SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OVI-109
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 a serious injury sustained by a 33-year-old man (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 a serious injury sustained by a 33-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On April 13, 2023, at 4:07 p.m., the Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information. Earlier that day, a male [later identified as the Complainant] stole a vehicle in Whitby. DRPS officers initiated a pursuit of the vehicle, which was subsequently terminated in Whitby. Sometime thereafter, a motor vehicle collision was reported at Neilson Avenue and Finch Avenue, Toronto. The vehicle rolled over and citizens reported seeing a man fleeing the area on foot. When Toronto Police Service (TPS) officers arrived, they determined the involved vehicle to be the one stolen from Whitby by the Complainant and pursued by the DRPS. It was reported that the Complainant then stole a Purolator truck, resulting in a search for the truck by the DRPS, TPS and the York Regional Police (YRP). The YRP used its service helicopter in the search. The truck was found and officers from the three police services became involved in a pursuit. The Purolator truck stopped on Brimley Road north of Ellesmere Road where the Complainant fled on foot while being tracked by the YRP helicopter. The Complainant jumped off a raised parking structure and headed towards Brimley Road and Ellesmere Road. The involved DRPS officers arrested the Complainant after deploying a conducted energy weapon (CEW). He was taken to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC) for treatment of a large laceration to his leg and, at the time of notification, was in the Intensive Care Unit.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 04/13/2023 at 5:40 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 04/13/2023 at 6:45 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
33-year-old male; declined an interview; medical records obtained and reviewedCivilian Witnesses
CW #1 Interviewed CW #2 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between April 14, 2023, and May 3, 2023.
Witness Officials
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Interviewed
WO #6 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed between April 18, 2023, and May 26, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
There were two scenes of interest to the investigation. The first scene was the resting position of a damaged Purolator delivery van, and the second was the location of the Complainant’s arrest. The white Purolator delivery van was a 2014 Ford E-450 cube van. It was stopped on the west side of Brimley Road approximately 110 metres north of Ellesmere Road. It had significant damage to the right front corner. It did not appear that the vehicle had hit anything at this location. The truck had an open door on the right side of the vehicle and was without a door on the driver’s side. Around the right-side door were several jagged pieces of metal from a collision. One of the sharp edges had a blood stain.
Figure 1 – A Purolator cube van with apparent damage to the right-side door area stopped on the west side of Brimley Road
The second scene was located on the south side of Ellesmere Road approximately 190 metres east of Brimley Road. There were three unmarked police vehicles at his location: a silver Ford F150, parked on the south sidewalk of Ellesmere Road facing east; a black Ford F150, parked facing south, partially blocking the south sidewalk of Ellesmere Road; and, a black Nissan Altima, parked on Ellesmere Road angled towards the south sidewalk. The three vehicles converged together partially blocking the sidewalk.
SIU forensic investigators examined the area between the two scenes and a blood trail was found leading from the Purolator truck through a condominium complex on the northeast corner of Brimley Road and Ellesmere Road. The blood trail ended in a courtyard for the condominium complex. Blood was found on the iron fence railing on the north side of Ellesmere Road. The iron fence protected the 6-metre drop from the courtyard to the sidewalk.
Figure 2 - Iron-fence at the condominium complex at Ellesmere Road and Brimley Road
Scene Diagram
Forensic Evidence
On Monday April 17, 2023, at 2:15 p.m., SIU forensic investigators arrived at the DRPS Professional Standards Office and met with an officer who provided a CEW Model X2. Data from the weapon for April 13, 2023, was downloaded, per below. 
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]
YRP Helicopter Footage
On April 14, 2023, the SIU obtained a copy of pertinent video footage from the YRP helicopter. Starting at about 12:09 p.m., April 13, 2023, a Purolator truck was captured reaching Brimley Road from Omni Drive. It failed to make a U-turn on Omni Drive and proceeded south on Brimley Road in the northbound lane of traffic.
Starting at about 12:10 p.m., the truck rolled to a slow stop on the west side of Brimley Road and the driver – the Complainant - stumbled from the truck through the passenger door. His movement was staggered in the doorway, and he fell to the ground. He immediately got to his feet and ran across the four lanes of Brimley Road through traffic. The Complainant scaled the metal fence that led to a townhouse complex. Two unmarked police vehicles pulled alongside the gate [the first vehicle now known to be operated by WO #1] as the Complainant ran along a walkway between two blocks of townhouses in the complex. Once through the walkway, the Complainant walked in a southerly direction. The Complainant looked back, began to run, and dropped his cellular phone. He picked it up and ran east in front of an apartment building. Once at the end of the apartment building, he ran south towards Ellesmere Road.
Starting at about 12:11 p.m., the Complainant straddled the metal railing onto a stone ledge and shuffled east along the wall a short distance. WO #1 appeared at the wall. The Complainant next appeared at the base of the wall, which was approximately 4.5 to 6 metres in height. The Complainant rolled to his feet and ran east on Ellesmere into a lightly wooded area.
Starting at about 12:12 p.m., the Complainant walked south across the six lanes of Ellesmere Road to the wooded area on the south side. The Complainant attempted to climb a fence before an unmarked, black police vehicle blocked the Complainant’s path. A second unmarked, silver police vehicle pulled-up immediately behind the Complainant’s position. The Complainant appeared to raise his arms in surrender before the first plainclothes officer from the black vehicle grappled with the Complainant from the right side and pushed him into the hood of the silver vehicle. The Complainant appeared off-balance and extended his left arm and hand to the silver vehicle’s hood for support. The first plainclothes police officer wrestled with the Complainant from the rear, and pulled him away from the silver vehicle while the police officer’s left hand attempted to control the back of the Complainant’s neck. The Complainant was spun around, and his left shoulder collided with the right side of the black vehicle. A second plainclothes police officer from the silver vehicle engaged with the Complainant and, together, the two police officers forcibly took the Complainant to the ground. Two more plainclothes police officers engaged with the Complainant on the ground as he was taken into custody. A marked police vehicle and multiple unmarked vehicles arrived at the scene. Multiple plainclothes police officers wearing vests marked ‘police’ crowded around the Complainant as he was on the ground, while a uniformed police officer stood nearby. WO #1 arrived at the scene.
Starting at about 12:13 p.m., police officers stood back, and the Complainant was visible face down on the ground before he was turned onto his left side.
Starting at about 12:14 p.m., audio confirmed no medical attention was required for police officers, but Emergency Medical Services should be called for the Complainant.
Starting at about 12:15 p.m., audio confirmed that a CEW had been deployed at the Complainant but not by a TPS officer.
Starting at about 12:16 p.m., the Complainant was seated against the curb on Ellesmere Road, handcuffed to the rear. The Complainant conversed with the multiple police officers surrounding him.
The video ended at 12:19 p.m.
Business Surveillance Footage
On April 14, 2023, at 1625 p.m., the SIU obtained a copy of pertinent video footage from a business. The video camera captured the four lanes of Brimley Road, which ran in a north and south direction, and the property across the road. On April 13, 2023, at 1211 p.m., the video began. A Purolator truck turned south on Brimley Road, veered across the four lanes of traffic, slowed to a crawl as it entered the driveway of a business, and eased to a stop. The truck straddled the sidewalk and stopped on the grassy boulevard in front of the business.
The truck had significant damage to the right front quarter section, which included a cracked windshield, and absent headlight and quarter panel. A large piece of metal dragged under the right side. Both windshield wipers were engaged.
During the slow stop, an individual – the Complainant – was visible through the windshield as he climbed from the driver’s seat to the passenger area. Before the vehicle was fully stopped, the Complainant fell from the open passenger area onto the ground, and landed on his right side. He stood and moved along the right side of the delivery truck to the rear, where he was obscured from sight. He emerged from the rear of the truck and ran across Brimley Road, through four lanes of traffic, to the east side of the road.
The Complainant reached a metal gate to the residential property complex on Omni Drive. He climbed over the closed gate, as he pulled his upper body up and hopped over. His right leg caught a gap in the railing, and he dragged it through.
As the Complainant scaled the railing, a dark-coloured, four-door sedan [now known to be driven by WO #1] drove southbound on the northbound side of Brimley Road and parked in front of the gate. WO #1 was immediately joined by a grey-coloured four-door sedan which traveled in the southbound lane and cut across lanes to park behind her vehicle.
The Complainant moved quickly up steps to the right of the gate and slowed to a walk as he travelled east on a walkway between two buildings of the complex. He reached the far corner of the building and turned to the right out of view.
The grey sedan pulled away in a southbound direction on Brimley Road.
As the Complainant disappeared, WO #1 emerged from the driver’s side of the parked sedan. She scaled the gate and moved quickly in the same direction as the Complainant, out of view. WO #1 was wearing a vest with the word ‘police’ visibly printed.
At 12:13 p.m., a man briefly appeared to view the scene.
Starting at about 12:19 p.m., a marked TPS SUV with its lights activated arrived and parked in the southbound lane near the truck. A male police officer emerged and engaged with three individuals who had followed the Purolator truck to the location.
The video ended at 12:20:33 p.m.
Surveillance Footage – Omni Forest Mansions
On April 20, 2023, the SIU obtained a copy of video footage from Omni Forest Mansions, situated at 115 to 125 Omni Drive.On April 13, 2023, at 12:10 p.m., a man – the Complainant - ran east across four live lanes of traffic on Brimley Road. The Complainant ran up to and climbed over the gate onto the property of Omni Forest Mansions. For a couple of seconds, the Complainant’s right leg got hung-up on the top of the gate before he dropped below on the steps.
Starting at about 12:10:49 p.m., a dark-coloured vehicle [now known to be WO #1] stopped along the east curb of Brimley Road by the gate. A second vehicle pulled up behind WO #1, but immediately left, southbound on Brimley Road.
The Complainant ran south up five cement steps and, at 12:10:50 p.m., turned south out of sight [now known to be a walkway between two sets of townhouses].
WO #1, who wore a police vest, got out of her police vehicle, climbed over the gate, and went up the steps. At 12:11:15 p.m., she disappeared into the walkway.
Starting at about 12:11:07 p.m., the Complainant came out of the walkway and walked south down the inner complex roadway towards 123 Omni Drive.
Starting at about 12:11:21 p.m., WO #1 came out of the walkway as the Complainant arrived at the curve in the roadway. The roadway then crossed the front of 123 Omni Drive. The Complainant saw WO #1 and, as he began to run, he dropped his cellular telephone. The Complainant picked up his phone and ran to the east end of 123 Omni Drive. The Complainant then ran south towards Ellesmere Drive. WO #1 ran after the Complainant as she spoke on her portable radio.
Starting at about 12:11:38 p.m., the Complainant arrived at the south end of the property. The Complainant was seen through the trees going east while against a black railing. At 12:11:47 p.m., he dropped out of sight. Two seconds later, WO #1 arrived at the railing and then ran east along the top of the wall to the end. WO #1 ran north towards 125 Omni Drive, through the common area and out of sight. She was using her portable radio.
Starting at about 12:12:23 p.m., a woman exited the complex property through the gate at the east side of the complex. On the far side of the gate was a sidewalk that ran along the fence line towards Ellesmere Drive. A wooded area was to the east.
Starting at about 12:12:29 p.m., WO #1 ran north on the sidewalk, went through the gate, and then south on the other side towards Ellesmere Drive.
The video ended at 12:12:45 p.m. as WO #1 arrived near Ellesmere Drive.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
The SIU obtained the following records from the DRPS, TPS, and YRP between April 14, 2023, and May 19, 2023:- Notes – WO #6;
- Notes – WO #5;
- Notes – WO #1;
- Notes – WO #3; and
- YRP helicopter footage.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between April 17, 2023, and April 27, 2023: - The Complainant’s medical records from SHSC;
- Video footage from a business; and
- Video footage from Omni Forest Mansions.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario.
In the morning of April 13, 2023, the Complainant became the subject of an interjurisdictional search involving the DRPS, TPS and YRP. He was suspected of having committed a number of violent vehicle thefts across the Greater Toronto Area, including in Toronto and Durham. At about 10:45 a.m., police received word that the Complainant had been involved in a motor vehicle collision in the area of Lawrence Avenue East and Kennedy Road, Toronto. A subsequent collision was reported to have occurred at Nielsen Road and Finch Avenue East. Officers in marked and unmarked vehicles were on the lookout for the Complainant.
At about 11:50 a.m., police were alerted to a Purolator truck that had been hijacked by the Complainant on Parsell Square, Toronto. The truck was located by a YRP helicopter mobilized to assist with the search. The Complainant drove recklessly, colliding with vehicles, including a police cruiser, and inflicting serious damage to the truck – the front passenger side was ripped open. It seems he was aware that he was being pursued by the police and was intent on doing whatever he could to evade apprehension.
The Purolator truck hobbled, the Complainant eventually brought it to a stop on the grass boulevard of a business on Brimley Road, north of Ellesmere Road. The Complainant exited through the open passenger area and ran across four lanes of traffic to the east side of Brimley Road where he hopped a gate into a townhouse complex. He was followed by WO #1. The TPS officer had brought her vehicle to a stop beside the complex, exited and scaled the same gate, and chased after the Complainant. The Complainant travelled through the grounds of the complex and eventually found himself on the roof of a one-storey structure facing south on Ellesmere Road. With the officer in foot pursuit, the Complainant jumped from the roof, rolled on the ground, picked himself up and continued his flight. The Complainant’s direction of travel was broadcast by the helicopter crew as he traversed Ellesmere Road and walked east on the south sidewalk.
WO #2 of the DRPS, operating an unmarked pick-up truck, was the first to identify the Complainant on Ellesmere Road. The officer approached from the west, climbed onto the sidewalk, and stopped his vehicle angled southeast in front of the Complainant. WO #5 of the YRP, also operating an unmarked pick-up truck with his partner – WO #6 – in the passenger seat, followed closely behind. The officer travelled onto the sidewalk and stopped facing east in front of the Complainant. WO #2 exited his truck and took hold of the Complainant, who had his arms raised, and pushed him into WO #5’s vehicle. WO #5 was next to physically engage the Complainant. The officer delivered an elbow strike to the Complainant’s head, after which all three parties fell to the ground. The Complainant struggled on the ground refusing to release his arms to be handcuffed and attempting to stand up. WO #5 struck the Complainant’s left shoulder with a knee and WO #6 punched him in the back. WO #4 of the DRPS arrived and fired his CEW at the Complainant. The Complainant’s body locked-up and the officers handcuffed him behind the back.
Following his arrest, the Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a left ankle fracture, a laceration in the left groin area and a possibly broken nose.
In the morning of April 13, 2023, the Complainant became the subject of an interjurisdictional search involving the DRPS, TPS and YRP. He was suspected of having committed a number of violent vehicle thefts across the Greater Toronto Area, including in Toronto and Durham. At about 10:45 a.m., police received word that the Complainant had been involved in a motor vehicle collision in the area of Lawrence Avenue East and Kennedy Road, Toronto. A subsequent collision was reported to have occurred at Nielsen Road and Finch Avenue East. Officers in marked and unmarked vehicles were on the lookout for the Complainant.
At about 11:50 a.m., police were alerted to a Purolator truck that had been hijacked by the Complainant on Parsell Square, Toronto. The truck was located by a YRP helicopter mobilized to assist with the search. The Complainant drove recklessly, colliding with vehicles, including a police cruiser, and inflicting serious damage to the truck – the front passenger side was ripped open. It seems he was aware that he was being pursued by the police and was intent on doing whatever he could to evade apprehension.
The Purolator truck hobbled, the Complainant eventually brought it to a stop on the grass boulevard of a business on Brimley Road, north of Ellesmere Road. The Complainant exited through the open passenger area and ran across four lanes of traffic to the east side of Brimley Road where he hopped a gate into a townhouse complex. He was followed by WO #1. The TPS officer had brought her vehicle to a stop beside the complex, exited and scaled the same gate, and chased after the Complainant. The Complainant travelled through the grounds of the complex and eventually found himself on the roof of a one-storey structure facing south on Ellesmere Road. With the officer in foot pursuit, the Complainant jumped from the roof, rolled on the ground, picked himself up and continued his flight. The Complainant’s direction of travel was broadcast by the helicopter crew as he traversed Ellesmere Road and walked east on the south sidewalk.
WO #2 of the DRPS, operating an unmarked pick-up truck, was the first to identify the Complainant on Ellesmere Road. The officer approached from the west, climbed onto the sidewalk, and stopped his vehicle angled southeast in front of the Complainant. WO #5 of the YRP, also operating an unmarked pick-up truck with his partner – WO #6 – in the passenger seat, followed closely behind. The officer travelled onto the sidewalk and stopped facing east in front of the Complainant. WO #2 exited his truck and took hold of the Complainant, who had his arms raised, and pushed him into WO #5’s vehicle. WO #5 was next to physically engage the Complainant. The officer delivered an elbow strike to the Complainant’s head, after which all three parties fell to the ground. The Complainant struggled on the ground refusing to release his arms to be handcuffed and attempting to stand up. WO #5 struck the Complainant’s left shoulder with a knee and WO #6 punched him in the back. WO #4 of the DRPS arrived and fired his CEW at the Complainant. The Complainant’s body locked-up and the officers handcuffed him behind the back.
Following his arrest, the Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a left ankle fracture, a laceration in the left groin area and a possibly broken nose.
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.
Analysis and Director's Decision
The Complainant was arrested with serious injuries on April 13, 2023, the culmination of a joint police operation that day involving officers with the DRPS, YRP and TPS. The SIU initiated an investigation of the incident, which is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any officer 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.
The Complainant was subject to arrest by the time police officers caught up with him on Ellesmere Road and took him into custody. In addition to the predicate offences for which a search had been organized, involving a series of carjackings, the Complainant had just led the police on a prolonged pursuit in which he drove dangerously and collided with multiple vehicles.
Once confronted, I am satisfied that the officers used no more than legally justified force in effecting the Complainant’s arrest. Though he appeared to raise his arms in an apparent surrender to WO #2, the officer acted reasonably by attempting to take him to the ground at the first opportunity given the Complainant’s violent antecedents. Thereafter, the evidence indicates that the Complainant struggled vigorously against the officers, and that they reacted with a series of strikes and the use of a CEW that appeared measured and commensurate with the exigencies at hand. Once handcuffed, no further force was brought to bear.
As for the operation undertaken by the DRPS, TPS and YRP to locate the Complainant, the evidence falls short of any suggestion that it was conducted without the requisite level of care required of the criminal law. Though one or more officers operating marked cruisers might have been overly exuberant with their interdiction efforts on the roads, it appears the game plan of simply tracking the Complainant’s movements with unmarked cruisers and the helicopter until he could be safely arrested was generally followed.
In the final analysis, it remains unclear where and how precisely the Complainant incurred his injuries. Given the number of vehicle collisions he was involved in prior to his arrest, his exit over jagged metal from the passenger side of the Purolator truck, and his fall from a height onto Ellesmere Road, it is very likely that the laceration and broken foot occurred prior to his arrest. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that any officer 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: August 11, 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 was subject to arrest by the time police officers caught up with him on Ellesmere Road and took him into custody. In addition to the predicate offences for which a search had been organized, involving a series of carjackings, the Complainant had just led the police on a prolonged pursuit in which he drove dangerously and collided with multiple vehicles.
Once confronted, I am satisfied that the officers used no more than legally justified force in effecting the Complainant’s arrest. Though he appeared to raise his arms in an apparent surrender to WO #2, the officer acted reasonably by attempting to take him to the ground at the first opportunity given the Complainant’s violent antecedents. Thereafter, the evidence indicates that the Complainant struggled vigorously against the officers, and that they reacted with a series of strikes and the use of a CEW that appeared measured and commensurate with the exigencies at hand. Once handcuffed, no further force was brought to bear.
As for the operation undertaken by the DRPS, TPS and YRP to locate the Complainant, the evidence falls short of any suggestion that it was conducted without the requisite level of care required of the criminal law. Though one or more officers operating marked cruisers might have been overly exuberant with their interdiction efforts on the roads, it appears the game plan of simply tracking the Complainant’s movements with unmarked cruisers and the helicopter until he could be safely arrested was generally followed.
In the final analysis, it remains unclear where and how precisely the Complainant incurred his injuries. Given the number of vehicle collisions he was involved in prior to his arrest, his exit over jagged metal from the passenger side of the Purolator truck, and his fall from a height onto Ellesmere Road, it is very likely that the laceration and broken foot occurred prior to his arrest. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that any officer 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: August 11, 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.