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 serious injuries of a 39-year-old man (the “Complainant”)

Notification of the SIU

On August 28, 2022, at 10:36 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the TPS, on August 28, 2022, the Complainant was arrested by three TPS bicycle officers in the area of Jarvis Street and Shuter Street. The police officers involved were Witness Official (WO) #1, WO #2 and the Subject Official (SO). The officers each wore body-worn cameras (BWCs). The Complainant complained of an injury and was taken to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH), where he was diagnosed with a fractured maxilla bone. The Complainant stated that the injury occurred during his arrest.

The Scene

The scene was located on the west side of Jarvis Street in front of 190 Jarvis Street, north of Shuter Street, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

BWC Footage

The BWC recordings from WO #1, WO #2, the SO and WO #3 were obtained from TPS.
The following is a summary of the footage captured by the involved officers’ BWCs.


The SO

On August 28, 2022, at 1:42 p.m., the audio began on the footage. The SO was the second TPS bicycle police officer in pursuit of the Complainant. The Complainant was riding an electric scooter northbound in the middle of Jarvis Street, and carrying a second electric scooter over his left shoulder. WO #1 was the lead bicycle police officer and he was directly to the left of the Complainant as they rode along the centre of Jarvis Street.

At 1:43 p.m., WO #1 yelled at the Complainant to stop. The Complainant quickly jumped off his scooter and, with his forward momentum, continued to run northbound. WO #1 continued his forward momentum and rode past the Complainant. The SO jumped off his bicycle and chased the Complainant on foot.

Both the SO and the Complainant ran northbound on Jarvis Street. The SO reached out to grab the Complainant, and the Complainant lost his footing at the curb of the sidewalk west of the roadway. The Complainant fell forward to the ground and landed on the concrete sidewalk, on the left side of his body and face.

The SO was the first police officer to reach the Complainant. The officer attempted to control him on the ground as the Complainant resisted, struggling and rolling on the sidewalk.

WO #1 and WO #2 arrived one to two seconds later, and the three police officers gained physical control of the Complainant. The Complainant was held face down on the sidewalk and the officers struggled to control his arms. He was handcuffed with his hands behind his back, and advised of his rights as he sat on the sidewalk.

The Complainant had minor cuts to the right side of his face. He had swelling under his left eye.


WO #1

At 1:42 p.m., WO #1 activated his BWC; the first thirty seconds of footage had no audio. The weather was clear and sunny.

At 1:43 p.m., WO #1 rode his bicycle northbound on Jarvis Street approaching the Complainant from behind. The Complainant wore a shirt, jeans and shoes. He rode an electric scooter, and carried a second scooter over his left shoulder. WO #1 yelled at the Complainant to stop. The Complainant continued to ride his scooter on the roadway away from WO #1. WO #1 reached out with his right hand and grabbed the Complainant’s upper left side. The Complainant jumped off his scooter and ran northbound on Jarvis Street. WO #1 dropped his bicycle and pursued on foot.

The SO ran past WO #1. The SO caught up to the Complainant and reached out with both hands to grab him. The Complainant fell over the curb and landed onto the concrete sidewalk. The left side of his face hit the ground. The SO grabbed the Complainant’s upper body, and attempted to control and arrest the Complainant.

WO #1 arrived one to two seconds later, and the two police officers attempted to physically control the Complainant. He continued to resist on the ground. WO #1 delivered a series of right-handed punches in the direction of the Complainant’s torso. The Complainant was controlled and handcuffed with his hands behind his back with the assistance of WO #2, also arriving on scene.

The Complainant was brought to his feet, walked a short distance on the sidewalk, and placed up against the wall of the nearest building. He had minor cuts on his right cheek, a second cut above his right eyebrow, and a third minor cut above the second. He had bruising under his left eye.

At 1:49 p.m., the Complainant was walked to a police vehicle and placed in the rear seat.


WO #2

The video started without audio at 1:42 p.m. as WO #2 rode his TPS bicycle on Jarvis Street with the SO at his side.

At 1:43 p.m., WO #2 was the third bicycle police officer pursuing the Complainant on Jarvis Street. WO #1 was the lead bicycle police officer, with the SO the second. WO #1 was to the left of the Complainant, and he yelled at the Complainant to stop. The Complainant failed to stop; instead, he quickly stepped off his moving scooter and ran northbound on Jarvis Street. WO #1 rode past the Complainant, and the SO ran on foot behind the Complainant.

The SO was directly behind the Complainant. The SO reached out to grab the Complainant, and the Complainant fell onto the concrete sidewalk curb. As the Complainant fell onto the sidewalk, he was immediately controlled by the SO. Both the SO and WO #1 attempted to take hold of the Complainant, who struggled and rolled on the ground.

WO #2 was the third police officer on scene and assisted in the apprehension of the Complainant. The Complainant was handcuffed with his hands behind his back.

The Complainant had minor cuts to the right side of his face and minor swelling under his left eye.


WO #3

WO #3 recorded a video statement with his BWC from a witness on August 28, 2022, at 2:24 p.m. The witness was a security staff on patrol in the parking lot of the condominium building on Front Street at 1:30 p.m. when he saw a man [now known to be the Complainant]. The Complainant sat on an electric scooter, and stated he was waiting for his girlfriend. He provided the girlfriend’s name, with which the witness was unfamiliar. The Complainant carried a second electric scooter over his shoulder. The Complainant was told he was trespassing. An incoming car activated the overhead vehicular doors, and the Complainant rode out of the underground parking. The Complainant brushed passed the witness as he rode off. He chased the Complainant onto Lower Jarvis Street and called 911. He saw a police officer and told him what happened. The witness did not lose sight of the Complainant until the police caught up to him.

Custody Video

The following is a summary of the pertinent footage.

On August 28, 2022, at 2:45 p.m., the Complainant was paraded in front of WO #4 by WO #1. The Complainant was under arrest for ‘theft under’, ‘possession of property obtained by crime’, and outstanding warrants. WO #4 asked if the Complainant was seen by a paramedic, and WO #1 said, “No.” WO #4 asked if the Complainant requested medical treatment, and WO #1 said, “No.” WO #4 asked the Complainant if he was ‘okay’, and the Complainant said his head hurt. WO #4 informed WO #1 that the Complainant had to be taken to the hospital, and WO #1 advised he would call for an ambulance. WO #4 asked the Complainant how his head was feeling, and the Complainant said, “Bad.” WO #4 asked the Complainant if he fell off his scooter and the Complainant said, “Yeah.” WO #4 told the Complainant he would be provided medical attention.

Police Communications Recordings

The following is a summary of the pertinent recordings.

On August 28, 2022, at 1:39 p.m., a security guard at a condominium on Front Street East called 911 to report that a man [now known to be the Complainant] had stolen an electric scooter. The security guard provided a physical description of the Complainant. The Complainant rode away on one scooter, and carried a second scooter, headed towards Lower Jarvis Street.

At 1:40 p.m., the dispatcher broadcast information about the theft in progress and a description of the Complainant, who was travelling northbound on Jarvis Street.
At 1:43 p.m., WO #1 informed the dispatcher that the Complainant was in custody on Jarvis Street.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between August 29, 2022, and September 15, 2022:

• BWC footage;
• Communications recordings;
• Custody video;
• General Occurrence Reports;
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Reports;
• Notes- WO #1;
• Notes- WO #3;
• Notes- WO #2;
• Notes- WO #4;
• Known Offender Summary- the Complainant;
• Policy - Arrest; and
• Policy - Incident Response (Use of Force).

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:

• Medical documentation from SMH.

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, including BWC footage that captured the incident, and may briefly be summarized. As was his legal right, the SO declined an interview with the SIU and to authorize the release of his notes.

In the early afternoon of August 28, 2022, the TPS received a 911 call from security personnel at a condominium on Front Street East. Two callers reported that a male had just stolen two electric scooters from the underground parking of the building. The SO, together with WO #1 and WO #2, on bicycle patrol, made their way to the area.

The male was the Complainant. He had broken into the underground parking, stolen the scooters and fled the building – riding one of the scooters and carrying the other in a backpack. The officers caught up with the Complainant in the area of the Queen Street East and Jarvis Street intersection. The Complainant was riding the scooter northward in the middle of Jarvis Street. He was being pursued by WO #1, the SO and WO #2, in that order. WO #1 closed the distance to the Complainant and ordered him to stop. When he refused to do so, the officer reached out with his right hand and grabbed onto the Complainant’s backpack. The Complainant ditched his scooter at this time and ran in a northwest direction towards the west sidewalk.

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,

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on August 28, 2022. One of the officers – the SO – was identified as the subject official in the ensuing SIU investigation. 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.

Given what they had learned of the 911 call received by police of the Complainant’s theft, and what they gathered directly seeing him with the stolen electric scooters, the officers were within their rights in seeking to take him into custody.

With respect to the force used in the course of the arrest, namely, a takedown and several strikes to the torso, I am satisfied that it was legally justified. The Complainant was attempting to escape police apprehension when he was grounded. As he had given the officers no reason to believe that he would surrender peacefully – he ignored commands that he stop and then fled on foot once off the scooter – the SO acted reasonably in taking him down to stop his flight and more safely manage any continuing resistance. In fact, once on the ground, the Complainant refused to release his arms to the officers, leaving himself open to a further application of force. That force, consisting largely of several punches to the torso struck by WO #1, fell within the range of what was reasonable in the circumstances to overcome the Complainant’s recalcitrance.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injuries were incurred in the takedown that preceded his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe they are attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the SO. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.



Date: December 22, 2022


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit