SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-TCI-270


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 37-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU [1]

On July 16, 2023, at 10:27 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 12:15 a.m., Subject Official (SO) #1 and SO #2 were dispatched to an address on Thirtieth Street regarding the Complainant, who had broken into the home. The TPS had received a 911 call from a Civilian Witness (CW), who reported seeing the Complainant bang on the front door with his hands and then body-slam it. When the door would not open, the Complainant punched a window with his hand, reached in, unlocked the door, and entered the home. Upon the arrival of SO #1 and SO #2, they entered the home and found two girls sleeping on the main level and later located the Complainant asleep in an upstairs bedroom. As the investigation unfolded, the homeowner, who was in a relationship with the Complainant, refused to support criminal charges or assist in the investigation. The Complainant was subsequently arrested for Breach of a Court Order and transported to 22 Division where he was interviewed. He was noted to have scrapes about his arms and one bloodshot eye. The Complainant was held for a bail hearing and then transferred to the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC). He complained of a head injury and was taken to the William Osler Health System, Etobicoke General Hospital (EGH), where he was diagnosed with a fractured right hand.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2023/07/17 at 10:30 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/07/17 at 11:00 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 18, 2023.

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on July 27, 2023.

Subject Officials

SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
SO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject officials were interviewed on August 1, 2023.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed not necessary
WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed not necessary

The witness official was interviewed on July 27, 2023.


The Scene

The events in question transpired in a bedroom of a house on Thirtieth Street, Toronto.

The SIU did not attend the residence until later in the day on July 16, 2023. This was because the injury to the Complainant was not discovered until after his bail hearing, when his custody was being transferred to the TSDC and he was subsequently taken to the EGH.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - SO #2

On July 16, 2023, the TPS provided the BWC footage for SO #2, who was partnered with WO #1. The footage spanned 22 minutes and 12 seconds.

The footage revealed SO #2 and WO #1 as they arrived on scene. SO #2 asked the CW which house was involved, and she pointed to it. SO #2 attended and observed a broken window beside the front door. There were lights on inside the home.

SO #1 and WO #2 arrived a short time later, and SO #1 forced open the front door because they believed there were children inside. The officers identified themselves numerous times as they entered the home. SO #2 assisted in clearing the main floor and two girls were seen sleeping. SO #1 and WO #1 walked upstairs and SO #2 followed with his CEW pointed forward. A male – the Complainant - was sleeping on a bed inside a bedroom.

SO #2 remained at the doorway and asked the Complainant, “Did you smash the window to get in?” The Complainant responded, “No.” SO #2 also asked if he lived there, and if he had any identification that revealed the address. SO #2 continued to look around the second floor and the Complainant’s name was queried over the air. Information was received that the Complainant was not to be at that residence; rather, he was required to be at another residence from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., as part of his release conditions.

The Complainant sat up on the bed and attempted to put on his running shoes; he had difficulty because of his state of intoxication. He was arrested and his hands were handcuffed behind his back. The Complainant was heard telling the officers that he had fallen asleep.

SO #2 told SO #1 that scene photographs needed to be taken and he asked Officer #1 to assist with this.

WO #2 was then seen entering the residence. He walked upstairs. Officer #1 briefed SO #2.

The Complainant was escorted outside the home. One of the girls advised that the Complainant was a family member. The Complainant was taken to SO #1’s cruiser and seated in the rear seat.

While outside, SO #2 was approached by a man and a woman, the latter identifying herself as the homeowner. SO #2 told her what happened, and that the Complainant had been arrested. She advised that she knew the Complainant - he stayed there during the day and at his mother’s home at night. She also advised that she did not want charges brought against the Complainant and said that he would pay for the damage.

BWC Footage - SO #1

On July 16, 2023, the TPS provided the BWC footage for SO #1, who was partnered with WO #2. The footage spanned 21 minutes and 11 seconds.

The footage began as the two officers arrived at the residence. SO #1 searched the exterior of the home.

Starting at about 12:31:32 a.m., SO #1 stood at the front door and observed a broken window just to the right of the door. He yelled, “Police, come to the door,” but no one responded.

Starting at about 12:32:45 a.m., SO #1 horse-kicked the front door open and officers entered. SO #2 yelled several times, “Toronto Police. Come to the door,” as he entered the living room. He immediately observed two females sleeping. Neither had heard or seen anyone enter the home. SO #1, WO #1, and SO #2 cleared the main level of the home and informed the dispatcher that the females believed they were alone within the home.

Starting at about 12:35:40 a.m., the three officers proceeded upstairs where they located the Complainant as he slept on a bed. The bedroom door contained a windowpane that had been smashed out and glass was observed on the floor. SO #1 advised that he observed a knife, and the room was in an extreme state of disarray. The Complainant was noted to match the description provided by the CW. SO #1 stated, “Didn’t they say that he had fresh cut on his arm, it’s probably this guy.” Numerous attempts were made to wake the Complainant, which included tapping on his legs. When he awoke, he appeared highly intoxicated or under the influence of drugs as his speech was slurred and indecipherable. When asked for his name, he provided his first name, and that he lived in the residence. The Complainant denied breaking the window to gain entrance to the home and he was told that he had a cut to his right arm. At that point, the Complainant became coherent, and he explained that he was allowed to be inside the home. He then provided his proper name to SO #1. He admitted to consuming alcohol earlier in the day. SO #1 conducted a name query with his dispatcher and learned that the Complainant should be at a different address in Toronto, and that he had a court-imposed curfew from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.

