SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-TCI-186
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 serious injuries sustained by a 60-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 serious injuries sustained by a 60-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On May 15, 2023, at about 12:38 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant. According to the TPS, on May 14, 2023, at approximately 5:45 p.m., TPS police officers were dispatched to a call for service involving a domestic disturbance and person in crisis near Tapscott Road and Neilson Road, Scarborough. Upon arrival, police officers discovered that a male involved in the domestic disturbance, the Complainant, had fled. The CW told police officers that she had been assaulted by her partner, the Complainant, and that he had fled in her car when she called police. Police officers eventually located the vehicle and followed it to the area of 5183 Sheppard Avenue East. The Complainant would not comply with demands to exit the cruiser and had to be physically extricated. The Complainant subsequently complained of pain to his hip. Emergency Medical Services attended and transported the Complainant to Scarborough General Hospital where he was diagnosed with a fracture to the left pelvic bone and two fractured left ribs.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 05/15/2023 at 2:08 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 05/15/2023 at 8:30 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
60-year-old male interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on May 16, 2023.
Civilian Witnesses
CW Interviewed The civilian witness was interviewed on May 19, 2023.
Subject Officials
SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed Witness Officials
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on May 29, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in and around a Hyundai that was stopped in the driveway of the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto, 5183 Sheppard Avenue East.No scene examination was conducted.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
TPS Communications Recordings
At 5:43 p.m., a TPS call-taker called back a phone number which had just dialed 911 and was disconnected prior to the call-taker speaking to anyone. The call-taker spoke to a woman [now known to be the CW] and asked if she had an emergency. The CW hesitated, and then said she did. She told the call-taker a man [now known to be the Complainant] had assaulted her twice, and was violating a court order. She was afraid of the Complainant and wanted him removed. She gave the call-taker his name. At 5:46 p.m., the TPS dispatcher asked for a police officer to attend the radio call. She said the Complainant was known to flee from the police. There was no response from any police officer.
The call-taker continued the phone call with the CW, including asking for a description of the Complainant. At 5:49 p.m., as the CW spoke to the call-taker, the Complainant approached the CW. She said she had some friends there to help her. The Complainant could be heard yelling in the background.
At 5:52 p.m., the call-taker kept the phone line open while the CW went to a house next-door.
The dispatcher re-broadcast the request for a police officer to attend the radio call. He added that the Complainant had driven the CW’s car earlier and had thrown her out of the car.
At 5:55 p.m., the call-taker ended the call with the CW.
At 6:00 p.m., the CW called 911 again and said the Complainant had just stolen her car. He was intoxicated and did not have a driver’s licence. The CW described her Hyundai but did not know the licence plate number. She provided her driver’s licence number.
At 6:02 p.m., the dispatcher updated the request for a police officer to attend the radio call by saying that the Complainant had just stolen the CW’s car.
At 6:05 p.m., the CW said to someone in the background, “He’s back?” The phone was disconnected.
The SO and WO #1 were dispatched to the call for service. The dispatcher told them the Complainant had left in the car and provided what sounded like an incorrect licence plate number. The dispatcher said the Complainant was prohibited from driving.
At 6:17 p.m., either the SO or WO #1 said they saw the Complainant, and that he was southbound on Washburn Way. WO #3 said he and WO #2 were on Sheppard Avenue East and would assist. WO #1 said they were following the Complainant, then said they had lost sight of him.
At 6:19 p.m., WO #1 said they were following right behind the Complainant westbound on Sheppard Avenue East. He said the Complainant was driving slowly and they were trying to get him to pull over.
At 6:20 p.m., WO #1 said the Complainant was pulling into a parking lot.
At 6:21 p.m., WO #2 said the police officers had removed the Complainant from the car and were handcuffing him. WO #3 then said the Complainant was in custody and there were no injuries.
At 6:22 p.m., WO #3 said the Complainant was complaining of hip pain and requested an ambulance.
In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage
At 6:16 p.m., a police cruiser was captured stopped on Washburn Way at Tapscott Drive. It faced north on the east side of the road. The SO, the driver, executed a U-turn and drove southbound on Washburn Way. The SO drove along a few residential streets to follow the Complainant in a Hyundai. The Hyundai was not visible on the footage, but the SO and WO #1 spoke about being able to see where it turned in the distance.At 6:19 p.m., the SO stopped behind the Complainant at a red traffic signal light at Gateforth Drive and Sheppard Avenue East. The Hyundai had its left turn signal on but suddenly turned right when the police cruiser stopped behind it.
At 6:20 p.m., the SO turned right to follow the Complainant. The cruiser’s flashing emergency lights and siren were activated. The Complainant continued to drive, slowly, westbound on Sheppard Avenue East. There was traffic moving in both directions. About 30 seconds after having turned onto Sheppard Avenue East, the Complainant made a sudden left turn into the driveway of the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto at 5183 Sheppard Avenue East, and stopped. The SO pulled onto the driveway behind the Complainant. The siren was turned off. The flashing emergency lights remained on.
WO #2 pulled into the driveway. She passed the SO and stopped across the front of the Hyundai. The SO and WO #1 got out and walked up to the driver’s door of the Hyundai. WO #1 opened the door. WO #1 reached into the Hyundai, and grabbed the Complainant and pulled his left arm. WO #2 and WO #3 got out and assisted at the driver’s door. The SO also reached towards the Complainant. A few seconds later, the Complainant was pulled out of the Hyundai by WO #1, the SO and WO #2.
At 6:21:05 p.m., the Complainant was laid onto his back and then rolled over onto his left side just outside of the car door. WO #1’s right knee was very briefly on the Complainant’s buttocks. A yell was heard. The Complainant was assisted to a standing position and then towards the police cruiser.
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - the SO
At 6:20 p.m., the SO was seated in the driver’s seat of a police cruiser. He wore blue-coloured latex gloves. The police cruiser was stopped in a driveway of the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto, located at 5183 Sheppard Avenue East.A police cruiser driven by WO #2 pulled into the driveway, passed the SO and WO #1, and parked in front of the Hyundai [now known to be driven by the Complainant]. WO #2’s police cruiser had its flashing emergency lights activated. The SO got out. WO #1 was a step or two ahead of him walking towards the Hyundai.
At 6:20:45 p.m., WO #1 opened the driver’s door of the Hyundai and told the Complainant to get out of the car. WO #1 grasped the Complainant’s left upper arm with both hands. The Complainant, who clearly sounded intoxicated, held onto the steering wheel with his right hand but turned his left knee outwards and off the seat. He said, “Alright, alright, I’ll get out. Don’t fucking pull.” The SO reached in and grabbed the Complainant’s left arm also.
At 6:21:00 p.m., WO #1 and the SO pulled the Complainant out of the driver’s seat. The Complainant went to the ground on his buttocks, parallel to the Hyundai with his legs extended towards the front, directly beside the Hyundai and just outside of the door. He then laid on his back and grimaced. He was rolled onto his left side. His knees were pulled up to his waist. WO #2 was at the door of the Hyundai. She held her hands down onto the Complainant’s legs. WO #3 stood nearby. The Complainant was rolled onto his stomach and WO #1 controlled the Complainant’s right arm, which was behind his back. The Complainant was handcuffed behind his back by WO #3. The Complainant said, “I hurt my hip.” WO #2 asked which hip, and the Complainant said his left hip. The Complainant was assisted to his buttocks and then to a standing position. He had been on the ground for less than one minute.
BWC Footage - WO #1
WO #1 was in the passenger seat of a parked TPS cruiser [now known to be on the east side of Washburn Way at Tapscott Road]. He got out of the police cruiser and walked to the rear of it. A Hyundai turned right from a driveway onto northbound Washburn Way. It then stopped and reversed back into the driveway. WO #1 yelled at the Complainant to stop. The Hyundai then turned left out of the driveway and drove southbound on Washburn Way. WO #1 re-entered the police cruiser.The SO and WO #1 travelled southbound on Washburn Way and advised the dispatcher. They tried to follow the Hyundai but lost sight of it momentarily. They regained sight of the Hyundai and followed it to a red traffic signal light at Sheppard Avenue East, updating the dispatcher and providing the licence plate number. The Complainant turned right onto Sheppard Avenue East, and they followed.
The SO drove at a low rate of speed. He followed the Hyundai with emergency equipment activated and eventually came to a stop behind the vehicle on the driveway opening of the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto on the south side of Sheppard Avenue East.
At 6:20 p.m., WO #1 exited the cruiser, walked to the Hyundai, opened the driver’s door with his left hand, and took hold of the Complainant’s left arm with both his hands, telling him repeatedly to get out of the car as he attempted to pull him out. The Complainant yelled, “All right,” but did nothing to remove himself from the driver’s seat. The officers continued to tell the Complainant to exit the vehicle and, when he remained seated, WO #1 and other officers pulled him out. The Complainant landed on his buttocks, and was quickly placed on his back and then rolled on his left side. At this time, WO #1 momentarily placed his left knee in the middle of the Complainant’s back and his right knee on his buttocks, in the course of which the Complainant screamed in pain. The Complainant was subsequently handcuffed behind the back.
BWC Footage - WO #2
At 6:20 p.m., the footage commenced. WO #2 was driving a cruiser with WO #3 as the passenger. They pulled into a parking lot in front of a Hyundai. WO #2 got out and walked back to the Hyundai where the SO and WO #1 were at the driver’s door telling the Complainant to get out of the car. WO #3 got to the SO and WO #1 slightly prior to WO #2. The Complainant told the SO and WO #1 not to pull him.WO #2 said, “Just grab him.” The Complainant was pulled out. It appeared from the footage that he might have twisted at the waist as the SO grasped his left arm. He sat down on his buttocks, and was then rolled onto his left side. Very briefly, a police officer’s knee made contact with the Complainant’s buttocks, and he yelled, “Ow.” The police officers walked the Complainant to a police cruiser.
BWC Footage - WO #3
WO #3 was in the passenger seat of a police vehicle travelling westbound [now known to be on Sheppard Avenue East]. The driver, WO #2, turned left onto a parking lot and stopped directly in front of a Hyundai driven by the Complainant. WO #3 immediately got out and walked towards the Hyundai where the SO and WO #1 were dealing with the Complainant.WO #3 stood very briefly behind WO #1 and then walked around to the passenger side of the Hyundai. He tried to open the front passenger door, but it was locked. He walked back around to the driver side of the Hyundai. The Complainant was out of the car and on the ground on his back. WO #1 was on the right side of the Complainant. The SO was on the Complainant’s left and had a hold of his left wrist. WO #2 was near the Complainant’s legs. All three police officers were bent over at the waist.
The Complainant yelled out as he was rolled over onto his left side. WO #3’s BWC did not have a view of the Complainant at that moment. WO #3 then stepped to the left of WO #1. WO #3 took out his handcuffs. WO #1 had a hold of the Complainant’s right wrist behind his back. The Complainant’s left arm was on the ground above his head. WO #3 grasped the Complainant’s left wrist, and lifted it off the ground and towards the Complainant’s back. WO #3 handcuffed the Complainant. The Complainant said he hurt his left hip.
The SO, WO #1 and WO #2 assisted the Complainant to his feet, and then to a police vehicle.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
The SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between May 15, 2023, and May 19, 2023:- Communications recordings;
- Notes-WO #2;
- Notes-WO #1;
- Notes-WO #3;
- Involved Officer List
- TPS policy - Arrest;
- TPS policy - Use of Force;
- ICCS footage;
- BWC footage; and
- General Occurrence Reports.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources on May 20, 2023: - The Complainant’s medical records from the Scarborough Health Network.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with officers present at the time of the events in question and video footage that captured the incident, give rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.
In the evening of May 14, 2023, the SO and his partner, WO #1, were dispatched to an address near Tapscott Road and Neilson Road, Toronto. A call had come in from the CW reporting that the Complainant, present at the location in violation of a release order, had assaulted her and stolen her vehicle. The officers were stopped at a red light on Washburn Way, facing north towards Tapscott Road, when they observed the Complainant operating the stolen vehicle behind them.
The Complainant was intoxicated at the time and had left in the CW’s vehicle. He failed to stop when told to do so by WO #1, who had momentarily exited his cruiser to issue the direction, and executed a U-turn to drive away from the police. He proceeded south on Washburn Way and eventually made his way westbound on Sheppard Avenue East from Gateforth Drive.
The SO followed the Hyundai on Sheppard Avenue a short distance, watching it turn left and come to a stop on the driveway of the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto, 5183 Sheppard Avenue East, about 200 metres west of Gateforth Drive. The officer brought his cruiser to a stop behind the Hyundai, and he and WO #1 exited and approached the driver’s door.
At about this time, WO #2 and WO #3 were arriving on scene in another cruiser, which they brought to a stop in front of the Hyundai. Both officers exited and also made their way to the driver’s door.
The Complainant was directed to exit the vehicle but initially delayed. He held onto the steering wheel as the officers attempted to remove him from the Hyundai. When he continued to delay his exit, the SO and WO #1 grabbed hold of the Complainant and forcibly extricated him from the vehicle, depositing him on the ground.
The officers rolled the Complainant onto his left-front and handcuffed his arms behind the back.
Following his arrest, the Complainant complained of pain to his left hip. An ambulance was called and transported him to hospital where he was diagnosed with a broken left hip and two left-sided fractured ribs.
In the evening of May 14, 2023, the SO and his partner, WO #1, were dispatched to an address near Tapscott Road and Neilson Road, Toronto. A call had come in from the CW reporting that the Complainant, present at the location in violation of a release order, had assaulted her and stolen her vehicle. The officers were stopped at a red light on Washburn Way, facing north towards Tapscott Road, when they observed the Complainant operating the stolen vehicle behind them.
The Complainant was intoxicated at the time and had left in the CW’s vehicle. He failed to stop when told to do so by WO #1, who had momentarily exited his cruiser to issue the direction, and executed a U-turn to drive away from the police. He proceeded south on Washburn Way and eventually made his way westbound on Sheppard Avenue East from Gateforth Drive.
The SO followed the Hyundai on Sheppard Avenue a short distance, watching it turn left and come to a stop on the driveway of the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto, 5183 Sheppard Avenue East, about 200 metres west of Gateforth Drive. The officer brought his cruiser to a stop behind the Hyundai, and he and WO #1 exited and approached the driver’s door.
At about this time, WO #2 and WO #3 were arriving on scene in another cruiser, which they brought to a stop in front of the Hyundai. Both officers exited and also made their way to the driver’s door.
The Complainant was directed to exit the vehicle but initially delayed. He held onto the steering wheel as the officers attempted to remove him from the Hyundai. When he continued to delay his exit, the SO and WO #1 grabbed hold of the Complainant and forcibly extricated him from the vehicle, depositing him on the ground.
The officers rolled the Complainant onto his left-front and handcuffed his arms behind the back.
Following his arrest, the Complainant complained of pain to his left hip. An ambulance was called and transported him to hospital where he was diagnosed with a broken left hip and two left-sided fractured ribs.
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 by TPS officers on May 14, 2023. One of the arresting officers – the SO – was identified as the subject official 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 the SO 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 SO and the other involved officers were within their rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody. The officers had cause to believe that the Complainant was operating a stolen vehicle while impaired by alcohol based on the information received via the 911 call and the smell of alcohol coming from the Complainant when they opened the driver’s door of the Hyundai.
With respect to the force used by the SO and the other officers, namely, their application of bodily force to wrestle the Complainant out of the car and onto the ground, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was excessive. The officers were right to want to remove the Complainant from the Hyundai as soon as possible. The Complainant was intoxicated and there was a real risk to the safety of the Complainant, the officers, and the broader public should he have the opportunity to continue to operate the vehicle. In the circumstances, I am satisfied the officers acted reasonably when they pulled the Complainant from the vehicle after he had delayed in removing himself. That tactic, as the video makes clear, was not executed with undue force. Nor does it appear that WO #1, when he temporarily placed a knee on the Complainant’s back and buttocks, acted with excess.
In the result, while I accept that one or more of the Complainant’s injuries were incurred in the course of his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of them are attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the SO or the other officers. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.
Date: September 12, 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 SO and the other involved officers were within their rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody. The officers had cause to believe that the Complainant was operating a stolen vehicle while impaired by alcohol based on the information received via the 911 call and the smell of alcohol coming from the Complainant when they opened the driver’s door of the Hyundai.
With respect to the force used by the SO and the other officers, namely, their application of bodily force to wrestle the Complainant out of the car and onto the ground, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was excessive. The officers were right to want to remove the Complainant from the Hyundai as soon as possible. The Complainant was intoxicated and there was a real risk to the safety of the Complainant, the officers, and the broader public should he have the opportunity to continue to operate the vehicle. In the circumstances, I am satisfied the officers acted reasonably when they pulled the Complainant from the vehicle after he had delayed in removing himself. That tactic, as the video makes clear, was not executed with undue force. Nor does it appear that WO #1, when he temporarily placed a knee on the Complainant’s back and buttocks, acted with excess.
In the result, while I accept that one or more of the Complainant’s injuries were incurred in the course of his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of them are attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the SO or the other officers. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.
Date: September 12, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 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) 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.