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 a serious injury sustained by a 45-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On April 23, 2022, at 9:37 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.
According to the PRP, on April 22, 2022, at 11:52 p.m., two paid-duty PRP officers were working at the Chandni Banquet Hall in Brampton. The police officers removed the Complainant from inside the hall. The Complainant was alleged to have kicked and spat at the police officers. A struggle ensued outside the hall and the Complainant received facial injuries. The Complainant was taken to Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH) where he was diagnosed with a fractured nose. The Complainant was treated in hospital and released into the custody of the police.

The scene was being held, as was a police cruiser.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 04/23/2022 at 10:17 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 04/23/2022 at 12:07 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

45-year-old male; declined an interview

Subject Official (SO)

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

The subject official was interviewed on June 16, 2022.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on April 28, 2022.

The Scene

On April 23, 2022, at 12:07 p.m., the SIU Forensic Investigator (FI) arrived at the scene of the incident at 125 Chrysler Drive, Brampton. The scene was in front of the main entrance to the Chandni Banquet Hall. It contained bloodstains on the parking lot pavement.

The FI photographed the scene. At 12:12 p.m., the FI took a swab of the blood on the pavement and, at 12:15 p.m., the FI released the scene to the PRP.

At 12:30 a.m., the FI arrived at a PRP division and spoke to a sergeant. He was taken to a garage where a PRP Dodge Charger police cruiser was examined and photographed. There were bloodstains on the driver’s side of the cruiser above both doors.

At 1:00 p.m., the FI photographed the injuries to the Complainant’s face. The Complainant’s nose was bandaged and there were scrapes on his right cheek and above his right eye.


Figure 1 – Image of scene

Physical Evidence

Swab of blood was taken from the pavement in front of the banquet hall.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

WO #1’s Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

The recording was made on April 22, 2022. The following is a summary of the footage.

At 11:49:06 p.m., WO #1 and the SO were inside Chandni Banquet Hall. A tall man in a grey suit [now known to be the Complainant] was a few metres from the bar. The Complainant was held by two unknown men and had difficulty standing. The SO and WO #1 watched the Complainant from a distance.

At 11:49:25 p.m., the Complainant made a gesture with his right hand towards the head of one of the two men. He was pushed back and supported on his feet by a group of other men. The Complainant was struggling.

At 11:49:27 p.m., WO #1 approached the Complainant and the group of men.

At 11:49:43 p.m., WO #1 grabbed the Complainant’s right arm from behind. The Complainant turned towards WO #1 and slapped her chest. WO #1 said, “Let’s go.”

At 11:49:48 p.m., WO #1 said to the group of men, “Get him out or he’s going to be arrested.” The SO approached WO #1, who explained to him the situation.

At 11:50:03 p.m., WO #1 approached the men holding the Complainant and said, “I have to ask you again, get him out of here.” The Complainant spoke indistinctly.

At 11:50:27 p.m., WO #1 said, “I’m going to give you three minutes to get out of here or he’s going to be arrested, get moving.” The three men holding on to the Complainant moved him towards the exit. The Complainant was resisting them.

At 11:50:57 p.m., the SO approached the group and grabbed the Complainant’s right hand. WO #1 began pushing the Complainant’s back with her hands moving the Complainant towards the exit door. Once in the lobby, a man and the Complainant had a verbal altercation. The SO separated them both.

At 11:51:22 p.m., the SO grabbed the Complainant’s left arm and WO #1 held the Complainant’s right arm. The SO handcuffed the Complainant with his hands behind his back. The SO and WO #1 escorted the Complainant out of the hall and into the parking lot.

At 11:51:40 p.m., once outside, WO #1 used her police radio. The Complainant said, “Don’t push me, OK…relax…you cannot do that…I didn’t hit…you have no evidence,” and WO #1 replied, “Yes, you did.”

At 11:53:51 p.m., the SO began to lead the Complainant away, at which point the Complainant began to move his body from side to side trying to free himself from the police officers holding onto him.

At 11:54:07 p.m., the Complainant continued to resist. He took a step forward pulling both police officers with him. It appeared the Complainant tried to free himself from the police officers’ grasp. At that point, the SO took a step forward with his left leg while holding the Complainant’s left arm. The SO then crouched down towards the ground pulling the Complainant with him. WO #1 held the Complainant’s right arm with both hands and accompanied the Complainant’s downward fall. The Complainant fell to the ground face first. He could not break the fall because his hands were handcuffed behind him. The SO also fell to the ground landing on both knees next to the Complainant. At the same time as the Complainant fell, WO #1 fell as well - she fell to the ground ending up behind the Complainant straddling his legs.

At 11:54:13 p.m., the SO placed his right knee on the Complainant’s back and he said, “Stop.’’ WO #1 kept her left arm on the Complainant’s back and drew her CEW with her right hand.

At 11:54:16 p.m., WO #1 placed her CEW against the Complainant’s back saying, “I will fuckin’ tase him.” WO #1 asked the Complainant, “Where are you bleeding? Where are you hurt?” The Complainant had his face turned towards the SO and the SO replied, “Face…nose.”

At 11:54:22 p.m., WO #1 requested an ambulance over the police radio.

At 11:54:55 p.m., WO #1 stood up and so did the SO. WO #2 had arrived. WO #1 and WO #2 helped the Complainant to his knees. There was blood on the ground where the Complainant’s head had been. The Complainant’s face was covered in blood. WO #2 looked at the Complainant’s face and asked WO #1, “What’s the bleeding on his face?” and WO #1 replied, “It’s his nose.” The SO and WO #1 got the Complainant up on his feet and escorted him to a cruiser. At the cruiser they placed the Complainant up against the vehicle.

At 12:16:30 a.m., the paramedics arrived, and the Complainant was escorted to the ambulance.

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, which included an interview with the SO and BWC footage that captured the incident in parts.

In the evening of April 22, 2022, the SO was working a paid-duty at a reception hall in Brampton. He was paired with WO #1, working the same paid-duty. At about 11:50 p.m., they were asked to attend at the bar area by the reception event organizer. An individual – the Complainant – was causing a commotion in the area.

The Complainant was intoxicated and causing a disturbance. Other patrons were helping him stand straight by the bar area. At one point, the Complainant struck one of the men.

WO #1 told the Complainant he had to leave the reception hall. The Complainant refused. The SO, who had observed the Complainant strike the other person, arrested him for assault.

Following the arrest, a belligerent the Complainant was escorted out to the lobby. He refused to exit the lobby and tried to kick the SO. The officers decided to handcuff the Complainant, and did so.

Once outside, the SO and WO #1 requested a marked police cruiser to take custody of the Complainant. The Complainant refused to calm down. Twisting and turning his body, he attempted to break free of the officers’ grasp. With a hold of his left arm, the SO tripped the Complainant and brought him to the ground. The Complainant suffered a broken nose in the process.

The officers kept the Complainant on the ground until the arrival of a police cruiser. The Complainant was helped to his feet and walked to the cruiser where the parties waited for the arrival of an ambulance.

The ambulance arrived on scene at about 12:15 a.m., after which the Complainant was placed in the care of paramedics and taken to hospital.

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 while in the custody of two PRP officers on April 22, 2022. One of the officers – 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 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.

The Complainant had struck a patron in the reception hall and was clearly subject to arrest for assault. Once in the lawful custody of the police, the officers were entitled to exercise reasonable control of his movements to ensure the Complainant’s safety as well as theirs.

With respect to the force used by the SO, namely, a grounding, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was unjustified. The Complainant was intoxicated, belligerent and combative. He had tried to kick the SO and was attempting to break free of the officers’ hold. The officers were entitled to resort to a degree of force to protect themselves and maintain custody over the Complainant. A grounding in these circumstances seems a reasonable decision – in that position, the officers would have the upper hand in dealing with any continuing resistance on his part. Nor does it appear the grounding itself was needlessly aggressive or heavy-handed. It is regrettable that the Complainant’s face impacted the ground in the process and that his nose was fractured, but there is no suggestion that the SO intended that result or that the Complainant’s injury was anything other than the by-product of an inherently dynamic process fueled in large measure by the Complainant’s resistance.

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than lawfully in his engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the officer. The file is closed.



Date: August 18, 2022

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit