SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-TCI-169


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 35-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU

On July 2, 2022, at 9:07 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant. The TPS reported that at about 1:12 a.m., July 2, 2022, they were called to the Love Child Social on Bathurst Street “for an intoxicated male who had been struggling with club security and fell and hit his head.” Subject Official (SO) #1 and SO #2 from 14 Division were dispatched and arrived to find the Complainant being held down by security staff. The police officers took a hold of the Complainant, who was lying on his back on the ground at the time. When the police officers engaged to arrest the Complainant, he put a police officer in a choke hold. The police officer managed to escape the choke hold and the Complainant was detained. The Complainant was subsequently transported to the Toronto Western Hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured nasal bone.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 07/04/2022 at 9:04 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 07/04/2022 at 11:12 a.m.

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

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

35-year-old male; interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on July 11, 2022.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between July 5 and 27, 2022.

Subject Officials (SO)

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

The subject officials were interviewed on August 16, 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
WO #4 Notes reviewed; interview deemed not necessary
WO #5 Notes reviewed; interview deemed not necessary
WO #6 Interviewed

The witness official was interviewed on August 10, 2022.


The Scene

This incident occurred on the sidewalk outside the Love Child Social, a nightclub at 69 Bathurst Street, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

Video Recordings – Love Child Social

Video recordings from the Love Child Social captured an extended physical interaction between the Complainant and security guards prior to the arrival of police.

Two interior cameras captured the Complainant as he was being ejected from the premises. A camera pointed at the entrance/foyer area captured three, and then four security guards holding the Complainant as they struggled for two minutes before the Complainant was removed.

The video footage showed the Complainant wearing a tank top with the left shoulder support torn away before he was brought outside. No blood was visible on his face or clothing at the time.

An exterior camera captured a person, likely, the Complainant, as he appeared to be forcibly removed. The time-stamped video recording was consistent with the images being a continuation of the events from the interior camera that immediately followed the Complainant’s ejection from the premises. The person appeared to be forcibly removed or pushed away from the building before striking the metal barricade separating the curb from the roadway. The person fell onto the barricade toppling the entire length.

Unfortunately, pedestrians in the area and the distance from the camera obstructed a view of how the person struck the barricade and whether any injuries were sustained from the incident.

The person was immediately moved away and was not in camera view.

The first police vehicle arrived at 1:17 a.m. Whatever transpired between the Complainant and the security guards in that time was not captured on video.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Recordings

BWC recordings from the involved police officers’ devices revealed a number of security guards holding the Complainant pinned supine on the sidewalk when they arrived at 1:16:37 a.m.

At 1:16:45 a.m., SO #2’s BWC captured SO #2 as he took hold of the Complainant’s left arm while SO #1 held his right arm. At that time, the Complainant’s tank top was already stained with what appeared to be blood.

As the police officers took hold of the Complainant’s arms, at 1:16:50 a.m., he raised his legs and appeared to wrap them around SO #1’s torso, trapping SO #1’s right arm and forcing the police officer backward.

One second later, SO #2’s BWC captured him punching the Complainant in the face and appearing to grasp the Complainant’s face with both hands. At 1:16:53 a.m., SO #2 started delivering a series of punches around the Complainant’s left ear with his right fist. About four seconds later, at 1:16:57 a.m., the Complainant was turned to his right side and then positioned prone as he was restrained and handcuffed with his hands behind his back.

When more police officers arrived, SO #1 told them the Complainant “ended up doing a triangle on me”.

Shortly thereafter, SO #1’s BWC captured the Complainant bleeding about the face.

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Recordings

The ICCS recordings from three cruisers, including that of the subject officials, were of no evidentiary value. Two were parked with no view of the interaction and the recordings were de-activated on arrival at the scene, while the third arrived much later, after the ambulance was on scene.

911 Calls

CW #1 called 911 at 1:11 a.m., reporting, “We got a guy out of control,” and, “Guy started a fight. We tried to get him out. Security is handling him, but we think he hit his head and he’s conscious but he’s being very difficult and he’s fighting a lot of people.”

When connected with Toronto Paramedic Services, CW #1 was asked how the patient hit his head. CW #1 said, “He was trying to fight people… he just was being too aggressive, and he fell on the ground.” CW #1 added, “He’s pinned down. He’s bleeding a little bit on his nose but he’s alive and he’s moving.”

A male called 911 at 1:13 a.m. He reported they had someone who was “super drunk” who was swinging at everyone and said, “We have him on the ground right now but he’s not giving up.”

Communications Recordings

At 1:17:34 a.m., one of the involved police officers reported they had one person in custody, and all was in order. Immediately thereafter, a police officer broadcast, “Can we get a rush on that ambulance? He’s bleeding a lot from the face.”

Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

The CAD noted that CW #1 called police to the Love Child Social for a fight in which a man, now known to be the Complainant, had started a fight and security guards were trying to remove him from the premises. The male “fell and hit his head” and was “bleeding a lot”. [2]

Police officers were dispatched and arrived at the scene at 1:16 a.m.

At 1:17 a.m., it was reported the Complainant was in custody and all was in order. Shortly thereafter, an ambulance was requested as the Complainant was “bleeding a lot from the head”.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between July 4, 2022, and August 12, 2022:
  • Civilian Witness List;
  • General Occurrence Report;
  • CAD Report;
  • Involved Officer List;
  • Notes- WO #4;
  • Notes- SO #2;
  • Notes- WO #5;
  • Notes- WO #3;
  • Notes- WO #1;
  • Notes- WO #6;
  • Notes- SO #1;
  • Notes- WO #2;
  • Injury Report;
  • Policy-Arrest;
  • Policy-Incident Response (Use of Force-De-Escalation);
  • BWC recordings from the involved police officers;
  • ICCS recordings from the involved cruisers;
  • 911 call and communications recordings; and
  • Video recordings from Love Child Social.

Incident Narrative

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, which included video footage of the incident and interviews with the principal players, and may briefly be summarized.

At about 1:15 a.m. of July 2, 2022, SO #1 and SO #2 were dispatched to the scene of a disturbance outside the Love Child Social, 69 Bathurst Street, Toronto. The Complainant was at the centre of the disturbance. He had just been thrown out of the premises by the club’s security guards and was being pinned with his back to the sidewalk when the officers arrived.

The Complainant was intoxicated at the time. He had quarreled with persons inside the club and was combative with security guards when they endeavoured to usher him out.
SO #1 took a hold of the Complainant’s right arm intending to secure him in handcuffs, as SO #2 grabbed the Complainant’s left arm. The Complainant reacted by throwing his legs around SO #1’s upper body, after which he was subjected to a series of punches to the face by each officer, and several punches to the ribs by SO #1. The Complainant’s leg hold was released and the officers proceeded to handcuff him behind the back.

An ambulance attended at the scene and transported the Complainant to hospital. He was diagnosed with a broken nose.

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 in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on July 2, 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 officer 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.

SO #1 and SO #2 were proceeding lawfully to arrest the Complainant. In light of what they had learned of the 911 calls received by police, in which the Complainant was said to have assaulted patrons of a club, the officers were within their rights in seeking to take him into custody for assault.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the officers, namely, a series of punches to the Complainant’s face and rib cage, were legally justified. The guards and the officers characterized the Complainant’s movement with his legs around SO #1 as an attempted ‘choke’ hold of sorts. The video footage captured by the officers’ BWCs would appear to give credence to that description. In the circumstances, the officers were entitled to act quickly to defeat the Complainant’s aggressive maneuver to avoid any harm coming to SO #1. The punches delivered by the officers to the Complainant’s face, in my view, constituted a proportionate response to the exigencies at hand. The same be said of the two to three punches struck by SO #1 to the Complainant’s ribs when he continued to refuse to release an arm to be handcuffed. Once the Complainant was restrained, no further force was used.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s broken nose might well have been inflicted by the officers’ punches, [3] I am unable to reasonably conclude the injury is attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of either SO #1 or SO #2. As such, there is no basis to proceed with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: October 28, 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]
  • 2) 1:12:45 a.m. in the CAD Event Details Report. As noted in the 911 Calls and Communications Recordings details in this report, CW #1’s 911 call recording revealed CW #1 actually said, “He’s bleeding a little bit.” [Back to text]
  • 3) The evidence also gives rise to the possibility that the Complainant’s broken nose was caused in the course of his interactions with the club security guards ahead of the officers’ arrival on scene. [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.