SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OCI-116


This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.

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.

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. 
Pursuant to section 21 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following: 
  • 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 39-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU [1]

On April 18, 2023, at 2:22 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 11:40 a.m., PRP officers from 22 Division Criminal Investigations Bureau were conducting surveillance in relation to vehicle thefts. A target vehicle was identified and a ‘piranha’ device [2] was placed underneath it. The Complainant was seen in a vehicle, which he exited to remove the device that had been placed under it. PRP officers attempted to box the Complainant’s vehicle in, and the vehicle rammed a PRP cruiser. Three suspects exited the vehicle; two were apprehended and the Complainant fled. PRP officers caught up to him and he fell forward, breaking his collarbone.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 04/18/2023 at 5:32 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 04/18/2023 at 6:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

39-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on April 21, 2023.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
SO #2 Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject officials were interviewed between May 2, 2023, and May 31, 2023.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary.

The witness officials were interviewed on April 20, 2023.


The Scene

The events in question occurred on the grounds of a townhouse complex on Marshall Drive, Brampton.

Physical Evidence

The white vehicle the Complainant operated was a Ford Transit.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [3]

Communications Recordings and Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report

On April 24, 2023, the PRP provided the SIU the CAD report and communications recordings.

On April 18, 2023, WO #1 advised dispatch that his unit was doing surveillance in the area of Hanson Road, Brampton.

Starting at about 11:42 a.m., WO #1 broadcast that there were three in custody, and one man was complaining of a sore shoulder. Three flatbed tow trucks were requested for the involved vehicles.

Starting at about 12:27 p.m., an ambulance arrived on scene and it was noted that the Complainant was being taken to the Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH).

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

The BWC from WO #2 was received by the SIU on April 19, 2023. The video established that SO #2 was also running after the Complainant. According to PRP, SO #2 did not turn on his BWC.

The initial minutes of the footage captured the Complainant in the Ford Transit with PRP officers yelling commands at him. SO #2 broke the passenger front window of the Ford Transit and the Complainant backed the vehicle up and then drove forward into a police vehicle. WO #2 had his oleoresin capsicum spray out and walked towards the passenger side of the Ford Transit, but did not get a chance to deploy it.

Starting at about 11:38 a.m., the Complainant exited the vehicle and fled on a grassy area behind two rows of townhomes on Marshall Drive. SO #1 and SO #2 ran after him and, as the Complainant took a right onto Marshall Drive, the PRP officers made contact with the Complainant from behind while running, after which all three parties went to ground. WO #1 caught up and assisted in arresting the Complainant and placing him in handcuffs behind the back.

The Complainant was stood up and had blood on his head. He complained that his left shoulder was broken.

Two other men in the Ford Transit were arrested without incident.

The fire department arrived and WO #2 told them that the Complainant was injured when he fell forward after being taken into custody.

WO #3, a Punjabi-speaking PRP officer, assisted with translation.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PRP between April 19, 2023, and May 31, 2023:
  • Incident Details Report;
  • Communications recordings;
  • CAD;
  • Notes - WO #3;
  • Notes - WO #2;
  • Notes - WO #1;
  • Notes - SO #1;
  • BWC footage - WO #2;
  • Person Details Report - the Complainant; and
  • Occurrence Reports.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:
  • The Complainant’s medical records from the BCH, received April 18, 2023, and
  • Video of the Complainant’s injuries, received on April 25, 2023.

Incident Narrative

The events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.

In the morning of April 18, 2023, PRP officers convened in the area of a townhouse complex on Marshall Drive in relation to a theft investigation. They were covertly surveilling a stolen Volkswagen Tiguan, parked in a parking lot of the complex, and had placed tire deflation devices under its tires.

At about 11:30 a.m., the Complainant approached the scene in a Ford Transit van. He exited the van and neared the Tiguan, removing the tire deflation devices from under the vehicle.

Observing what had occurred, WO #1 called for a takedown of the van. Officers, some in uniform and others in plain clothes, moved in and surrounded the van. WO #2 drove his cruiser in front of the van. The officers ordered the Complainant and two other passengers out of the vehicle. SO #2 and SO #1 tried to open the passenger door but it was locked. Using a multi-tool, SO #2 broke the door window.

The Complainant refused to exit the van. Just after the passenger door window shattered, the van accelerated a distance rearward, after which it travelled forward, striking WO #2’s cruiser in the process. Finding himself blocked in by other vehicles, the Complainant exited the van and ran.

SO #2 and SO #1 were the lead officers in foot pursuit after the Complainant. They chased the Complainant down a grassy area and then onto an asphalt roadway, catching up with him after about ten seconds and taking him to the ground. Within several more seconds, the Complainant was handcuffed to the back.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left collarbone and left rib.

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 seriously injured in the course of his arrest in Brampton by PRP officers on April 18, 2023. Two of the officers – SO #1 and SO #2 – were identified as subject officials in the ensuing SIU investigation of the incident. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official 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 gave the appearance of being linked to the stolen Tiguan when he removed the tire deflation devices that had been placed underneath it. He then rammed a police vehicle in an attempt to escape police apprehension. On this record, I am satisfied he was subject to arrest for being in possession of stolen goods and dangerous driving.

I am also satisfied that the force brought to bear by SO #2 and SO #1 in aid of the Complainant’s arrest was legally justified. The Complainant was intent on escape. He had just struck a police cruiser with the van he was operating and was running away from the police when he was tackled to the ground. SO #2 and SO #1 were within their rights in seeking to put an end to the Complainant’s flight, and I am unable to reasonably conclude that they acted with excess when they physically engaged the Complainant on the run. No punches or strikes of any kind were ever delivered.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s fractures were incurred in his fall to the ground, they are not attributable to any unlawful conduct on the part of the subject officials. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the officers. The file is closed.

Date: August 16, 2023

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Special Investigations Unit


  • 1) The information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s finding of facts following its investigation. [Back to text]
  • 2) A tire deflation device. [Back to text]
  • 3) 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]


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.