SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OCI-153


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 injuries a 43-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU

On June 15, 2022, at 12:07 a.m., York Regional Police (YRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 14, 2022, at 7:14 p.m., YRP officers responded to a residence in Newmarket for a domestic complaint involving a male and female. The Complainant was bound by a court order prohibiting contact with his ex-girlfriend. The Complainant was not at the residence when police arrived. The Complainant was later located at a nearby restaurant. He was arrested for several criminal offences. During his apprehension, the Complainant resisted arrest and a struggle ensued, resulting in his grounding. The Complainant was transported to Southlake Regional Health Centre (SRHC) where he was diagnosed as having sustained a dislocated shoulder and broken leg.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 06/15/2022 at 9:02 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 06/15/2022 at 9:18 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

43-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on June 23, 2022.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on June 24, 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 July 7, 2022.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between June 20 and 29, 2022.


The Scene

The scene was located in the parking lot by the rear door of a restaurant in Newmarket. The parking lot was composed of asphalt and marked with designated parking spots, and appeared dry.

The SIU did not attend the scene.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

YRP Communications Recordings

On June 16, 2022, the SIU received the relevant communications recordings from the YRP. A summary of the material information therein follows.

911 Call

On June 14, 2022, a woman called police to report her ex-boyfriend [now known to be the Complainant], who was bound by a no-contact order stemming from an incident on June 5, 2022, was going to be at her residence in ten to 15 minutes to drop off her belongings. She believed the Complainant had been drinking and indicated that he had a history of being physically aggressive with her. She also provided descriptions of the vehicles the Complainant might be operating. The Complainant told her he did not care if she called police. She had her child and a friend in the apartment with her.

Radio Transmissions

WO #2 advised that the Complainant had been located and was under arrest.

The SO requested Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for a dislocated shoulder.

WO #2 requested the Complainant’s ex-girlfriend be notified of the Complainant’s apprehension.

WO #2 requested a patrol sergeant attend the scene.

WO #2 radioed that the Complainant was complaining of a dislocated shoulder and broken leg.

WO #2 radioed that the Complainant had failed an Approved Screening Device (ASD) test, and requested a tow truck and a breath technician.

WO #2 requested an update on EMS attendance. The dispatcher advised EMS had the call in the queue but it had not yet been dispatched as there were no available ambulances.

The SO cancelled EMS as the Complainant was being transported to hospital in a police vehicle.

Surveillance Video from the Restaurant

On June 16, 2022, the YRP provided the SIU a copy of the surveillance video from the restaurant where the Complainant was arrested. The surveillance footage, which was date and time-stamped, captured the parking lot and some of the events that transpired therein. The following is a summary of the footage.

On June 14, 2022, at 6:59:59 p.m., the video began.

At 7:22:57 p.m., the Complainant walked away from a Nissan towards the rear door of the restaurant.

At 7:23:08 p.m., the Complainant went out of camera view.

At 7:23:28 p.m., a male uniformed police officer – WO #2 - followed by a second male uniformed police officer – the SO - walked towards the rear door of the restaurant. The SO, positioned left of camera view, and WO #2, positioned right of camera view, stood outside the rear door, appearing to speak to someone not in camera view.

At 7:24:10 p.m., WO #2 and the SO moved closer to the open door and made physical contact with the Complainant. The SO, who moved to a position behind the Complainant, grabbed the Complainant’s left wrist with his left hand and the Complainant’s left bicep with his right hand, and attempted to maneuver his arm behind his back. WO #2, who also moved to a position behind the Complainant on the right, attempted to apply a handcuff on the Complainant’s right wrist. The Complainant pulled his left arm away, making it difficult for his arm to be moved behind his back. WO #2 was successful at applying a handcuff on the Complainant’s right wrist.

At 7:24:28 hrs, the SO placed his right leg in front of the Complainant’s left leg and used his right hand on the Complainant’s right shoulder to take him to the ground. The Complainant landed on the asphalt ground on his left hand, with WO #2 holding the right handcuff. The SO lost his balance when his right leg became stuck under the Complainant and briefly lost physical control.

WO #2 mounted the Complainant’s lower back as the SO physically re-engaged with the Complainant by placing his right hand on the Complainant’s head momentarily before using both his arms to maneuver the Complainant’s left arm towards his back for WO #2 to complete the handcuffing process. WO #2 dismounted the Complainant’s lower back after securing the Complainant’s hands in handcuffs behind his back. The SO appeared to use his portable radio.

At 7:25:19 p.m., WO #2 and the SO conducted a pat down search of the Complainant. A set of keys, wallet, and pill container were removed from the Complainant’s pocket.

At 7:35:28 p.m., the left handcuff was removed by WO #2, and the Complainant rolled himself over and used his right hand to push himself up into a seated position.

At 7:35:49 p.m., WO #2 offered his right hand to assist the Complainant up to his feet while the SO braced his back with his hand. While WO #2 was still holding his right hand, the Complainant’s left leg buckled after he took a step to his left and attempted to put weight on it. The Complainant immediately fell to the ground, where he laid on his left side, and WO #2 disengaged.

At 7:36:13 p.m., the SO handcuffed the Complainant’s hands to the front of his body. He remained on his back on the ground.

At 7:43:32 p.m., WO #2 approached the Nissan and returned with a can, which the SO gripped with his hands before WO #2 approached the Complainant and placed the can against the Complainant’s right arm.

At 7:48:16 p.m., a marked SUV pulled into the parking lot and parked facing north.

At 7:53:02 p.m., the SO entered the rear door of the restaurant and went out of camera view.

At 7:53:31 p.m., a male uniformed police officer – WO #1 - approached the Complainant. He appeared to be conversing with WO #2.

At 7:58:12 p.m., the SO exited the rear door of the restaurant.

At 7:59:59 p.m., the video recording ended with the SO and WO #2, and WO #1, standing around the Complainant, who remained on his back in the parking lot.

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage – WO #2

On June 16, 2022, the YRP provided a copy of the ICCS footage from WO #2’s police vehicle. The footage were date and time-stamped in the Universal Time Code (UTC), which was four hours ahead of Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). The time-stamps referenced below are in EDT. The following is a summary of the footage from the camera mounted on the dashboard, with a view through the front windshield.

At 7:29:36 p.m., the video began. WO #2 moved his police vehicle from the parking lot of the Complainant’s ex-girlfriend’s apartment building to the rear parking lot of a restaurant, where he parked facing north. The Complainant was lying on his left side on the asphalt ground, with his hands handcuffed behind his back, in the company of the SO. The Nissan was parked to the west, on the left side of the camera view.

At 7:31:17 P.M., WO #2 placed a set of keys, wallet, and a pill container on the hood of his police vehicle.

At 7:35:17 p.m., WO #2 uncuffed the Complainant so that he and the SO could assist him to his feet. After WO #2 offered his right hand, the Complainant’s left leg buckled when he attempted to take a step to his left and was unable to put weight on his left leg. The Complainant immediately fell to the ground onto his buttocks, then rested on his left side.

At 7:38:41 p.m., the SO administer an ASD test and held the results towards the front facing camera; the results were unintelligible.

At 7:42:03 p.m., WO #2 requested an additional unit to escort the tow truck and inquired about the arrival of EMS.

At 7:43:26 p.m., WO #2 unlocked the Nissan with the keys and entered the driver’s seat before placing two beer cans on the roof. WO #2 approached the SO with one of the cans, which he held before WO #2 placed the can against the Complainant’s right arm.

At 7:44:14 p.m., dispatch advised that EMS did not have any ambulances available.

At 7:48:17 p.m., a marked SUV parked behind the Nissan, facing north. A male uniformed police officer – WO #1 - exited and walked towards the Nissan. He lifted one of the beer cans on the roof before returning to his vehicle. WO #2 approached WO #1, and they appeared to be speaking through the window.

At 7:51:29 p.m., WO #1 spoke with WO #2 and the SO.

At 7:53:03 p.m., the SO entered the rear door of the restaurant.

At 7:58:11 p.m., the SO exited the restaurant.

At 8:01:13 p.m., WO #2 radioed that the Complainant was in custody for breaching conditions and impaired driving.

At 8:04:22 p.m., WO #1 entered the restaurant and returned with a chair, which he placed next to the Complainant, who remained on the ground.

At 8:14:35 p.m., WO #1 began to take photographs of the cans atop the roof of the Nissan.

At 8:19:48 p.m., a man wearing a T-shirt and shorts [believed to be a tow truck operator] walked towards the Nissan and reversed it out from its spot and out of camera view.

At 8:32:37 p.m., WO #2 placed the Complainant’s personal belongings in an evidence bag. WO #2 moved his police vehicle closer to the Complainant’s location. The Complainant was moaning and yelling profanities as the SO and WO #2 assisted him into the rear of WO #2’s police vehicle.
At 8:40:20 p.m., WO #2 departed the parking lot of the restaurant. During the transport, the Complainant complained of pain.

At 8:46:02 p.m., WO #2 arrived at the emergency entrance of SRHC. The SO and WO #2 assisted the Complainant into a wheelchair. The Complainant continued to complain of pain.

WO #2’s vehicle remained idle near Davis Drive, where it remained for the duration of the recording. At 11:29:36 p.m., the video ended.

ICCS Footage – Officer #1

This video did not contain any information of investigative value.

ICCS Footage – Officer #2

This video did not contain any information of investigative value.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the YRP between June 16, 2022, and August 9, 2022:
  • Communications recordings;
  • Certificate of Qualified Technician (Intoxilyzer);
  • Detailed Call Summary;
  • General Occurrence Report;
  • Initial Officer Report;
  • Intoxilyzer Records- the Complainant;
  • Involved Officers;
  • Notes - WO #1;
  • Notes - WO #2;
  • Show Cause Report- the Complainant;
  • Undertaking - the Complainant;
  • Procedure - Communications;
  • Procedure - Processing the Offender- Arrest, Provincial Offences and Release;
  • Procedure - Impaired Operation and 80 Plus Investigations;
  • Procedure - Use of Force;
  • Procedure - ICCS;
  • ICCS footage - WO #2;
  • ICCS footage - Officer #1;
  • ICCS footage - Officer #2;
  • Scenes of Crime Officer photographs;
  • Statement of a Witness - the Complainant’s ex-girlfriend; and
  • Surveillance video footage from the restaurant.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:
  • Medical Records-SRHC

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the evening of June 14, 2022, the SO and WO #2 were dispatched to an apartment building in Newmarket. A female from a unit of the apartment building had contacted police to report that her estranged partner – the Complainant – was in violation of terms of his release on bail requiring that he not communicate with her or be within a certain distance of her location. She reported that the Complainant had phoned her that day to indicate that he would be attending at her residence to drop off some of her belongings.

The SO and WO #2 arrived at the address, searched for the Complainant, and eventually found him. He was in the rear parking lot of a restaurant, less than a hundred metres east of the entrance doors of his ex-girlfriend’s apartment building. The Complainant was just stepping out from the kitchen area of the restaurant through a rear door when he was confronted by the officers.

Following a brief conversation by the restaurant’s rear door, the officers took hold of the Complainant’s arms, after which a struggle ensued when the Complainant began to resist his handcuffing. From the Complainant’s left side, and with a hold of his left arm, the SO tripped the Complainant with his right leg and forced him to the ground. The Complainant landed on his front side and sustained injuries in the process to his left arm and leg. The Complainant was handcuffed on the ground behind his back without further incident.

As it was clear that the Complainant had sustained injuries, the officers contacted EMS and re-positioned the handcuffs to the front. When after a while it appeared that the EMS would be very late in arriving, the Complainant was placed in the rear of WO #2’s cruiser and taken by the officer to hospital.

The Complainant was diagnosed at hospital with fractures of the left knee and a dislocated left shoulder.

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

The Complainant was seriously injured while being arrested by YRP officers on June 14, 2022. In the ensuing SIU investigation, one of the officers – the SO – was identified 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 and injuries.

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 SO and WO #2 were within their rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody. Based on the information they had been provided of his ex-girlfriend’s call to police, including a description of the Complainant and his vehicle, and the Complainant’s presence in the vicinity of his ex-girlfriend’s residence, the officers had grounds to arrest him for being in violation of a judicial order.

I am also satisfied that the takedown performed by the SO did not constitute excessive force. The SO was entitled to resort to a measure of force when the Complainant resisted the officer’s attempts to bring his left arm behind his back to be handcuffed. The resistance continued as the officer warned the Complainant that he would be grounded if he did not yield. With the Complainant on the ground, the SO could expect an easier time of things given his positional advantage. While it is regrettable that the Complainant was seriously injured in the process of the takedown, the video footage does not appear to indicate undue force having been brought to bear by the SO.

In the result, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than lawfully in his dealings with the Complainant. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the officer.

Date: October 13, 2022

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Special Investigations Unit


  • 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.