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 injury of a 36-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On January 7, 2023, at 12:30 a.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) notified the SIU of an injury to a male.

According to the YRP, on January 6, 2023, at approximately 8:15 p.m., plainclothes members of the YRP High Risk Offender Unit (HROU) were following an individual who had breached his release conditions. They requested uniform patrol officers to assist with a vehicle stop. Police cruisers responded and boxed-in the vehicle in the area of Rose Branch Drive and Aristotle Drive. The suspect [now known to be the Complainant] initially refused to exit the vehicle, but subsequently unlocked the vehicle door. Police officers physically engaged the Complainant, who struck his face on the ground. The Complainant was transported to Mackenzie Health Richmond Hill Hospital (MHRHH), where he was diagnosed with an orbital fracture. Upon his release, the Complainant was transported to the Richmond Hill Detachment of the YRP.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in front of a home on Aristotle Drive, Richmond Hill.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Video Footage - WO #2’s Cruiser

Starting at about 8:19 p.m., a fully marked Ford Explorer operated by WO #2 was captured travelling on Rose Branch Drive. As WO #2 approached Aristotle Drive, a southbound vehicle [now known to be a YRP unmarked SUV operated by the SO] flashed its headlights at WO #2. The SO turned left onto Aristotle Drive, and WO #2 turned right and followed the SO.

Starting at about 8:20:05 p.m., a dark vehicle was captured travelling westward on Aristotle Drive. The vehicle - a Mercedes - passed the SO and continued west towards WO #2’s police vehicle. WO #2 activated his emergency lights and stopped in front of the Mercedes. The Mercedes stopped, reversed into a driveway, and travelled back onto the street, turning left.

Starting at about 8:20:24 p.m., the front of WO #2’s vehicle collided into the passenger side of the Mercedes, which caused the Mercedes to rock slightly. The SO reversed his SUV to block-in the Mercedes at the front driver’s side of the vehicle. A set of headlights from a vehicle - a YRP silver Kia van operated by WO #1 - travelled towards the rear driver’s side of the Mercedes.

Starting at about 8:20:32 p.m., a tall man in plainclothes with a dark toque - the SO - exited his SUV and walked towards the driver’s side of the Mercedes. The SO had his gun drawn and pointed with his right hand at the driver of the Mercedes - the Complainant. WO #2 approached the passenger side of the Mercedes from the back with his gun drawn. The Complainant appeared to be speaking on a cellular telephone, which he held in his left hand. A man in plainclothes with dark hair - WO #1 - approached the front driver’s side of the Mercedes. WO #1 had his gun drawn and pointed at the Complainant.

Starting at about 8:20:44 p.m., the Complainant put both his hands up in the air and turned away from the police officers, looking down towards the area of the vehicle’s console.

Starting at about 8:20:56 p.m., the Complainant handed something to the SO, later determined to be keys to the Mercedes. The Complainant then turned to his right.

Starting at about 8:21:10 p.m., the SO unlocked the door, and WO #1 opened the door after the SO holstered his gun.

Starting at about 8:21:15 p.m., the SO reached into the Mercedes and grabbed the Complainant, pulling him out of the Mercedes. The Complainant went down to the roadway and out of sight.

Starting at about 8:21:18 p.m., the SO appeared to be on his knees with his back to the camera. There appeared to be a swinging motion downwards with his right hand, but the image was obstructed because of the glare from the left headlight of WO #1’s Kia. WO #2 reached into the car and appeared to pull something out. WO #2 then closed the door and bent down out of sight. The only thing seen was glare.

Starting at about 8:22:11 p.m., a uniformed female police officer - WO #3 - came into the view of the camera from the back of the Mercedes. WO #3 walked around the back of WO #1’s van and continued between the van and the SO’s SUV, to where the police officers were on the roadway. The Complainant was lifted to his feet by the SO on his left side and WO #2 on his right side, and he was handcuffed with his hands behind his back. A uniformed police officer - WO #4 - approached from the front of the Mercedes. The Complainant was walked a short distance and placed face down on the grass outside the fence at the side of a residence on Aristotle Drive. WO #4 and WO #2 searched the Complainant without incident.

Starting at about 8:22:31 p.m., a woman wearing a white sweater approached from the front of the residence. The woman [now known to be the owner of the Mercedes, CW #2] was ushered back to the front of the house by WO #3.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, and a review of video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the evening of January 6, 2023, the Complainant was driving a Mercedes vehicle westbound on Aristotle Drive, towards Rose Branch Drive, when he was confronted by a marked YRP vehicle travelling eastward towards him. The cruiser maneuvered into the path of the Mercedes, prompting the Complainant to stop and reverse course. He travelled backwards onto the driveway of a home, on the north side of the road, before accelerating forward again and turning slightly left. As he did so, the passenger side of the Complainant’s vehicle was struck by the cruiser. At about the same time, two unmarked police vehicles further surrounded the Mercedes - one by the driver’s side front of the vehicle, the other by the rear of the driver’s side.

Unknown to the Complainant at the time, officers with the YRP HROU had commenced an investigation of his activities on that date to ensure he was in compliance with a condition of his bail that he not leave his residence other than while in the company of his surety. The team had followed the Complainant earlier in the afternoon and observed him operating the Mercedes alone. Believing him to be in violation of his bail, the team arranged to have a marked cruiser conduct a traffic stop in order to arrest the Complainant.

WO #2 was the driver of the marked cruiser that had been directed to Aristotle Drive to stop the Complainant’s vehicle. He had followed a member of the HROU operating an unmarked SUV - the SO - onto the road. The driver of the third police vehicle that surrounded the Mercedes - an unmarked van - was WO #1.

The SO and WO #1 exited their vehicles and approached the driver’s side of the Mercedes with their guns drawn and pointed at the Complainant. At the officers’ direction, the Complainant turned off the ignition and handed the SO his car keys through the open driver’s door window. He refused to exit the Mercedes and closed the driver’s door window. The driver’s door was unlocked and opened, after which the SO grabbed the Complainant and forced him out onto the ground. WO #1 and WO #2 assisted in the extraction process. Following a short period of struggle on the ground, the officers took control of the Complainant’s arms and handcuffed them behind the back.

The Complainant was lifted to his feet following his arrest and walked to a grassy area on the south side of the road where he was searched. He would subsequently be taken to hospital and diagnosed with a right orbital fracture.

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 during his arrest by YRP officers in Richmond Hill on January 6, 2023. One of the arresting 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 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.

I am satisfied that the SO was engaged in the lawful exercise of his duties when he sought to take the Complainant into custody. He was acting on information that members of the HROU had observed the Complainant operating a vehicle alone - a violation of a term of the Complainant’s release rendering him subject to arrest.

With respect to the force used by the SO, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was excessive. The takedown from the vehicle seems a reasonable tactic given the officers had reason to be concerned that the Complainant might be armed with a firearm (he was on bail for firearms offences) and he had refused to exit the Mercedes when directed. Forcing the Complainant to the ground would mitigate the risk of any weapons being brought to bear. Thereafter, there is no clear evidence of the Complainant having been struck by any of the officers. The ICCS footage was equivocal in this regard. While it captured a swinging motion by the SO in the direction of the Complainant, the action was consistent with an altercation of the nature described by the SO and the other officers, namely, the officers grappling to wrest control of the Complainant’s arms as he refused to release them willingly.

There is some evidence the Complainant was punched once as he was being pulled from the Mercedes, and repeatedly kneed and kicked while on the ground, but it would be unwise and unsafe to rest charges on the strength of this evidence. The force described is not substantiated by the ICCS video footage. The same footage also establishes that the Complainant was walked to a grassy area before he was searched, and not, as the source of this evidence claims, dragged across the ground face-first. For these and other reasons, this account of what occurred is insufficiently reliable to warrant being put to the test by a court.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant broke his orbital bone in the course of the physical confrontation that marked his arrest by YRP officers, perhaps the result of his face hitting the ground in the takedown from the Mercedes, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the injury is attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the SO.


Date: May 5, 2023

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit