SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OCI-190
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Mandate of the SIU
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, 2019Pursuant 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 ActPursuant 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.
- 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, 2004Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.
Other proceedings, processes, and investigationsInformation 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.
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 24-year-old male (the “Complainant”).
Notification of the SIUOn July 30, 2022, at 8:00 a.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.
According to the YRP, on July 30, 2022, at 1:28 a.m., YRP police officers were patrolling near Portage Parkway and Buttermill Avenue, Vaughan, when they saw a man acting suspiciously in a parking lot near parked cars. When the man [now known to be the Complainant] saw the police officers, he started to run away. Police officers gave chase and tackled the Complainant to the ground. The Complainant complained of soreness to his jaw. He was transported to Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital and diagnosed with a fractured jaw. The arresting police officer was the Subject Official (SO) in this investigation. Also on scene were Witness Officials (WO) #1, WO #2, and WO #3.
The TeamDate and time team dispatched: 07/30/2022 at 8:39 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 07/30/2022 at 9:29 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
One subject official and three witness officials were designated, with one being for notes only.
The Complainant was interviewed but did not sign a medical release, so the injury of a fractured jaw was unconfirmed.
A copy of the ambulance call report was requested and obtained.
Copies of the in-car camera system (ICCS) videos for six police vehicles and a copy of the radio communications were obtained.
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):24-year-old male; Interviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on August 3, 2022.
Subject OfficialSO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
Witness Officials (WO) WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #2 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on August 5, 2022.
The Scene The scene was located at the southeast corner of a parking lot located on the southeast corner of Edgeley Boulevard and Apple Mill Road, Vaughan.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence 
Police Communications RecordingsThe following is a summary of the pertinent communications recordings related to the events in question.
At 1:28 a.m., July 30, 2022, the SO advised dispatch that he was stopped behind a stolen vehicle. The SO advised the vehicle was not mobile. The SO described the driver as a white man wearing a light-coloured jacket. Ten seconds after his initial broadcast, the SO advised he was in a foot pursuit, and headed into a parking lot at 200 Apple Mill Road.
At 1:30 a.m., the SO advised he had one person in custody.
At 1:32 a.m., WO #3 advised she was with the stolen vehicle - a 2020 Mercedes Benz, white, SUV.
At 1:36 a.m., the SO requested Emergency Medical Services (EMS) as a precaution, as the arrested person, the Complainant, had been tackled during the arrest.
ICCS FootageThe following is a summary of the pertinent footage from various officers related to the events in question.
The video for the SO in YRP vehicle 1 started at 1:28 a.m. in a commercial area with tall buildings and wide-open parking lots. Vehicle 1 travelled around city blocks and, at 1:29 a.m., the emergency lights were activated. At 2:05 minutes into the recording, vehicle 1 stopped behind a Mercedes. Another police unit arrived off to the side of the camera, and the vehicle was searched by a police officer.
The video for WO #3 in vehicle 2 started at 1:28 a.m. on Edgeley Boulevard. At 1:29 a.m., WO #3 drove into a parking lot on Apple Mill Road. From a distance looking across the parking lot, and over Apple Mill Road, a man wearing a light-coloured jacket ran towards a white car and tried to flag down the car. The car travelled on, and the man was subsequently chased by a police officer. The man, the Complainant, was grounded by the police officer [now known to be the SO]. Details of the grounding could not be discerned because of the distance of the images from the camera.
The video for WO #2 in vehicle 3 started at 1:28 a.m. Vehicle 3 travelled for some time and arrived in a parking lot 2:05 minutes into the video. The Complainant was seen lying on his stomach with his hands handcuffed behind his back. The SO squatted to the side of the body.
Materials Obtained from Police ServiceUpon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials from YRP between August 2 and 17, 2022:
• Call History report;
• Criminal record – the Complainant;
• General Occurrence Report;
• Notes- WO #1;
• Notes- WO #3;
• Notes- WO #2;
• Police Information Portal – the Complainant;
• Training History- SO;
• Communications recordings;
• ICCS footage;
• Procedure-Processing the Offender-Arrest; and
• Procedure-Use of Force.
Materials Obtained from Other SourcesThe SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the following other sources:
• EMS records.
At about 1:30 a.m., the SO was on patrol with WO #1 in an unmarked police vehicle when they came upon a Mercedes SUV stopped awkwardly on Buttermill Avenue south of Portage Parkway. The SO ran a check on the vehicle’s licence plate and learned that the SUV had been reported stolen.
The Complainant was in the driver’s seat of the SUV. He exited the Mercedes and started to flee the area on foot.
The SO, the passenger in the cruiser, exited and pursued the Complainant on foot. The Complainant ran north and then west, and ultimately in a southwest direction across the parking lots on the northeast and southeast corners of the Edgely Boulevard and Apple Mill Road intersection. He fell on one or two occasions during his flight and was eventually tackled from behind by the SO. His jaw hit the pavement in the tackle causing it to fracture.
Within moments of the tackle, the SO was joined by his partner – WO #1 – and another officer. The Complainant was placed in handcuffs behind his back without further incident.
Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with his injury.
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,
Analysis and Director's Decision
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 Complainant was clearly subject to arrest at the point of the foot chase and tackle in light of his possession of a stolen vehicle.
I am also satisfied that the force brought to bear by the SO – a tackle – was legally justified. The Complainant was determined to avoid police apprehension and had led the officer on a spirited chase across city roads and parking lots. In the circumstances, it would appear that a tackle constituted a measured and proportionate use of force if the Complainant was to be stopped and taken into custody. Once on the ground, the Complainant complied fully and was arrested uneventfully.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than lawfully in his engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: November 22, 2022
Electronically approved by
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.