SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-TCI-282
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
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.
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 section 14 (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, 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 of a 57-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).
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 57-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On October 28, 2022, at 7:29 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.On October 27, 2022, at 5:34 p.m., two police officers responded to an ‘unwanted guest’ call in a building in the area of Eglinton Avenue East and Mount Pleasant Road, Toronto. When the officers arrived, staff were asking the Complainant to leave but she was refusing. The police officers negotiated with the Complainant to leave but she refused. The officers picked the Complainant up off of a chair and brought her to the ground. She was subsequently taken to the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC), and diagnosed with fractures and a broken septum. The Complainant had since left the hospital.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 10/28/2022 at 9:12 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 11/01/2022 at 10:00 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
57-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on November 1, 2022.
Civilian Witnesses
CW Interviewed The civilian witness was interviewed on November 2, 2022.
Subject Official
SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed The subject official was interviewed on November 16, 2022.
Witness Official
WO Interviewed The witness official was interviewed on November 16, 2022.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question took place inside the room of a building in the Eglinton Avenue East and Mount Pleasant Road area of Toronto.The SIU did not attend the scene.
Figure 1 - Floor plan of room
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]
Video Footage – Building
On November 2, 2022, the SIU obtained surveillance video for the building. The footage contained nothing of relevance except for some imagery at about at 6:29 p.m. - a view of the hallway on the floor with the relevant room immediately under the camera view. This video segment showed the Complainant exit the room behind building staff.
Police Communications Recordings
On November 7, 2022, the TPS provided the SIU communications recordings in connection with the incident under investigation. The following is a summary of the pertinent recordings.On October 27, 2022, at 1:38 p.m., staff called 911 and reported a client, the Complainant, was refusing to leave her room, which had just been treated with chemicals. The Complainant could be verbally aggressive and violent with staff, and she was believed to have mental health issues.
At 3:49 p.m., a TPS dispatcher broadcast a request for an available unit to attend the call for service.
At 5:34 p.m., the SO and the WO were dispatched.
At 6:27 p.m., the WO informed police communications that the Complainant was in custody and requested an ambulance.
At 7:14 p.m., the SO indicated the Complainant had been released, and the ambulance was on the scene.
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage
On October 28, 2022, the TPS provided the SIU footage from the BWCs of the SO and the WO in connection with the incident under investigation. The following is a summary of the footage.On October 27, 2022, at 5:47 p.m., the SO and the WO were captured in an elevator at the building in the Eglinton Avenue East and Mount Pleasant Road area, Toronto, with the CW. They all exited the elevator and attended the relevant room.
At 5:48 p.m., the SO announced, “Toronto Police,” and the door was answered by the Complainant. The SO explained the police had been called by staff because she was required to leave the room for a chemical bed bug treatment. The Complainant was argumentative and said she would not leave.
At 5:51 p.m., the Complainant, in the doorway to the unit, said, “Are you really cops? You’re awfully short to be cops,” and tried to shut the door, which was blocked by the WO.
At 5:54 p.m., the SO was in the hallway speaking with the CW and said he did not want to have to drag the Complainant out. The SO muted his BWC, walked towards the elevators, and made a cellular telephone call.
At 5:57 p.m., the SO returned to the room. The Complainant was inside and the WO was at the doorway telling her that the staff had to explain something to her. The CW explained to the Complainant that they had tried three times to resolve the matter with her and that she had been discharged from the building. The SO added they wanted to be diplomatic and asked the Complainant to leave on “your own accord”.
At 6:02 p.m., the SO said, “[The Complainant], you have to leave. You have to leave this room.” The Complainant demanded a letter and the CW agreed to prepare a letter.
At 6:07 p.m., the SO told the Complainant she had 10 to 15 minutes to pack her belongings. The Complainant began to shut the door against the WO, which caused her to fall back. The Complainant then screamed at the WO, coming face-to-face with her with both hands up with her index fingers centimetres from the WO’s face.
At 6:09 p.m., the SO instructed the Complainant to go in and pack her belongings. She replied, “Fuck you,” and walked back into the unit. The SO and the WO remained in the hallway with the door to the room slightly ajar.
At 6:22 p.m., the WO entered the room and said, “[The Complainant], its Toronto Police, just checking how the packing is going.” The Complainant was seated on a chair with her arms folded in front of her. The SO told the Complainant they had given her time to pack and did not want to have to physically take her out. The Complainant replied, “You’re not police officers. I’m in telepathic contact with Toronto Police. Your numbers are fake.” The SO and the WO repeated the Complainant had to leave immediately.
Between 6:24 p.m. to 6:25 p.m., the SO muted his BWC, left the room and made a cellular telephone call. The SO returned to the unit and said, “[The Complainant], if you’re not going to leave right now, we’re going to arrest you. We’ll take you out and release you outside the property. Under the TPA [Trespass to Property Act], refuse to leave when directed.” The Complainant refused to leave, and both police officers approached her. She was seated on a chair against the wall furthest from the entrance with her arms folded in front of her.
The SO took hold of the Complainant’s left upper and lower arm; the WO took her right arm. The Complainant yelled and pulled her arms back, after which she stood up while the police officers held her. She continued to scream and tried to pull away, then went down to the ground with the police officers behind her. The Complainant was facing the ground, her arms in front of her in a “push up” position, and stated her nose was broken.
At 6:26 p.m., the SO instructed the Complainant to put her arms behind her back, and took her left arm and placed it behind her back. The WO took the Complainant’s right arm and placed it behind her back, and the SO handcuffed her. The Complainant complained about her nose, saying it was “bleeding”. The SO asked her if she wanted an ambulance. She replied she did want an ambulance, and it was requested over the police radio.
At 6:27 p.m., the Complainant was assisted to a seated position on the floor. The SO informed her of her rights to counsel.
At 6:37 p.m., the Complainant walked on her own out of the unit and down the hallway to the elevator with the police officers behind her.
At 6:51 p.m., Toronto Fire Services arrived and treated the Complainant.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from TPS between October 28 and November 15, 2022:- Communications recordings;
- BWC footage;
- Policy - Incident Response;
- Event Details Report;
- Notes – SO;
- Notes - WO;
- Scene photos; and
- General Occurrence Report.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:- Security Incident Report;
- Incident Reports from staff;
- Building map;
- Building plan for room;
- Building video;
- EMS records – Toronto Paramedic Services; and
- Medical records – SHSC.
Incident Narrative
The events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, and may briefly be summarized.
In the late afternoon of October 27, 2022, the SO and his partner, the WO, were dispatched to a building in the area of Eglinton Avenue East and Mount Pleasant Road, Toronto. Staff had contacted police to report that a female – the Complainant – was refusing to vacate her room. The Complainant had repeatedly been asked to leave as the room was scheduled to be fumigated for bed bugs.
The officers arrived on scene and, together with members of staff, made their way up to the Complainant’s room. The officers explained why the Complainant needed to leave and attempted to convince her to do so. The Complainant was adamant that she would not leave. At times, she questioned whether the SO and the WO were actually police officers. After much back-and-forth, the SO told the Complainant that she had 15 minutes to pack her belongings.
When the 15 minutes were up, the officers entered to find the Complainant seated in a chair by her bed. She had not packed her bags. The Complainant was warned a final time by the SO to leave or she would be arrested, and remained steadfast in her refusal. The officers approached the Complainant, each taking a hold of an arm, and attempted to lift her from the chair. The Complainant attempted to pull her arms away from the officers and physically resisted their efforts. Once up on her feet, she continued to struggle. The parties pushed and pulled, and the Complainant lost her balance, falling face first onto the floor and suffering a broken nose in the process. The time was about 6:25 p.m.
The Complainant was transported in ambulance to hospital from the scene, where her injury was diagnosed
In the late afternoon of October 27, 2022, the SO and his partner, the WO, were dispatched to a building in the area of Eglinton Avenue East and Mount Pleasant Road, Toronto. Staff had contacted police to report that a female – the Complainant – was refusing to vacate her room. The Complainant had repeatedly been asked to leave as the room was scheduled to be fumigated for bed bugs.
The officers arrived on scene and, together with members of staff, made their way up to the Complainant’s room. The officers explained why the Complainant needed to leave and attempted to convince her to do so. The Complainant was adamant that she would not leave. At times, she questioned whether the SO and the WO were actually police officers. After much back-and-forth, the SO told the Complainant that she had 15 minutes to pack her belongings.
When the 15 minutes were up, the officers entered to find the Complainant seated in a chair by her bed. She had not packed her bags. The Complainant was warned a final time by the SO to leave or she would be arrested, and remained steadfast in her refusal. The officers approached the Complainant, each taking a hold of an arm, and attempted to lift her from the chair. The Complainant attempted to pull her arms away from the officers and physically resisted their efforts. Once up on her feet, she continued to struggle. The parties pushed and pulled, and the Complainant lost her balance, falling face first onto the floor and suffering a broken nose in the process. The time was about 6:25 p.m.
The Complainant was transported in ambulance to hospital from the scene, where her injury was diagnosed
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.
Section 2(1), Trespass to Property Act -- Trespass an offence
2 (1) Every person who is not acting under a right or authority conferred by law and who,
(a) without the express permission of the occupier, the proof of which rests on the defendant,
(i) enters on premises when entry is prohibited under this Act, or(ii) engages in an activity on premises when the activity is prohibited under this Act; or
(b) does not leave the premises immediately after he or she is directed to do so by the occupier of the premises or a person authorized by the occupier,
is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000.
Section 9 (1), Trespass to Property Act – Arrest without warrant on premises
9 (1) A police officer, or the occupier of premises, or a person authorized by the occupier may arrest without warrant any person he or she believes on reasonable and probable grounds to be on the premises in contravention of section 2.Analysis and Director's Decision
The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of her arrest by TPS officers on October 27, 2022. In the ensuing SIU investigation of the incident, 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 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.
The Complainant had been discharged from the building and was legally obligated to leave when asked to do so, first by the staff and then, acting on behalf of the staff, the SO and the WO. When the Compainant refused to do so, she was subject to arrest under section 9(1) of the Trespass to Property Act.
With respect to the force used by the officers in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, I am satisfied that it was legally justified. This consisted of no more than the officers taking hold of her arms and attempting to control them as the Complainant fought with the officers to release their grip. The BWC footage establishes that the officers were not heavy-handed in the dealings with the Complainant, and that her fall was an unfortunate consequence of the dynamics of the struggle then ongoing. No strikes of any kind were delivered by either officer.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the SO or the WO comported themselves other than lawfully in their dealings with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.
Date: February 24, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
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 had been discharged from the building and was legally obligated to leave when asked to do so, first by the staff and then, acting on behalf of the staff, the SO and the WO. When the Compainant refused to do so, she was subject to arrest under section 9(1) of the Trespass to Property Act.
With respect to the force used by the officers in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, I am satisfied that it was legally justified. This consisted of no more than the officers taking hold of her arms and attempting to control them as the Complainant fought with the officers to release their grip. The BWC footage establishes that the officers were not heavy-handed in the dealings with the Complainant, and that her fall was an unfortunate consequence of the dynamics of the struggle then ongoing. No strikes of any kind were delivered by either officer.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the SO or the WO comported themselves other than lawfully in their dealings with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.
Date: February 24, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 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]
Note:
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.