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 16-year-old male (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On February 14, 2023, at 3:53 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to TPS, on February 13, 2023, at around 7:40 p.m., police officers were called to 230 Lake Promenade for a disturbance involving three young persons. Police officers in plainclothes responded and located one of the young persons. The Complainant and another young person attacked the police officers with a machete. There was a brief struggle, and the Complainant and the other young persons fled the scene. More police officers attended the scene. With the assistance of the Emergency Task Force (ETF), a police service dog (PSD) and a drone, the Complainant and another young person were located in a shed on Park Boulevard. Both the Complainant and the other young male were arrested, taken into custody and held overnight at TPS 23 Division. On February 14, 2023, at around 9:40 a.m., the Complainant complained of pain in his left wrist. He was transported to Etobicoke General Hospital (EGH) and diagnosed with a ‘fractured left ulnar’. The left arm was placed in a cast and the Complainant was released from hospital back into the custody of the police.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 02/14/2023 at 4:48 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 02/14/2023 at 4:50 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

The Scene

The scene was the backyard of a residence on Park Boulevard.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

Video Footage – 230 Lake Promenade

The footage was obtained on March 9, 2023.

At 7:59:40 p.m., February 13, 2023, the video commenced.

Starting at about 7:59:46 p.m., a door opened and two people [now known to be the Complainant and Female #1] entered a hallway. The Complainant entered first followed by Female #1.

Starting at about 7:59:50 p.m., the Complainant and Female #1 appeared to be running or moving quickly. They disappeared from camera view away from the door.

Starting at about 7:59:55 p.m., Female #1 re-entered the view of the camera and ran towards the door.

Starting at about 7:59:56 p.m., the Complainant re-entered the view of the camera followed closely by another person [now known to be Male #1] running towards the door. Male #1 appeared to run into the back of the Complainant, who stumbled forward. As a result, the Complainant braced himself on the wall with his left hand, bending his left wrist. Officer #1, in plainclothes, was chasing Female #1, the Complainant and Male #1. Officer #1 had his pistol in his right hand and a cell phone or radio in his left.

At 7:59:57 p.m., the parties disappeared from camera view after exiting the door.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and officers present at the time of the events in question, as well as video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officials chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of their notes.

In the evening of February 13, 2023, a TPS ETF team mobilized in the area of 230 Lake Promenade, Toronto. Together with a canine unit, the team was there to assist in the search for two males, one of whom had reportedly attacked another TPS officer – Officer #1 – with a machete.

Officer #1, in plainclothes at the time, was among a number of officers dispatched to the address following a call to police from a man at that address. The man had called to report the presence of three persons – two males and a female - in the underground parking garage whom he suspected were going to steal a vehicle. One of them had a large rock in hand. Officer #1 had engaged one of the suspects – Male #1 – in the garage when he was confronted by the Complainant wielding a sword. Officer #1 released his hold of Male #1 and drew his gun, prompting Male #1 and the Complainant to flee. The officer gave chase on foot, and broadcast a description of the males and the fact that they were last seen fleeing northward towards Park Boulevard. The time was about 8:00 p.m.

Male #1 and the Complainant had found refuge inside a shed in the backyard of a nearby residence on Park Boulevard. There, they waited until about 8:50 p.m., at which time their location was discovered by the police dog. Ordered to come out by ETF officers, the Complainant was the first to do so. He stepped out of the shed with his arms extended and was immediately pulled to the ground by SO #1. Male #1 was next to exit and was taken into custody.

Following a short struggle involving SO #1, SO #3 and SO #2, the Complainant was handcuffed behind the back and escorted to the front of the residence and a waiting cruiser. SO #3 was to the Complainant’s left and SO #2 to the right and back, both with a hold of the Complainant. As they neared the rear driver’s side of the police SUV-type cruiser, SO #2 pushed the Complainant forward by the back against the vehicle. That action resulted in the Complainant’s handcuffed arms being pushed upwards behind his back.

The Complainant was checked by paramedics on scene and then taken to the station. He subsequently complained of pain to his left wrist and was transported to hospital where he was diagnosed with a fracture in the area.

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 and around the time of his arrest by TPS officers on February 13, 2023. In the ensuing SIU investigation of the incident, three TPS officers were identified as subject officials – SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the subject officials 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 Complainant was subject to arrest when he was taken into custody by the ETF officers. He matched the description of the male who had reportedly swung a machete at Officer #1 at 230 Lake Promenade and he was found trespassing and hiding on the grounds of a nearby address. Once in lawful custody, the officers were entitled to restrict his movements in order that he be processed according to law.

With respect to the force used by SO #1, SO #3 and SO #2, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was unlawful. There is a version of events proffered in the evidence that the Complainant was repeatedly kicked and punched after being taken to the ground despite having surrendered voluntarily and not offered any resistance. That rendition of events is contested by the eyewitness evidence of WO #1, also involved in the Complainant’s arrest. While acknowledging that the Complainant was immediately pulled down by SO #1, WO #1 says that the Complainant struggled with the officers on the ground by refusing to lie flat and release his arms, and kicking out with his legs. According to WO #1, he reacted by kicking at the Complainant’s legs to force him flat and SO #1 struck the Complainant with a punch. Shortly thereafter, with the assistance of SO #3, the Complainant was handcuffed without further incident. In view of this conflict in the evidence, it would appear as likely as not that the officers’ rendition of events is the more accurate version. That being the case, the force described by the officers would not appear disproportionate in view of the exigencies of the moment. That is to say, it makes sense that the officers would want to immediately ground the Complainant, whom they had reason to believe had recently attacked another officer with a machete and might still be armed and dangerous, and then use a quantum of physical force to quickly subdue him when he struggled against their efforts to arrest him on the ground. As for the shove in the back as SO #3 and SO #2 accompanied the Complainant to the cruiser, the force used was minimal, resulted in a negligible impact, and was more in the nature of SO #2 assertively pinning the Complainant against the vehicle so that he could be searched as opposed to abusive and gratuitous force. While the result was that the Complainant’s arms were forced upwards slightly behind the back, the officer’s conduct did not transgress the limits of justifiable force in the circumstances.

It remains unclear when precisely the Complainant fractured his left wrist. The evidence gives rise to the distinct possibility that the injury was incurred as he stumbled fleeing from police prior to his arrest. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the subject officials comported themselves other than lawfully in their dealings with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: June 14, 2023


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit