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 of a 27-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On April 28, 2022, at 2:56 p.m., Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.
On April 17, 2022, at 10:00 p.m., TPS officers responded to a ‘person in crisis’ call and interacted with the Complainant, who was in an agitated state at the time and holding a firearm. Emergency Task Force (ETF) officers attended and a conducted energy weapon (CEW) was discharged. The Complainant was grounded and apprehended under the Mental Health Act (MHA) prior to being transported to hospital. The Complainant appeared to have a scrape under his right eye but declined medical assessment at the scene. On April 28, 2022, the TPS became aware that the Complainant had suffered a fractured orbital bone during the interaction on April 17, 2022, prompting the call to the SIU.

The Scene

The incident occurred in a basement bedroom of a rooming house near Trinity Bellwoods Park, Toronto.

The interaction between the Complainant and TPS officers occurred on April 17 and 18, 2022, but the SIU were not contacted until April 28, 2022; accordingly, there was no scene for examination.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Downloads

On April 29, 2022, TPS provided the SIU with the data downloaded from WO #1’s and WO #2’s CEWs.

The data indicated that WO #1’s CEW had been discharged on April 18, 2022, at 12:02 a.m., [1] for a duration of five seconds.

The data indicated that WO #2’s CEW had been discharged on April 18, 2022, at 12:02 a.m., for a duration of five seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

TPS Scene Photographs

On May 18, 2022, TPS provided the SIU with Scenes of Crime Officer (SOCO) photographs from the Complainant’s residence, depicting numerous firearms seized within.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – WO #4 and WO #3

On May 12, 2022, the TPS provided the SIU with the BWC footage of WO #4 and WO #3 as it related to the interaction with the Complainant on April 17/18, 2022. The following is a summary of the footage.

At 10:28 p.m., WO #4 and WO #3 arrived on scene and spoke with two civilian witnesses who told them that the Complainant was shooting a gun in his rear patio. They heard yelling and loud music, and thought he had a puppy with him. They believed the Complainant suffered from a mental illness. He had attempted to fight one of the two civilian witnesses one week prior.

At 10:44:15 p.m., WO #4 and WO #3 spoke with a resident of the Complainant’s rooming house; they were invited in and taken to the rear patio. The TPS officers observed an open sliding door that led to the Complainant’s bedroom. There was loud music playing. Clearly visible was the Complainant as he slept on his right side facing the wall. There were empty beer cans and food containers on the floor. The TPS officers called out to the Complainant but he did not answer. There were four machine guns hanging on the wall [above the bed] and two rifles leaning against the bed. On the floor was a “Glock” handgun case.

WO #3 stepped in and out of the bedroom. He told WO #4 that the Complainant was holding a “Glock” handgun in his right hand. Both TPS officers retreated. The TPS dispatcher was updated and ETF were requested.

At 10:58:00 p.m., WO #4 and WO #3 briefed other TPS officers. An evacuation was planned and Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) buses requested.

At 12:00:30 a.m., April 18, 2022, ETF officers [WO #1 and WO #2] were in the basement with WO #4 and WO #3, and subsequently moved to enter the Complainant’s unit. A short time later, as WO #4 and WO #3 held their position, ETF officers were heard yelling, “Get on your stomach. Show us your hands. Do it now.” The Complainant was heard to yell, “What the fuck…what the fuck. Help me. God help me. Help me God. God, where are you?” and an ETF officer said, “Stop spitting.”

At 12:06:35 a.m., WO #4 and WO #3 exited the basement and walked to the front of the Complainant’s residence. The Complainant yelled, “I’m sorry. Please. Please. I won’t mess around no more,” as he was carried out by three ETF officers.

A short time later, the Complainant’s custody was turned over to WO #4 and WO #3. He was placed in the rear seat of their TPS cruiser. WO #3 asked one of the ETF officers if the “Glock” handgun was real and he was told, “There are so many, I’m not sure.”

At 12:10 a.m., both TPS officers’ BWCs were turned off.

TPS Communications

On April 29, 2022, at 12:57 p.m., the TPS provided the SIU with a copy of the Event Details Report related to a 911 call received on April 17, 2022. The following is a summary.

On April 17, 2022, at 10:08 p.m., an unknown person called 911 and reported that the Complainant was hurting his puppy. He was pacing back and forth, screaming, and throwing things around in his backyard.

At 10:10 p.m., WO #4 and WO #3 were dispatched.

At 10:26 p.m., WO #4 and WO #3 arrived. They reported possible ‘soft guns’ on the ground and the Complainant with a firearm in his hand. He was not responding to their call-outs and additional TPS units were requested. As the residence contained a number of other units, TTC buses were requested for evacuation purposes.

At 10:58 p.m., WO #3 and WO #4 advised that they saw three long guns and a “Glock” handgun case on the ground.

At 11:03 p.m., WO #4 and WO #3 reported a loud stereo and firearms hung on the wall.

At 11:26 p.m., the ETF arrived.

At 12:09 a.m., WO #4 and WO #3 advised that the Complainant had been arrested and placed in the rear of their police vehicle.

At 12:20 a.m., WO #4 and WO #3 transported the Complainant to Toronto Western Hospital as he had been apprehended under the MHA and ETF officers had deployed a CEW.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from TPS between April 29, 2022, and June 14, 2022:

• CEW Data Download- WO #1;
• CEW Data Download- WO #2;
• BWC footage;
• Event Details Report;
• List of Involved Officers;
• Notes- WO #1;
• Notes- WO #5;
• Notes- WO #3;
• Notes- WO #4;
• Notes- WO #2;
• Occurrence Report;
• Procedure-Persons in Crisis;
• Policy-Use of Force;
• Communications recordings; and
• SOCO photographs.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

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

• Medical Records from Toronto Western Hospital; and
• Medical Records from Toronto General Hospital.

The following scenario emerges from the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the Complainant and two officers who participated in the Complainant’s arrest. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU or to authorize the release of their notes.

Late in the evening of April 17, 2022, the TPS received a call from a woman complaining of a disturbance being created by one of her neighbours – the Complainant. He was said to be hurting his puppy, screaming and throwing things around in his backyard. Police officers were dispatched to the scene near Trinity Bellwoods Park, Toronto.

WO #3 and WO #4 arrived on scene and spoke with the 911 caller and another neighbour. They further learned that the Complainant was mentally unstable and keeping them up with the commotion he had been creating. The officers entered the rooming house in which the Complainant was resident and observed what appeared to be firearms present in his possession, including what looked like a Glock pistol in his right hand – the Complainant was sleeping at the time. TPS dispatch was updated and an ETF team was deployed to the scene.

The SO #1 and SO #2 were members of the ETF team. Together with WO #1 and WO #2, the team entered the bedroom and confronted the Complainant. CEW discharges by WO #1 and WO #2 were ineffective in immobilizing the Complainant, who reacted to the officers’ presence in his room by kicking and screaming. SO #1 and SO #2 delivered punches to the Complainant during a short-lived struggle, after which he was handcuffed and taken from the scene to a waiting cruiser.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured right orbital bone.

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,

Section 17, Mental Health Act -- Action by police officer

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on April 18, 2022. The injury came to the attention of the TPS on April 28, 2022, who, in turn, notified the SIU. The SO #1 and SO #2 were identified as the subject officials. 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 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 what the officers knew of the Complainant’s mental instability, erratic behaviour, and possession of what appeared to be an arsenal of firearms, there were clear grounds to arrest him under section 17 of the MHA. There were also grounds to enter into the Complainant’s premises without a warrant based on exigent circumstances given the apparent firearms in the Complainant’s possession.

With respect to the quantum of force used by the officers in the Complainant’s apprehension, I am satisfied it did not exceed the limits of justifiable force. The initial CEW discharges by WO #1 and WO #2 were based on a reasonable plan devised by the ETF ahead of their entry into the bedroom. In light of the apparent firearms in the room, it made sense that they would seek the Complainant’s immediate incapacitation lest he be in a position to access a weapon and use it. Thereafter, when the CEW discharges proved ineffective (the Complainant had been wearing a bullet-proof vest), the officers were faced with a combative individual resisting arrest. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the punches struck by SO #1 and SO #2, one or another of which may have fractured the Complainant’s orbital bone, were excessive given the clear imperative to handcuff him as quickly as possible.

There is a version of events proffered in the evidence that the Complainant did not resist arrest and was struck in the head and eyes for no reason, but it would be unwise to rest charges on the strength of this evidence given the weight of the contradictory evidence and various frailties associated with this account.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant was injured by the force brought to bear by the ETF officers, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that those officers comported themselves other than lawfully throughout their engagement. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.



Date: August 25, 2022

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit