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 injuries of a 31-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On June 16, 2023, at 11:22 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.
According to the TPS, on June 16, 2023, at 12:36 p.m., TPS officers responded to a ‘shots fired’ call at an address in the area of Kingston Road and Woodbine Avenue, which was later identified as a domestic violence incident. A vehicle with two occupants was involved in the shooting. Police officers attempted to stop and arrest the occupants, and the Complainant fled the scene on foot. The Complainant was observed with a firearm in his waistband as he ran. Police Service Dog (PSD) officers attended the area of Taylor Creek Park, near 260 Dawes Road, and a track was initiated. At 1:32 p.m., PSD officer – the Subject Official (SO) – with his dog on a long lead, arrested the Complainant. The Complainant was bitten by the SO’s dog. Witness Official (WO) #6 was the second PSD officer on scene with his dog but neither were involved in the takedown. A third PSD officer, Officer #1, arrived after the arrest. There were eight Emergency Task Force (ETF) officers on the call, and it was unknown if they had witnessed the arrest. The ETF officers were Officer #2, WO #2, Officer #3, WO #3, Officer #4, WO #4 and WO #5, and WO #1. The Complainant was transported to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH) where he was admitted at 8:58 p.m. At 10:03 p.m., the Complainant advised TPS officers that he had received 21 staples in his shoulder and been admitted for shoulder surgery.

The Scene

The scene presented in the south end of Taylor Creek Park in the bushes north of Lumsden Avenue and Eastdale Avenue.

The scene was not held for the SIU; however, it was photographed by TPS prior to its release, which was well before any confirmation of injury and notification to the SIU.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Videos

On June 20, 2023, the SIU obtained the video footage from the BWCs assigned to the SO, WO #6, and three other officers.

Starting at about 1:28:10 p.m., the SO was captured removing the PSD from his cruiser.

Starting at about 1:29:03 p.m., the SO approached the opening at a wall of bushes. The PSD barked and began to track.

Starting at about 1:30:06 p.m., the SO and the PSD entered the bushes.

Starting at about 1:30:18 p.m., the SO walked down a steep ravine. The video was obscured by branches and leaves. Someone screamed and the SO yelled, “Let me see your hands.” An ETF officer [WO #3] fell to the ground and slid down the ravine. Other ETF officers also struggled to maintain their balance and get through the bushes. They reached the Complainant’s location. He was on his back on the ground with his hands in the air above him. He screamed in pain. Two ETF officers each grabbed one of the Complainant’s arms. The PSD held a bite underneath the Complainant’s right arm.

Starting at about 1:31:03 p.m., someone yelled a release command to the PSD; however, the PSD did not release. ETF officers yelled at the Complainant to “stop resisting” and WO #6 pulled at the handle to the PSD’s vest.
Starting at about 1:31:20 p.m., the PSD released the bite and the SO affirmed, “Good boy,” on several occasions. ETF officers struggled to roll the Complainant over in the dense bushes. They ordered him to release his hand and he advised it was stuck. An ETF officer said, “It’s not stuck, we can see it.” The SO maintained control of the PSD and stayed close during the arrest.

Starting at about 1:32:17 p.m., an ETF officer confirmed he had control of the Complainant’s left arm and he was handcuffed.

Starting at about 1:34:38 p.m., the Complainant was stood up and escorted out of the ravine to a tactical paramedic.

Starting at about 1:37:30 p.m., the Complainant had his shirt cut away and was tended to by a tactical paramedic. Puncture wounds were visible to his upper right back and right shoulder.

Starting at about 1:47:10 p.m., the Complainant was transported by ambulance to SMH.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and officers who participated in his arrest, and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of June 16, 2023, the SO, a police service dog handler, and his dog were dispatched to assist with a search in a ravine north of 75 Eastdale Avenue. Uniformed officers had attempted a takedown of a vehicle in the area, apprehending the driver but not the passenger – the Complainant. Minutes earlier, a 911 call had been received from a residence in the area of Kingston Road and Woodbine Avenue, Toronto, reporting that the Complainant had discharged a firearm at the building located at that address. The Complainant was last seen running into the ravine with a gun in his waistband.

Joined by another police service dog handler and a team of ETF officers, the SO deployed the PSD on a long lead into the ravine. Within seconds of the dog’s entry into the bushes of the terrain, the PSD located the Complainant and bit into the area of the back of his upper right arm/shoulder. The Complainant had concealed himself supine in the bush attempting to evade apprehension.

ETF officers were quickly at the scene and eventually controlled the Complainant’s arms and handcuffed them behind the back.

A firearm was subsequently located and collected by police in the vicinity of the arrest.

The Complainant was transported to hospital following his arrest and treated for lacerations and puncture wounds to the right upper extremity, back and axilla.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code -- Criminal negligence causing bodily harm

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of 

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on June 16, 2023. One of the officers involved in the Complainant’s arrest – 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 injuries.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s injuries. In my view, there was not.

By the time the ETF and police dog handlers convened at the ravine to search for the Complainant, they had cause to believe that he had just fired a gun indiscriminately at a building, a building at which his estranged partner resided and from which he was prohibited from being in proximity to. They were also apprised of information that the Complainant was still in possession of the gun as he fled into the ravine. On his record, I am satisfied that the police, in general, and, more specifically, the SO, were justified in deploying a police dog to assist in locating the Complainant.

I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for the Complainant’s health and well-being throughout the dog’s deployment. Though it does not appear that the SO ever gave the police dog the order to bite and hold the Complainant, the fact that the PSD did so would not appear a marked departure from its training. The setting was a ravine consisting of dense bush, uneven terrain, and poor visibility – the sort of environment in which the dog might well have felt threatened and reacted naturally to defend itself by biting the subject. Of concern is the fact that the police dog did not promptly detach itself from the Complainant once ordered to do so by the SO. Indeed, the dog maintained the bite for an additional 15 seconds or so before the officer was able to pull the PSD free. Some allowance must be made for the fact that no police dog handler ever has complete control of a dog when it is deployed – there is always an element of unpredictability when using another sentient creature as a tool in an officer’s hands. The real question is whether the SO had any reason to suspect that the PSD was not likely to respond to his release direction within a reasonable period of time. On this question, one notes that the dog’s training and certifications were up to date such that there is no real question of any criminal want of care in this case.

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in his use of the police dog against the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: October 12, 2023

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit