SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-TCI-306
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 the serious injury of 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 the serious injury of a 60-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On August 2, 2023, the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information. On August 1, 2023, at 10:57 p.m., the TPS Guns and Gangs Unit, along with Emergency Task Force (ETF) officers, executed a search warrant at an apartment near Broadview Avenue and Danforth Avenue, Toronto. The resident of the apartment was identified as the Complainant. The Complainant resisted arrest and was grounded by ETF officers. He was subsequently transported via Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to St. Michael’s Hospital where X-rays and a Computed Tomography scan revealed a fractured left shoulder.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2023/08/02 at 8:29 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/08/02 at 10:24 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 August 2, 2023.
Subject Officials (SO)
SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal rightWitness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Body-worn camera (BWC) footage and notes reviewed; interview deemed not necessaryWO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 BWC footage and notes reviewed; interview deemed not necessary
WO #5 BWC footage and notes reviewed; interview deemed not necessary
WO #6 BWC footage and notes reviewed; interview deemed not necessary
The witness officials were interviewed on August 15, 2023, and August 30, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in the living room of an apartment near Broadview Avenue and Danforth Avenue, Toronto. Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
BWC Footage – The SO
On August 1, 2023, starting at about 10:56 p.m., ETF officers – the SO, WO #1, WO #4, WO #2, WO #3, WO #6 and WO #5 arrived at the apartment building. They proceeded to the Complainant's apartment. WO #6 used a metal ram to breach the door. A distractionary device with a loud sound and strobe lights was deployed. The SO rushed inside the apartment announcing in a loud voice, "Police. Search warrant." The Complainant stood in front of the door inside the apartment. He immediately rushed at the SO, screaming. He appeared visibly dazed and scared. The SO shoved him back. The Complainant rushed back at the SO and a struggle ensued between them. The Complainant appeared to fall down and left the view of the camera. The SO crouched over the Complainant, who continued to scream. Other officers joined the SO in engaging with the Complainant on the ground. The officers yelled, "Stop resisting. Stop resisting." The interaction continued with the officers, who yelled at the Complainant to put his hands out. Shortly, an officer said that he had one hand pinned, and another officer said, "Okay, moving on," as they proceeded to clear the apartment.Starting at about 10:57 p.m., the SO announced, "I've got his head. I've got his head." The Complainant came into view as he was being rolled over. There was blood on the floor and on his face. The SO announced, "I've got his other hand." The Complainant rolled onto his side and began to resist as his hands were about to be handcuffed. An officer yelled at him to, “Stop resisting and put your hands behind your back.” The SO disengaged from the Complainant and stood aside. The Complainant, whose hands were handcuffed behind his back, was face down on his stomach and calm. An officer informed the Complainant that they were police officers, and the Complainant acknowledged. The SO and the officer informed the Complainant that they would be getting him medical assistance. The SO spoke to the Complainant in a low voice, stating that medical assistance would be provided for him.
Starting at about 10:59 p.m., an ETF paramedic entered the apartment, and the Complainant was carried to a dining room chair to be examined. The SO exited the apartment and went into the hallway.
At 11:01 p.m., the footage ended.
BWC Footage – WO #1
On August 1, 2023, starting at about 10:53 p.m., ETF officers arrived at the apartment building near Broadview Avenue and Danforth Avenue, Toronto.Starting at about 10:57 p.m., WO #1 and other ETS officers – the SO, WO #4, WO #2, WO #3, WO #6 and WO #5 arrived in front of the Complainant's apartment door. WO #6 used a metal ram to breach the door. A distractionary device with a loud sound and strobe lights was deployed. The SO rushed inside the apartment announcing in a loud voice, "Police. Search warrant." The SO was followed closely by WO #2, WO #1, WO #3 and WO #5, respectively. As they entered, they yelled, “Get down. Get on the ground. Stop resisting." WO #1 went into the apartment and began to clear rooms. In the living room, the Complainant was on the ground with three ETF officers on top of him. There was blood on the floor and on the Complainant's right wrist. One of the officers stated that the Complainant had a cut on his wrist and requested that he be placed on his stomach. As they rolled him over, blood could be seen on the Complainant's head. The officers held his hands behind his back and handcuffed him. Other officers went into other rooms and continued to clear the apartment. The Complainant stayed on the ground as directed by ETF officers. The officers informed him that they were the police, and the Complainant said he understood. They told him they would get him medical assistance shortly.
Starting at about 11:00 p.m., an ETF paramedic examined the Complainant, and cleaned the blood with a sheet of white paper towel. The paramedic stated that the Complainant would probably need stitches. The paramedic placed a patch on the wound, located on the upper area of his right eye.
Starting at about 11:03 p.m., WO #5 left the apartment and went into the hallway. Shortly thereafter, WO #1 left the Complainant's apartment and went into the hallway to meet other ETF officers.
BWC Footage - WO #2
On August 1, 2023, starting at about 10:57 p.m., WO #6 breached the Complainant's apartment door with a metal ram. A distractionary device with a loud sound and strobe lights was deployed. The SO rushed inside the apartment announcing in a loud voice, "Police. Search warrant.” The SO grabbed the Complainant, who screamed, and attempted to put him on the ground. WO #2 followed the SO and quickly grabbed the Complainant. They grounded the Complainant and continued to scream, "Stop resisting. Put your hands behind your back.” The SO knelt on the Complainant and used his knees to hold the Complainant on the floor. An ETF officer said, "I got his head, I got his head,” and another stood on the Complainant's left hand. WO #2 left the area and went to clear the apartment, while officers were heard in the background telling the Complainant to stop resisting. Shortly, WO #2 returned to the living room/ The Complainant was lying down on his stomach with his hands handcuffed behind his back.Starting at about 10:59 p.m., WO #2 left the apartment and went into the building’s hallway.
Starting at about 11:00 p.m., WO #2 returned inside the apartment to do an equipment check.
Information from Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD)
On September 6, 2023, the TPS provided the SIU with the CAD for the interaction that occurred on August 1, 2023.On August 1, 2023, at about 9:09 p.m., an officer reported that a Criminal Code search warrant was going to be executed at the apartment whenever ETF attended.
At about 11:16 p.m., it was reported that a male – the Complainant – had been arrested at 10:57 p.m.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Between August 2, 2023, and August 11, 2023, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS:- Notebook – WO #6, WO #4, WO #3, WO #2, WO #1, and WO #5;
- BWC footage;
- ETF – High Risk Incident Plan;
- General Occurrence Report;
- Prosecution Summary;
- List of Involved Police Officers;
- Warrant to Search; and
- Information from CAD.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
Between August 3, 2023, and August 14, 2023, the SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources: - The Complainant’s medical records from St. Michael’s Hospital.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with the Complainant and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following information. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.
Shortly before 11:00 p.m., August 1, 2023, a team of ETF officers gathered in front of the door to an apartment near Broadview Avenue and Danforth Avenue, Toronto. They were there to arrest the Complainant ahead of the execution of a search warrant at the residence. The day before, a male had attended at the building in the morning and, from outside the management office located on the ground floor next to the main entrance, fired a shotgun into the office. The discharge resulted in wounds to a female. The Complainant had been identified as the suspect in the shooting.
The ETF forced open the door with the use of a ram, after which a distraction device was deployed into the apartment. The officers announced their presence and entered the residence. The SO was first into the unit. He was followed by WO #2 and the remaining ETF officers. They were immediately confronted by the Complainant, who moved towards the SO and grabbed at his rifle. WO #2 punched the Complainant twice and, together with the SO, forced him down. The Complainant struggled briefly with the officers on the floor and was met with one or two kicks by WO #2 to the upper thigh before his arms were controlled behind the back and handcuffed.
Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a dislocated and fractured left shoulder.
Shortly before 11:00 p.m., August 1, 2023, a team of ETF officers gathered in front of the door to an apartment near Broadview Avenue and Danforth Avenue, Toronto. They were there to arrest the Complainant ahead of the execution of a search warrant at the residence. The day before, a male had attended at the building in the morning and, from outside the management office located on the ground floor next to the main entrance, fired a shotgun into the office. The discharge resulted in wounds to a female. The Complainant had been identified as the suspect in the shooting.
The ETF forced open the door with the use of a ram, after which a distraction device was deployed into the apartment. The officers announced their presence and entered the residence. The SO was first into the unit. He was followed by WO #2 and the remaining ETF officers. They were immediately confronted by the Complainant, who moved towards the SO and grabbed at his rifle. WO #2 punched the Complainant twice and, together with the SO, forced him down. The Complainant struggled briefly with the officers on the floor and was met with one or two kicks by WO #2 to the upper thigh before his arms were controlled behind the back and handcuffed.
Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a dislocated and fractured left shoulder.
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 ETF officers on August 1, 2023. In the ensuing SIU investigation of the incident, the SO was identified as the subject official. 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 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 ETF officers were lawfully placed and in the execution of their duties when they entered the residence of the Complainant. They were acting on the authority of a search warrant for his apartment, which named the Complainant as the subject of an unlawful firearm shooting the day before. As for their method of entry, namely, a dynamic entry, [3] it was reasonable in the circumstances based on information that the Complainant was in possession of a shotgun that had been used in the shooting.
Once through the door, I am satisfied that the force used by the SO and the other officers who physically engaged the Complainant was legally justified. The officers had cause to believe that the Complainant had fired a shotgun at a woman the day before. A male matching the Complainant’s description had been captured on security camera doing just that. In the circumstances, it was imperative that the Complainant be arrested immediately to prevent any possibility of a firearm being brought into play. The strikes and takedown executed by the officers were commensurate with that objective. When the Complainant rushed at the SO and reached for his weapon, the officers were within their rights in punching at his torso and forcing him to the floor. In that position, they could better expect to manage any further struggle by the Complainant. The Complainant continued to offer a measure of resistance and was met with one or two kicks to the leg. This too would not appear excessive given the exigencies of the moment. Once handcuffed, no further force was brought to bear.
In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was attributable to any unlawful conduct on the part of the SO or other ETF members. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: November 30, 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 ETF officers were lawfully placed and in the execution of their duties when they entered the residence of the Complainant. They were acting on the authority of a search warrant for his apartment, which named the Complainant as the subject of an unlawful firearm shooting the day before. As for their method of entry, namely, a dynamic entry, [3] it was reasonable in the circumstances based on information that the Complainant was in possession of a shotgun that had been used in the shooting.
Once through the door, I am satisfied that the force used by the SO and the other officers who physically engaged the Complainant was legally justified. The officers had cause to believe that the Complainant had fired a shotgun at a woman the day before. A male matching the Complainant’s description had been captured on security camera doing just that. In the circumstances, it was imperative that the Complainant be arrested immediately to prevent any possibility of a firearm being brought into play. The strikes and takedown executed by the officers were commensurate with that objective. When the Complainant rushed at the SO and reached for his weapon, the officers were within their rights in punching at his torso and forcing him to the floor. In that position, they could better expect to manage any further struggle by the Complainant. The Complainant continued to offer a measure of resistance and was met with one or two kicks to the leg. This too would not appear excessive given the exigencies of the moment. Once handcuffed, no further force was brought to bear.
In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was attributable to any unlawful conduct on the part of the SO or other ETF members. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: November 30, 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]
- 3) A ‘dynamic entry’ typically involves an unannounced and forced entry onto premises by tactical officers, often with the use of a discretionary device. It is intended to disorient and overwhelm a subject, foreclosing any opportunity for their use of a weapon and facilitating their immediate apprehension. [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.