SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-TCI-150


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 of a 55-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU

On June 9, 2022, at 2:46 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the TPS, on June 8, 2022, the TPS responded to a construction site on Keele Street to investigate a break and enter in progress. They located a man - the Complainant - and he was arrested for trespassing. TPS reported the Complainant resisted, and he was taken to the ground. Further investigation revealed there were outstanding warrants for the Complainant in York region. While TPS waited for York Regional Police (YRP) to respond in connection with the warrants, the Complainant complained of sore ribs. He was offered medical attention, but declined. YRP officers eventually took custody of the Complainant and transported him to their facilities, from which he was subsequently released by YRP. On June 9, 2022, TPS attended Sheridan Plaza at 1700 Wilson Street, where Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were waiting for TPS following complaints from the Complainant to an unknown citizen that he had suffered broken ribs from an interaction with the police. TPS escorted EMS and the Complainant to Humber River Regional Hospital (HRRH) located at 1235 Wilson Avenue. He was examined by a doctor and diagnosed with a fractured left rib.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 06/09/2022 at 3:48 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 06/10/2022 at 9:00 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

55-year-old male; not interviewed [1]

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed
SO #2 Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

The subject officials were interviewed on July 4, 2022.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Notes reviewed; interview deemed not necessary
WO #2 Notes reviewed; interview deemed not necessary
WO #3 Notes reviewed; interview deemed not necessary


The Scene

On June 8, 2022, at 1:12 a.m., the scene was a construction site located at 3100 Keele Street, Toronto.

Figure 1 – Incident scene

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

Call to Police

A woman who was live-monitoring the construction site at 3100 Keele Street called the TPS. She advised that a man [now known to be the Complainant] had entered the fully-fenced construction site at 12:52 a.m. He was rampaging through unknown items. She did not know if anything was stolen.

It was further reported that the Complainant was on the west side of the property, and that he had then entered a portable toilet.

Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report

On June 8, 2022, beginning at 12:59 a.m., a break and enter in progress was reported to the TPS by a security company. The security staff was watching events on a live stream and could see a person - now known to be the Complainant - who had entered a fenced building construction site. The Complainant was rummaging through unknown items and had entered a portable toilet.

TPS dispatched SO #1, SO #2, WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3.
SO #1 and SO # 2 located the ‘porta-potty’ and reported they could hear the Complainant inside. They called-out to the Complainant and waited for him to open the door. WO #1 and WO #2 were also on scene.

At 1:12 a.m., it was noted that the Complainant had been taken into custody.

The Complainant had a pending YRP warrant. At 2:15 a.m., he was handed over to YRP officers.

Police Communications Recordings

At 1:02 a.m., TPS dispatch broadcast, “3100 Keele Street, for a break and enter in progress.” Dispatch advised that a man - now known to be the Complainant - had entered a construction site.

At 1:02 a.m., SO #1 and SO #2 responded.

At 1:06 a.m., WO #1 and WO #2 arrived.

Police officer advised, “We can hear the male inside, we are calling out for him, just waiting for him to open the door.”

At 1:12 a.m., WO #3 radioed, “One in custody,” and, “All in order”.


On June 9, 2022, TPS dispatch advised there was a “see ambulance call” related to a “male” at 1700 Wilson Avenue, North York (Sheridan Mall). That man was later identified as the Complainant. The Complainant had complained of injuries to an unknown person, who then called for paramedics. They advised TPS of the Complainant’s interaction with TPS on June 8, 2022.

TPS was dispatched to the ambulance location on 1700 Wilson Avenue. Prior to the TPS arrival, paramedics had left with the Complainant to the HRRH. TPS attended HRRH.

Police Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

The interaction between the officers and the Complainant was captured by the BWCs of SO #1, SO #2, WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3. The following is a summary of the collective footage.

At 1:07 a.m., June 8, 2022, SO #2 entered the construction site. He was followed by SO #1. Both police officers reached a blue portable toilet, their flashlights drawn and pointed at the structure. They repeatedly announced, “Toronto Police,” and, “We know you are inside, come out.”

Additional police officers arrived – WO #1 and WO #2 and WO #3.
At 1:09 a.m., a man’s voice [now known to be that of the Complainant] shouted, “I am coming.” A police officer told the Complainant to get on his knees, and lay down flat on his stomach when he came out. SO #1 and SO #2 were positioned around the blue portable toilet

The door to the blue portable toilet opened, and a police officer made verbal commands, “Go right to the ground,” three times. At 1:12 a.m., the Complainant appeared out of the blue portable toilet. SO #2 proceeded towards him and took him to the ground. A police officer asked, “Is that you [name]?” followed by, “I know who this is.”

At 1:12 a.m., SO #1 and SO #2 stood the Complainant up. The Complainant said, “Fuck my ribs.” He was handcuffed behind his back.

At 1:13 a.m., the Complainant was escorted towards a police vehicle by SO #1 and SO #2. He was searched by police officers with his body against the police vehicle. One of the police officers asked the Complainant, “Where does it hurt?” The Complainant replied, “Where you fell on me.” The same police officer said, “Nobody fell on you.”

At 1:15 a.m., police officers offered to call an ambulance for the Complainant. He refused, explaining that he did not want to get the police in trouble. A police officer told the Complainant that they were not going to get in trouble as they had done nothing wrong. The Complainant was placed in the rear of a police vehicle.

Police In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage

ICCS footage was reviewed. It did not capture the arrest and the force used in the officers’ interaction with the Complainant.

Construction Site Security Camera Footage

The security footage was examined and found to be consistent with the information derived from the BWC footage.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following materials from the TPS between June 14, 2022, and August 11, 2022:
  • General Occurrence;
  • Complainant Contact Information
  • Communications recordings;
  • Telephone Call to Police;
  • CAD report;
  • Involved Officers List;
  • BWC footage;
  • ICCS footage;
  • Notes – WO #1;
  • Notes – WO #2;
  • Notes – SO #1;
  • Notes – SO #2;
  • Notes – WO #3;
  • Policy Arrest and Release; and
  • Policy Use of Force.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the following other sources:
  • Security camera video footage from the construction site at Keele Street.

Incident Narrative

The material events in question are clear on the evidence gathered by the SIU, including police BWC footage that captured the incident, and may briefly be summarized.

In the early morning hours of the day in question, the Complainant ventured onto a construction site at 3100 Keele Street. He was trespassing at the time. A security company monitoring the site via live camera feeds detected the Complainant and contacted the police.

The first officers to arrive on scene - at about 1:07 a.m. - were SO #1 and SO #2. By this time, the Complainant had entered and was inside a blue portable toilet. Alerted to the Complainant’s presence in the portable toilet by the security company, the officers located the structure and called out to him. They announced themselves as ‘police’ and directed that the Complainant exit. The Complainant remained silent at first but eventually spoke up confirming his presence in the toilet. The officers continued to direct that the Complainant exit the toilet, and that he fall to his knees and lie flat on his stomach when he did so.

At about 1:12 a.m., the Complainant opened the door of the portable toilet and remained standing. Within moments, SO #2, positioned to the Complainant’s left, took hold of him and forced him to the ground. SO #1, to the right of the Complainant, physically engaged the Complainant on the ground. The officers brought the Complainant’s arms behind his back and handcuffed them without further incident.

Following his arrest, the Complainant complained of pain to the ribs, but declined the officers’ offer of an ambulance.

The next day, after his release from custody, the Complainant was at the Sheridan Plaza, 1700 Wilson Avenue, Toronto, when he again complained of pain to an unknown individual. An ambulance was called and transported the Complainant to hospital where he was diagnosed with a hairline fracture of a left rib.

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.

Section 2(1), Trespass to Property Act -- Trespass an offence

2 (1) Every person who is not acting under a right or authority conferred by law and who,
(a) without the express permission of the occupier, the proof of which rests on the defendant,
(i) enters on premises when entry is prohibited under this Act, or
(ii) engages in an activity on premises when the activity is prohibited under this Act; or
(b) does not leave the premises immediately after he or she is directed to do so by the occupier of the premises or a person authorized by the occupier,

is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000.

Section 9, Trespass to Property Act – Arrest without warrant on premises

9 (1) A police officer, or the occupier of premises, or a person authorized by the occupier may arrest without warrant any person he or she believes on reasonable and probable grounds to be on the premises in contravention of section 2.

Analysis and Director's Decision

The Complainant sustained a serious injury in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on June 8, 2022. The officers – SO #1 and SO #2 – were identified as 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 either subject official 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.

The officers were within their rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody. He had trespassed onto private property and was subject to arrest under section 9(1) of the Trespass to Property Act.

With respect to the force brought to bear by the officers in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, it was minimal and legally justified. There was an element of risk in the situation to the officers’ safety. It was dark, the officers were on a construction site, and the Complainant had initially refused to acknowledge the officers’ call-outs and then failed to present himself without delay. In the circumstances, when the Complainant remained standing after opening the toilet door notwithstanding the clear directions from the officers, a takedown was within the range of reasonable measures available to the officers. Once on the ground, the officers could expect to more safely manage the risks associated with possible threats or resistance on the part of the Complainant. On the video footage captured by the BWCs, it is also apparent that the takedown was not executed with undue force. No strikes of any kind were delivered at any point.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant broke a rib in the takedown, I am not satisfied on reasonable grounds that the injury is attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of either of the subject officials. The file is closed.

Date: October 6, 2022

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Special Investigations Unit


  • 1) The Complainant was of no-fixed address. The SIU made several attempts to locate him, but they were all unsuccessful. [Back to text]
  • 2) 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.