Starting at about 12:40:45 a.m., the Complainant was placed under arrest for Breach of a Court Order, Break and Enter and Commit Mischief. The Complainant was clumsy and was asked to put footwear on to protect himself from the broken glass on the floor.

Starting at about 12:45:25 a.m., SO #1 handcuffed the Complainant’s hands behind his back. He was walked down the stairs. One of the females told officers that the Complainant was a family member.

Starting at about 12:48:50 a.m., the Complainant was led out of the home and into the rear of SO #1’s cruiser.

At 12:50:26 a.m., the footage ended.

Sally Port, Booking and Cell Video Footage

On July 16, 2023, starting at about 1:21:28 a.m., the Complainant was brought into the sally port and booking intake desk at 22 Division. He was asked several standard questions related to his health and rights by WO #3. He was heavily intoxicated and stated he had consumed rum at the house.

Starting at about 1:28:07 a.m., the Complainant had handcuffs removed and he was asked to place his hands on the wall for search purposes. The Complainant clenched a fist with his right hand, and it appeared swollen, though he made no mention of any pain or injury. He was subsequently placed in a cell, pending a bail hearing later that morning. At no time was the Complainant observed to strike any object and he was fully compliant during his interactions with officers.

Starting at about 6:13 a.m., the Complainant was removed from the cell, brought to the booking intake desk, and his custody was transferred to Prisoner Transport, which took him to 23 Division for a video bail hearing. Throughout the transfer, the Complainant did not complain of any injury or pain, and he was compliant.

Starting at about 6:37:02 p.m., the Complainant, attired in an orange jumpsuit, informed TPS staff that he experienced pain in his right hand. He made no comment related to how his right hand was injured and the footage did not reveal his hand. He was subsequently seated in the rear of a TPS cruiser and transported to EGH, after which he was taken to the TSDC.

Communications Recordings and Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD)

The radio transmissions and CAD were reviewed and were found to be consistent with the information contained in the video footage from the BWCs of SO #1 and SO #2.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between July 16, 2023, and July 27, 2023:
  • Notes – SO #1;
  • Notes – SO #2;
  • Notes – WO #1;
  • Notes – WO #2;
  • Notes – WO #3;
  • General Occurrence Report;
  • CAD;
  • Communications recordings;
  • List of TPS previous interactions with the Complainant;
  • Custody Intake / Injury Report;
  • BWC footage;
  • Scenes of Crime Officer photographs;
  • Custody video;
  • Use of Force Re-qualifications for SO #1 and SO #2; and
  • TPS Policy - Incident Response.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following record from other sources on August 1, 2023:
  • The Complainant’s medical records from William Osler Health System - EGH.

Incident Narrative

The events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized. Shortly after midnight, July 16, 2023, the TPS received a 911 call about a possible break and enter at a residence on Thirtieth Street. A resident at an address on the street had observed an intoxicated male pounding on the doorway, destroying the downspout of an eavestrough, and eventually gaining access to the house by breaking a window by the side of the door. Officers were dispatched to investigate.

The male was the Complainant. In violation of a condition of a release order, the Complainant had arrived at the house to spend the night. When he was unable to open the front door, he attempted to body-slam it open and then broke the glass beside the door, reaching through the opening to unlock it. The Complainant subsequently made his way upstairs where he again broke the glass pane of a bedroom door before entering and falling asleep.

SO #1 and SO #2, as well as WO #1 and WO #2, arrived at the home. Upon learning that there were children that resided in the house, the officers forced open the front door and entered. They found two girls sleeping on the main floor and would later come to learn from one of them that the Complainant was a family member.

The officers located the Complainant asleep in a second-floor bedroom, woke him, and took him into custody. The arrest was uneventful.

The Complainant was transported to the station, held for a bail hearing, and then transported to the TSDC. At the detention centre, the Complainant complained of pain to his right hand and was re-routed to hospital.

At hospital, the Complainant was diagnosed with fractures of the right hand.

Analysis and Director's Decision

The Complainant was diagnosed with serious injuries while in the custody of the TPS on July 16, 2023. In the ensuing SIU investigation of the incident, two of the arresting officers – SO #1 and SO #2 – were identified as subject officials. 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 injuries.

On my review of the evidence, which included video footage of the Complainant’s arrest and time in police custody, there is simply no indication that any force was brought to bear against the Complainant or that any of the officers involved in his custody failed to comport themselves without due care and regard for his health and safety. The injury, in my view, was likely incurred in the course of the Complainant’s antics as he attempted to gain entry to the house. There is no evidence to suggest the injury was inflicted in any other manner.

As for the Complainant’s arrest, I am satisfied that it was lawful. At the time they forcibly entered the residence, the officers had cause to be concerned about the welfare of persons inside the home given they had yet to establish who the Complainant was and why he had broken in. Beyond that, the Complainant was clearly subject to apprehension for having violated the terms of a release order by being present inside the house.

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either of the subject officials comported themselves other than lawfully throughout their engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with charges. The file is closed.

Date: November 11, 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) 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.