Director's Report Details

• 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.

 

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 13, 2023.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between July 11, 2023, and September 26, 2023.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Interviewed
WO #6 Interviewed
WO #7 Interviewed
WO #8 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between August 24, 2023, and September 11, 2023.

Forensic Evidence

Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) Deployment Data – WO #2

The deployment data downloaded from the CEW reportedly used by WO #2 in the course of the incident under investigation indicated it was initially discharged at 10:35:47 p.m., July 5, 2023, for five seconds. It was again discharged at 10:35:57 p.m. for nine seconds, 10:36:06 p.m. for six seconds, 10:36:13 p.m. for six seconds, 10:36:20 p.m. for eight seconds, and 10:36:32 p.m. for five seconds. [2]

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [3]

Communications Recordings Files

File 1 – 911 Calls

On July 5, 2023, at 10:23 p.m., a 911 call was received reporting a motor vehicle collision at Jane Street and Hullmar Drive.

A Toronto Police Service (TPS) dispatcher called the YRP 911 dispatcher to inquire if the YRP helicopter could see the incident scene as they had one in custody and one outstanding.

File 2 – Radio Transmissions

Starting at about 1:10 minutes into the recording, WO #1 requested a unit attend her location. WO #2 was directed to attend.

Starting at about 1:31 minutes, WO #1 reported her cruiser had been struck by a white BMW SUV.

Starting at about 1:56 minutes, WO #2 reported a white BMW SUV involved in a collision at Jane Street and Hullmar Drive. WO #1 reported one male driver and one female passenger were inside the white BMW that had earlier struck her cruiser.

Starting at about 2:23 minutes, WO #2 reported the driver of the BMW - the Complainant – had run away from him. WO #2 requested that ‘Air2’ respond, and they acknowledged.


File 3 – Radio Transmissions

Starting at about 1:51 minutes into the recording, WO #2 reported the Complainant had tried to carjack another vehicle.

Starting at about 2:24 minutes, WO #2 reported, “He’s carjacking this lady!”

Starting at about 2:24 minutes, Air2 reported WO #2 had one in custody in the driveway of 4800 Jane Street.

Starting at about 2:24 minutes, WO #2 reported, “Firearm recovered.”

Starting at about 2:34 minutes, Air2 instructed officers to stop and block a red vehicle exiting the driveway of 4800 Jane Street.

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage - WO #1’s Police Vehicle

On July 5, 2023, at 10:19:16 p.m., the video commenced with WO #1 driving through a parking lot and stopping nose to nose with a white BMW SUV.

Starting at about 10:19:47 p.m., WO #1’s emergency lights were activated, and a horn sounded.

Starting at about 10:19:51 p.m., the BMW moved forward, struck WO #1’s cruiser and then reversed.

Starting at about 10:19:58 p.m., the BMW pulled forward again and rounded WO #1’s cruiser on the front passenger side, exiting the camera frame.

Starting at about 10:21:09 p.m., WO #1 drove out of the parking lot.

Starting at about 10:22:08 p.m., WO #1 drove through the scene of a motor vehicle collision at Jane Street and Hullmar Drive.

Starting at about 10:26:49 p.m., WO #1 stopped her cruiser at the west end of the driveway at 4800 Jane Street. Three YRP SUVs with emergency lights activated were parked in the driveway.

Video Footage from Security Camera – Building on Steeles Avenue West

On July 5, 2023, at 10:08:01 p.m., the video commenced with a view of a parking lot in the area of Highway 400 and Steeles Avenue West, Toronto.

Starting at about 10:08:27 p.m., a white BMW SUV [operated by the Complainant] entered the left camera frame and backed into a parking space.

Starting at about 10:10:58 p.m., the Complainant exited the BMW and walked away while using a cellular phone. The Complainant returned to the SUV and sat in the driver’s seat.

Starting at about 10:18:35 p.m., WO #1’s unmarked SUV cruiser entered the left camera frame and travelled towards the Complainant’s BMW and out of the right camera frame.

Starting at about 10:19:34 p.m., WO #1’s cruiser entered the camera frame, pulled right, and stopped nose to nose in front of the Complainant’s BMW. A vehicle honked a few times and the emergency lights to WO #1’s cruiser were activated. The BMW travelled forward, a crash sounded, a horn sounded, and the BMW then reversed. The BMW travelled forward again, a crash sound was heard, and the vehicle travelled around WO #1’s cruiser, and sped off. WO #1’s cruiser remained on scene. A short time later, WO #1’s cruiser reversed, and travelled out of the left camera frame.

Video Footage - Traffic Camera Mounted on the Southwest Corner of Jane Street and Hullmar Drive

Starting at about 10:20:36 p.m., the results of a motor vehicle collision between two white SUVs were captured. A damaged white Audi SUV driven by CW #1 had travelled east on Hullmar Drive intending to turn left onto northbound Jane Street. The Audi faced north in the southbound Jane Street Lane. Another SUV, the white BMW driven by the Complainant, had travelled south on Jane Street and collided with the Audi before it came to rest against a fence on the east side of Jane Street, opposite Hullmar Drive.

Starting at about 10:20:50 p.m., CW #1 exited his Audi and walking around his vehicle. The Complainant exited the BMW and retrieved something from the driver’s side back seat while an unidentified female exited the passenger side of the BMW. She walked north on Jane Street.

Starting at about 10:21:05 p.m., the Complainant ran across Jane Street, then immediately ran back to the BMW, and appeared to be searching for something. At that time, a YRP officer [WO #2] arrived and walked towards the Complainant, who immediately began to run across Jane Street in a southwesterly direction. Both individuals then left the field of view.

 

YRP Air 2 Helicopter Video Footage

On July 5, 2023, at 10:22:52 p.m., the video opened with an aerial view of the area of Steeles Avenue West and Jane Street, Toronto. The helicopter was attempting to locate WO #2 who was engaged in a foot pursuit of the Complainant.

Starting at about 10:24:07 p.m., the video panned to the driveway of 4800 Jane Street. The Complainant walked up the driveway towards a vehicle and WO #2 followed behind him. The Complainant approached the vehicle, and the video panned to a nearby vehicle collision at Hullmar Drive and Jane Street.

Starting at about 10:24:36 p.m., the video panned back to the driveway at 4800 Jane Street and WO #2 stood beside a vehicle as it began to pull away.

Starting at about 10:24:55 p.m., the vehicle stopped. WO #2 raised both of his arms in front of him and the driver’s side rear door opened. The Complainant exited while WO #2 held his arms up, pointed at the Complainant.

Starting at about 10:25:00 p.m., the Complainant fell to the ground on his buttocks, and rolled onto his right side with stiff limbs, before rolling onto his stomach. The camera panned away momentarily, and the vehicle slowly moved towards the driveway exit.

Starting at about 10:25:15 p.m., the video panned back to WO #2, who stood over a black object. He picked it up and put it in his right pants pocket. The Complainant remained on the ground, approximately five metres from WO #2.

The video panned to the driveway exit where three cruisers blocked the path of the moving vehicle. Three officers ran towards WO #2.

Starting at about 10:25:53 p.m., two officers took hold of the Complainant’s arms and rolled him over. The third officer joined in holding the Complainant’s arms, and he was searched. The video then panned away from the driveway.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the YRP between July 6, 2023, and September 20, 2023:

• Record of computer-assisted dispatch;
• Event Chronology;
• Communications recordings;
• Call History;
• Detailed Call Summary;
• ICC video footage;
• Photographs and video footage, including footage from police helicopter;
• Video footage from a building on Steeles Avenue West;
• Training records – WO #2;
• Duty Roster;
• List of all involved officers;
• Civilian witness statements taken by YRP;
• General Occurrence Report;
• Policy – Use of Force [including CEW];
• Policy – Departmental MVC; and
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between July 5, 2023, and September 20, 2023:

• Traffic camera video footage, received from the TPS;
• Health Records of the Complainant, received from CVH; and
• Patient Records of the Complainant, received from York Region Paramedic Services.

The two ran for a distance before arriving at the roundabout outside the front entrance of the building at 4800 Jane Street. The Complainant attempted to carjack a vehicle stopped in the area. From the rear driver’s side seat of the car, he pointed a gun at the back of the driver’s head and ordered her to drive. Just at that time, WO #2 arrived on scene and directed the Complainant to exit at gunpoint. He did so.

Once out of the vehicle, WO #2, who had holstered his gun and drawn his CEW, fired the CEW at the Complainant. The Complainant locked up and fell to the ground, a gun falling from his possession in the process. The officer continued to discharge his CEW until the arrival of other officers, who intervened to handcuff the Complainant behind the back.

The Complainant complained of trouble breathing following his arrest and was transported to hospital. He was diagnosed with a fractured right ankle.

25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

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.

With respect to the force used by WO #2, namely, the pointing of his firearm at the Complainant followed by multiple CEW discharges, I am satisfied it was legally justified. The Complainant was threatening a third-party with a gun – a loaded Glock pistol – at the time WO #2 pointed his own firearm at him and ordered him out of the vehicle. This was clearly a proportionate use of force given the exigencies of the situation. No other weapon would have served to protect him, and the occupants in the vehicle the Complainant had commandeered, had the officer felt the need to defend himself from gunfire. Nor would it have done to withdraw or seek cover from a safe distance in the circumstances; that course might well have placed the life of the vehicle’s driver in imminent jeopardy. The CEW discharges were also commensurate with the demands of the moment. WO #2 was alone at the time and confronting an individual who had embarked on a reckless flight from police, putting the lives of members of the public at risk. He had also brandished a firearm. Until such time as he was restrained in handcuffs, the officer could reasonably expect the Complainant to remain a clear and present danger to the safety of those around him. He was entitled, in the circumstances, to keep him neutralized from a distance until such time as help arrived. That is precisely what he did.

There is a version of events proffered in the evidence that the Complainant’s ankle was fractured as officers attempted to hogtie his feet to his hands behind the back on the ground. That evidence, however, is contested by the accounts of the arresting officers, none of whom observed any such conduct. It is also undermined by other evidence that detracts from the trustworthiness of this account.

It remains unclear when precisely the Complainant broke his ankle. It might well have happened in the car crash at the Jane Street and Hullmar Drive intersection, or perhaps as he ran from WO #2. It is possible, though unlikely, in my opinion, the injury was incurred in the course of his arrest. In any event, as there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case, the file is closed.


Date: December 22, 2023

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit