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 37-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

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

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.

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 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
Director
Special Investigations Unit