occurrence Report;
  • WC footage;
  • Use of Force Training – the SO;
  • Statement Synopsis – the CW; and
  • Witness List.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:
  • Peel Regional Paramedic Services – Ambulance Call Report.

Incident Narrative

The following scenario emerges from the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the Complainant, a civilian eyewitness, and a number of police officers present at the time of the incident in question. Regrettably, the SIU did not have benefit of video footage in respect of the events in question as the body-worn cameras of the SO and other officers on scene had not been activated.

In the early morning hours of March 12, 2022, PRP officers were dispatched to Williams Parkway east of Dixie Road, Brampton. Residents in the area had called police to report an assault in progress involving a male and female. The male had been seen striking the female’s head into the sidewalk, “drop-kicking” her, and dragging her by the hair.

The male and female were the Complainant and his girlfriend, the CW. They had left a party at which the Complainant had fought with other males. One of the other males had also assaulted the Complainant roadside shortly after their departure by breaking a bottle of liquor over his head. The CW had managed to extricate herself from the Complainant and was a distance east of him on the north side of Williams Parkway by the time of the officers’ arrival.

The SO was among the officers to arrive at the scene. He confronted the Complainant and ordered him to the ground. The Complainant complied and lowered himself onto his knees. At the SO’s further direction, the Complainant was helped by the officer into a prone position on the ground. With the assistance of WO #2, also on scene, the SO handcuffed the Complainant’s hands behind his back.

The Complainant was placed in the rear seat of WO #1’s cruiser and taken to the police station. He banged his head on the Plexiglas partition inside the cruiser.

At the station, the Complainant indicated that his jaw was broken and sought medical attention. He was transported to hospital and reportedly diagnosed with a fractured right hand and jaw.

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

On March 12, 2022, the PRP contacted the SIU to report that a man in their custody – the Complainant – had reportedly been injured in the course of his arrest earlier that day. The SIU initiated an investigation and named the SO as the subject official. 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.

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.

The SO had grounds to arrest the Complainant. Given the information provided at dispatch about a violent assault in progress on Williams Parkway east of Dixie Road, and what he personally discerned of the situation when he arrived at the location, the officer was within his rights in taking the Complainant into custody.

It would be unwise and unsafe to rest charges on this evidence of the Complainant, who was captured on the SO’s BWC stating that the SO forced him to the ground for no reason and sucker-punched” him, breaking his right hand and jaw. The Complainant was significantly intoxicated at the time, detracting from his ability to accurately perceive and recall the events in question. Whether because of his intoxication or not, the Complainant was demonstrably wrong in material parts of his evidence. The Complainant had also been involved in fights with other persons in the time before his arrest, leaving open the distinct possibility that his injuries were inflicted before his run-in with police. The cumulative impact of these and other frailties associated with the Complainant’s evidence renders it insufficiently reliable to be put to the test by a trier-of-fact.

What remains of the evidence suggests that the Complainant’s arrest was largely without incident. Other than the contact the SO and WO #2 had with the Complainant to secure his arms in handcuffs, no force was brought to bear by the officers.

In the result, 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 against the officer.

Date: July 7, 2022

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino


  • 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]


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.