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 death of a 26-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On July 10, 2022, at approximately 1:02 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

The Scene

The scene was located at a residence on Tree Sparroway, North York. The unit had a kitchenette and living room on the first level and the bedrooms on the second level. The incident took place just outside the kitchenette entrance, in the southwest corner of the dining room.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

The SIU collected the following item:

- Multi-tool knife (blade length about 9 centimetres).


Figure 1 – The Complainant’s multi-tool knife

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

The SO’s BWC Footage

The SO’s BWC footage was two hours and ten minutes long, and began on July 9, 2022, at 10:53 p.m. The following is a summary of the pertinent footage.

The SO arrived on scene and was met by CW #1 on the sidewalk. The SO followed WO #1 and CW #1 into the apartment building up the stairs to the apartment.

At 10:53:58 p.m., the SO and WO #1 entered the apartment. CW #4 was sitting in the living room. CW #2 was sitting on the ground near the kitchen entrance and behind CW #2 was CW #3, who appeared prone with his head towards the kitchen, on top of the Complainant. The SO said, “Stay on him.” CW #2 started to get up. The SO went to the area by the head of CW #3.

At 10:54:13 p.m., the camera captured the Complainant face down on the floor; his hands were above his head and touching. CW #3 was lying face down on the Complainant’s back. The SO told the Complainant that he was taking his arm and with both hands grabbed the wrist area of the left arm. As the Complainant’s left arm was brought out to the side, the camera moved to the upper back of CW #3. A police officer asked CW #3 to move his left hand. CW #2 was still against the Complainant and CW #3. At 10:54:23 p.m., both CW #3 and CW #2 moved to get out of the way, as a handcuff was placed on the left wrist of the Complainant.

The SO told the Complainant he was going to bring his arm back and began to reposition the right arm behind his back. CW #3 was in a seated position on the Complainant’s waist and assisted with handcuffing. The SO said “No, [the Complainant], don’t fight with me.” as the right arm was maneuvered to the centre of his back. The hand appeared to get tangled in clothes and the clothes were moved out of the way.

At 10:55:01 p.m., the SO and WO #1 completed the handcuffing. The SO said, “Once your locked, we are going to wrap his feet with a soft leg restraint.” CW #3 was sitting on the Complainant’s legs. The SO and WO #1 congratulated CW #3 and CW #2 for a job well done and WO #1 double-locked the handcuffs.

At 10:55:25 p.m., a police officer asked CW #3 to pull up the Complainant’s pants. Four seconds later, the SO asked if the Complainant was breathing. He said the Complainant’s name, after which the Complainant was rolled over onto his left side. At 10:55:41 p.m., the SO checked for a pulse on the Complainant’s neck, the the officer lifted the Complainant’s head, which was limp.

At 10:56:12 p.m., the Complainant rolled onto his back. His left pupil could be seen but his eye lid was partly closed. The SO laid the Complainant’s head on the floor and instructed WO #1 to call EMS. The Complainant’s mouth was slightly open with his top teeth showing. The SO reported the Complainant was unconscious and not breathing, and WO #1 repeated this on the police radio. At 10:56:13 p.m., a chest rub was performed but there was no response. One of the brothers asked if he was breathing and was told no.

At 10:56:23 p.m., the SO moved to the left side of the Complainant and began CPR. The police officer asked if the Complainant had any medical conditions and someone said he had a mental health disorder. The police asked how long the Complainant was pinned down and someone said “five”. Toronto Fire Service (TFS) was requested with a defibrillator.

At 10:58 p.m., WO #1 removed the handcuffs. The brothers were asked to meet and bring TFS and the EMS as quickly to the scene as they could. The SO and WO #1 continued CPR.

At 11:00 p.m., a police officer [known to be WO #2] arrived. The SO explained to WO #2 that the brothers were holding the Complainant down when he and WO #1 arrived. The Complainant was handcuffed, he felt for a pulse and the handcuffs were removed. They went right to CPR.

At 11:01 p.m., a towel was put under the Complainant’s head to tilt the chin back.

At 11:04 p.m., TFS and EMS arrived and were told CPR was ongoing for four minutes and there had been no response to pain stimulus. The SO explained that CW #2 and CW #3 had taken a knife from the Complainant and held him down. Once handcuffed and secured the police officers noticed there was no pulse and they started CPR right away. This would be repeated to another paramedic and the SO added, “At some point he stop breathing.”

At 11:08 p.m., the SO asked CW #2 and CW #3 how long they had held the Complainant down and CW #2 replied four to five minutes. The SO again spoke with WO #2 and told him what happened, adding that when they rolled the Complainant over his eyes were rolling back and that all happened within one minute. WO #2 was told that the Complainant suffered from a mental health disorder.

At 11:31 p.m., the Complainant was removed from the apartment.

At 11:34 p.m., CW #1 said she hid the knife in her washroom. At 11:35 p.m., the SO and WO #1 were assigned to stay at the scene, and WO #2 advised the SIU had not been called yet.

At 11:37 p.m., the SO and WO #1 returned to the apartment. At 11:38 p.m., CW #1 got the knife and gave it to the SO and said that she had been cut “a little bit”. CW #1 explained what happened to the SO and WO #1, and explained to them her sons told her how they had taken the knife away.

At 11:48 p.m., the SO received a call, walked into the hallway and muted the BWC. At 11:50 p.m., the SO turned the sound back on and entered the apartment. He described how sharp the knife was and that it could take a finger off. CW #1 said the Complainant would have killed all of them, and CW #4 asked why she opened the door. There was a conversation about mental health not being a joke and the Complainant had been doing this for years.

At 12:23 a.m., a detective spoke with the family and advised the SIU was coming. At 12:34 a.m., a detective said the Complainant died but the family would be told after the SO and WO #1 had left.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with eyewitnesses to the events in question and BWC footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario.

At about 10:48 p.m. of July 9, 2022, the SO and WO #1 were dispatched to a residence on Tree Sparroway, Toronto. CW #1, who resided at the address with her family, had called 911 to report a disturbance involving one of her sons, the Complainant.

The Complainant, who did not live at the address, had arrived at the residence to collect his mail. The Complainant, in possession of a knife, made threatening comments and his brothers, CW #2 and CW #3, intervened physically. The brothers were able to force the Complainant to the floor on his back, and used their greater manpower to keep him pinned. In short order, CW #2 dispossessed the Complainant of the knife. Fearing that he would retrieve another knife if they lost control of him, CW #2 and CW #3 kept the Complainant on the ground while they waited for the police to arrive.

CW #1 had reached a 911 operator at about 10:30 p.m. She indicated that the Complainant had a knife and was threatening to hurt people. She further noted that the Complainant, who suffered from a mental health disorder, was being held down by his brothers. In subsequent calls to police at 10:42 p.m. and 10:51 p.m., CW #1 explained that the knife had been taken away from the Complainant. [2]

The SO and WO #1 arrived on scene at about 10:53 p.m. They observed the Complainant lying prone on the ground in a dining room area just off the kitchen. Lying prone on top of the Complainant was CW #2. The officers took control of the Complainant’s arms and, with CW #2 now off his brother, handcuffed them behind his back.

Shortly after securing the restraints, the SO noticed that something was wrong; the Complainant’s eyes were not blinking and he was not breathing. WO #1 contacted EMS. The handcuffs were removed from the Complainant and the officers started CPR while they waited for the attendance of paramedics.

Paramedics and firefighters arrived about ten minutes later and took charge of resuscitative efforts.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and declared deceased at 12:02 a.m., July 10, 2022.

Section 215, Criminal Code - Failure to Provide Necessaries

(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person

(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and

(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.

(b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.

Section 220, Criminal Code -- Criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

On July 10, 2022, the Complainant, while in the custody of the TPS, was pronounced deceased. In the ensuing SIU investigation, one of the officers who had arrested the Complainant – 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 death.

The offences that arise for consideration are failure to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 215 and 220 of the Criminal Code, respectively. Both require something more than a simple want of care to give rise to liability. The former is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. The latter is premised on even more egregious conduct that demonstrates a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is not made out unless the neglect constitutes a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable standard of care. In the instant case, the question is whether there was any want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that endangered the Complainant’s life or caused his death. In my view, there was not.