SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-TCI-339
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 26-year-old woman (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 26-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On August 21, 2023, at 12:20 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.According to the TPS, on August 20, 2023, at 7:47 p.m., a woman [later identified as the Complainant] was involved in an altercation at a grocery store in Chinatown. Two police officers – the Subject Official (SO) and Witness Official (WO) #1 - working nearby on a paid-duty arrested the Complainant. The Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured clavicle. She was being held at TPS 52 Division awaiting a bail hearing.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2023/08/21 at 7:25 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/08/21 at 9:18 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
26-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on August 21, 2023.
Subject Official
SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewedThe subject official was interviewed on September 20, 2023.
Witness Officials
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
The witness officials were interviewed between August 25, 2023, and September 16, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired on the east side of Spadina Avenue, south of Dundas Street West, Toronto.Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Statement – Witness #1
WO #1 took a video statement from Witness #1, who relayed that the Complainant had walked out of a grocery store with an armful of food, which she did not pay for. Witness #1 confronted the Complainant and the Complainant tried to kick Witness #1. Witness #1 then tried to grab the Complainant and the Complainant threw a package of tofu at Witness #1 and struck her on the shoulder.
TPS BWC Footage – The SO
Starting at about 7:47 p.m., August 20, 2023, the SO walked east across the southern crosswalk of the Spadina Avenue and Dundas Street West intersection. Once on the east sidewalk of Spadina Avenue, the officer walked a short distance southwards as the Complainant walked northwards towards him. As the Complainant approached their location, WO #1 grabbed the right strap of the Complainant's backpack and she pulled free. The SO moved to block the Complainant’s path. The Complainant indicated that all her food was gone and the SO explained that they could help her with that. When the Complainant attempted to walk away from the officer, the SO grabbed her upper left arm and told her to stop. The Complainant took a step backwards and swung at the SO’s head. The officer blocked the strike, temporarily grabbed the Complainant by the throat and pushed her up against the wall of a business. The Complainant struggled with the SO, and the officer took hold of her arms and forced her to the ground. She fell on her right side with the officer landing on top of her. Within moments, the SO and WO #1 handcuffed the Complainant behind the back.TPS Booking Video
On August 20, 2023, at 11:26 p.m., the Complainant was removed from a fully marked TPS SUV in the sally port and led through a doorway in the booking room. Two TPS police officers led the Complainant into the booking room. She had her left arm in a sling. The Complainant identified herself and advised the sergeant she was of no fixed address. Her charges were read, and the police officer added that the Complainant had complained of an injured left shoulder. She had been taken to Mount Sinai Hospital where she was subsequently cleared from the hospital. The booking sergeant asked if she had any injuries and she stated that she had a concussion and a fractured clavicle, and that she intended to press charges.The booking sergeant asked how she got the injuries. The Complainant said that she was injured by a TPS officer who slammed her to the ground. She told the booking sergeant that she had three persons who witnessed the incident and repeated that she intended to press charges against the police officer who slammed her to the ground.
TPS Communications Recordings
On August 20, 2023, at 7:41 p.m., the SO advised the dispatcher that he had been notified of a theft and fight at a store in Chinatown, and he asked if there were any calls in relation to the incident. A woman [later identified as the Complainant] had left the scene. The dispatcher informed the SO that there had been no calls. The SO said he would check things out and report back.At 7:48 p.m., the SO informed the dispatcher he had the Complainant in custody. The officer asked for a police vehicle to attend.
At 7:59 p.m., the SO informed the dispatcher that the Complainant had stolen food items from the supermarket, and a struggle ensued. The Complainant had assaulted the arresting police officers and was under arrest.
At 8:44 p.m., an officer informed the dispatcher the case was going to be handled by TPS 52 Division. The Complainant requested medical attention, and she was to be transported to Mount Sinai Hospital.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between August 21, 2023, and September 22, 2023:- Event Details Reports;
- General Occurrence Report;
- Involved Officers List;
- Video footage - supermarket;
- Notes – WO #3;
- Notes – WO #4;
- Notes – the SO;
- Notes – WO #2;
- Notes – WO #5;
- Notes – WO #1;
- Policy - Arrest;
- Policy - Incident Response (Use of Force - De-escalation);
- Injury Report;
- BWC footage;
- Communications recordings; and
- Custody footage.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU received the following record from other sources:- The Complainant’s medical records from Mount Sinai Hospital, received on November 2, 2023.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.
In the evening of August 20, 2023, the SO and WO #1 were on foot patrol working a paid-duty at a street festival in Toronto’s Chinatown. At about 7:45 p.m., the officers were approached by a female reporting a theft and assault at a supermarket in the area. The Complainant, walking north on the east sidewalk of Spadina Avenue towards Dundas Street West, was identified as the suspect. The officers approached the Complainant from the north and confronted her just south of Dundas Street West.
The Complainant was walking past the officers when she was held back by WO #1 grabbing a strap of her backpack. She jerked free, turned to face the officers, and told them to stop touching her. The Complainant complained that all her food was gone, and the SO explained that they could assist her. The Complainant said she wanted to be left alone and started walking away. The SO told the Complainant to stop and took hold of her upper left arm, at which point the Complainant swung her right hand towards the officer’s face.
The SO blocked the blow with his right hand, pinned the Complainant up against a wall, and pulled her to the ground. Within moments, the officers handcuffed the Complainant behind the back without further incident.
The Complainant was subsequently transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left clavicle.
In the evening of August 20, 2023, the SO and WO #1 were on foot patrol working a paid-duty at a street festival in Toronto’s Chinatown. At about 7:45 p.m., the officers were approached by a female reporting a theft and assault at a supermarket in the area. The Complainant, walking north on the east sidewalk of Spadina Avenue towards Dundas Street West, was identified as the suspect. The officers approached the Complainant from the north and confronted her just south of Dundas Street West.
The Complainant was walking past the officers when she was held back by WO #1 grabbing a strap of her backpack. She jerked free, turned to face the officers, and told them to stop touching her. The Complainant complained that all her food was gone, and the SO explained that they could assist her. The Complainant said she wanted to be left alone and started walking away. The SO told the Complainant to stop and took hold of her upper left arm, at which point the Complainant swung her right hand towards the officer’s face.
The SO blocked the blow with his right hand, pinned the Complainant up against a wall, and pulled her to the ground. Within moments, the officers handcuffed the Complainant behind the back without further incident.
The Complainant was subsequently transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left clavicle.
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 her arrest by TPS officers on August 20, 2023. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming one of the arresting officers – the SO – 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.
Based on the report the officers had received from a citizen about the theft and assault at a nearby grocery store, and the Complainant’s role in it, I am satisfied that they were within their rights in seeking to detain the Complainant to investigate those crimes: see R. v. Mann, [2004] 3 SCR 59. Thereafter, when the Complainant reacted violently by swinging at the SO, the officers had grounds to arrest her for assault.
I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s arrest was legally justified. The officer reacted as one might expect having just been assaulted by the Complainant. He blocked the strike and then pinned her against a wall to control her movements, thereafter taking hold of her arms and pulling her to the ground. The takedown made sense, even though it appears to have resulted in the Complainant’s fracture. The Complainant had continued to struggle with the SO after the swing while still on her feet, and bringing her to the ground would allow the officers to better manage any further resistance. No strikes of any kind were delivered by either officer at any time.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: December 18, 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.
Based on the report the officers had received from a citizen about the theft and assault at a nearby grocery store, and the Complainant’s role in it, I am satisfied that they were within their rights in seeking to detain the Complainant to investigate those crimes: see R. v. Mann, [2004] 3 SCR 59. Thereafter, when the Complainant reacted violently by swinging at the SO, the officers had grounds to arrest her for assault.
I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s arrest was legally justified. The officer reacted as one might expect having just been assaulted by the Complainant. He blocked the strike and then pinned her against a wall to control her movements, thereafter taking hold of her arms and pulling her to the ground. The takedown made sense, even though it appears to have resulted in the Complainant’s fracture. The Complainant had continued to struggle with the SO after the swing while still on her feet, and bringing her to the ground would allow the officers to better manage any further resistance. No strikes of any kind were delivered by either officer at any time.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: December 18, 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.