SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OCI-391
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Mandate of the SIU
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, 2019Pursuant 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 ActPursuant 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, 2004Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.
Other proceedings, processes, and investigationsInformation 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.
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 man (the “Complainant”).
Notification of the SIU On September 22, 2023, at 2:24 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.
On September 21, 2023, at 3:40 p.m., PRP officers were called to the Scotiabank located at the Valley Creek Plaza [1985 Cottrelle Boulevard, Brampton] for a reported fraud involving the Complainant. The Subject Official (SO) attempted to arrest the Complainant and a struggle ensued. The Witness Official (WO) arrived a short time after the arrest. After being handcuffed, the Complainant complained of pain to his leg and was transported to the William Osler Health System – Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH) via Emergency Medical Services (EMS). X-rays were performed and the Complainant was diagnosed with a broken left leg.
The TeamDate and time team dispatched: 09/22/2023 at 6:30 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 09/22/2023 at 12:16 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):26-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on September 25, 2023.
Civilian Witness (CW)CW Interviewed
The civilian witness was interviewed on September 22, 2023.
Subject OfficialSO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The subject official was interviewed on October 4, 2023.
Witness OfficialWO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The witness official was interviewed on September 22, 2023.
The Scene The events in question transpired by the passenger side of a PRP cruiser parked outside the front of the Scotiabank, 1985 Cottrelle Boulevard, Brampton.
The scene had not been held and SIU forensic investigators did not attend.
Figure 1 – Google Maps image of the Scotiabank
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence 
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – The SOOn September 21, 2023 (date-stamp), starting at about 3:41:45 p.m. (time-stamp), the SO was captured attempting to handcuff the Complainant behind the back. As the officer held the Complainant’s hands behind his back and attempted to secure a handcuff to the Complainant’s left hand, the Complainant dropped his hands and turned to the left. The SO took hold of the Complainant’s left biceps and redirected him back to the police vehicle. The Complainant moved his right arm from the SO. The officer held the Complainant by the left shoulder with his left hand and the Complainant’s right forearm with the right hand, after which the Complainant fell to the ground on his right side and immediately grabbed for his left knee. The SO grabbed the Complainant’s left arm (which had a handcuff attached) and moved it behind his back. The Complainant rolled onto his stomach and the SO handcuffed the right wrist. The SO grabbed the Complainant with both hands by the back of his shirt and said, “Get up.” The Complainant said, “Oh,” grimaced, and looked down. The SO opened the rear passenger door and the Complainant sat on the seat with his legs bent up to the side.
Starting at about 3:42:50 p.m., the SO informed the Complainant he was under arrest for theft.
Starting at about 3:45:10 p.m., the WO entered the camera frame and spoke with the SO.
Starting at about 3:48:33 p.m., the SO and WO entered the Scotiabank. The CW informed them that the Complainant had produced a ‘Permanent Resident’ card that did not belong to him and tried to obtain a new debit card.
Starting at about 3:58:35 p.m., the SO said, “What hurts? The cut?” The Complainant replied, “My leg.”
Starting at about 3:59:35 p.m., the Complainant sat at the edge of the back seat while the SO and WO asked what injuries he had. The SO pointed out a cut to the Complainant’s right knee. The Complainant extended his left leg and specified his left knee hurt.
Starting at about 4:00:22 p.m., the WO said, “When did you hurt your knee?” and the Complainant said he got into an accident before and “five of the bones are broken”. The Complainant reported the incident occurred in 2021. The SO and WO asked if the Complainant required an ambulance and the Complainant declined.
Starting at about 4:11:13 p.m., the Complainant was directed to exit the police vehicle. As he stood, the Complainant grimaced and limped as he moved. The SO removed the handcuffs and the Complainant reached down to his left knee with his left hand.
Starting at about 4:11:55 p.m., the Complainant requested that the SO call for an ambulance. The Complainant was informed by the WO that he had been released from custody. The Complainant limped a few steps and sat on a curb. The SO requested an ambulance from the dispatcher because the Complainant was complaining of leg pain.
Video Footage - Sardar JI Restaurant On September 21, 2023 (date-stamp), starting at about 3:40:53 p.m. (time-stamp), the footage opened with an eastern view of the parking lot of 1985 Cottrelle Boulevard. At the upper frame was a Scotiabank and, directly east in the centre frame, a fully marked PRP vehicle parked in the sixth spot to the south of the Scotiabank.
Starting at about 3:41:22 p.m., the SO exited the Scotiabank with the Complainant holding an arm. The Complainant walked with the SO to his police vehicle. The Complainant’s right arm raised behind his back and his front was pressed against the passenger side of the SO’s police vehicle near the hood. The Complainant turned his head over his left shoulder towards the SO. The SO had his hands in front of him. Because of the video’s pixelation, it was not clear what was happening at this time. The Complainant appeared to drop his hands to the side, step back, and turn to his left in a half-turn. The SO took hold of the Complainant and pushed him back against the police vehicle, after which he appeared to use his right knee to knee the Complainant’s lower leg. Again, because of the pixelation, it was unclear which leg was struck. The SO turned the Complainant to the left, placed his right leg in front of the Complainant, and swept him to the ground in a forward motion. The Complainant landed on his right side and the SO turned him onto his chest. The SO stood over him and handcuffed the Complainant behind his back. The officer stood with one leg on each side of the Complainant. The SO pulled the Complainant back by his shoulders, which caused the Complainant to sit back on his bent knees. The SO pulled the Complainant to his feet. The Complainant raised his left leg and bent it slightly, then dropped his leg briefly and lifted it again.
Police Communications RecordingsOn September 21, 2023, starting at about 3:12 p.m.,  the manager of a Scotiabank reported that a man [now known to be the Complainant] was in the branch committing a fraud. The Complainant was trying to withdraw money from another person’s account using a fake identification.
Starting at about 3:22 p.m., the SO was dispatched to the bank, along with the WO.
At about 3:40 p.m., the SO arrived on scene.
At about 3:43 p.m., the SO announced that one person was in custody. EMS was requested because the Complainant complained of leg pain.
At about 7:39 p.m., the Complainant was transported to hospital.
Video Footage – ScotiabankOn September 21, 2023 (date-stamp), starting at about 3:22 p.m. (time-stamp), the Complainant was waved up to the teller located closest to the front entrance and began to conduct his business.
Starting at about 3:40 p.m., the SO drove into the parking lot and reversed into a parking spot about six spots from the main walkway and in front of the bank. The SO entered the front doors and walked over to the Complainant. The SO grabbed the Complainant’s left arm with his left hand. The Complainant was immediately walked out the front doors. His arms remained by his side as he was walked to the police vehicle and his body leaned away from the SO. The Complainant was placed up against the police vehicle by the front windshield on the passenger side. His hands were situated behind his back. The SO and the Complainant moved towards the pillar between the front and rear door and the officer began the process of applying the handcuffs. The Complainant kept moving and turning his head over his shoulder. Starting at about 3:42 p.m., the SO grabbed the Complainant’s upper body, which appeared angled towards the SO, placed his right leg behind the Complainant and spun the Complainant towards the back of the police vehicle and the pavement. The Complainant landed on his right side, with his legs bent at his knees. The SO kept hold of the Complainant as he went towards the pavement. The Complainant was put onto his stomach and the handcuffing was completed. The Complainant was placed in the open rear area of the police vehicle and could no longer be seen. The door remained open.
Materials Obtained from Police Service Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PRP between September 22 and 27, 2023:
- BWC footage;
- Communications recordings;
- Incident Details Report;
- Incident History;
- Notes – the SO;
- Notes – the WO;
- Occurrence Report;
- Person Details Report – the Complainant; and
- Policies: ‘Criminal Investigations’ and ‘Incident Response’.
Materials Obtained from Other SourcesThe SIU obtained the following records between September 22, 2023, and October 11, 2023:
- Ambulance Call Report from Peel EMS;
- The Complainant’s medical records from BCH;
- Video footage - Scotiabank; and
- Video footage - Sardar JI Restaurant.
In the afternoon of September 21, 2023, the SO arrived at the Scotiabank located at 1985 Cottrelle Boulevard, Brampton. An employee of the branch had contacted police to report that a male – the Complainant – was attempting to access funds using false identification. The SO entered the bank, took hold of the Complainant, and escorted him outside to his parked cruiser where he intended to secure him in handcuffs.
While facing the passenger side of the SO’s cruiser, his left hand having already been cuffed, the Complainant began to resist arrest. He dropped his right hand away from the SO and turned to the left. The Complainant was pushed forward against the cruiser by the officer, resisted surrendering his right hand, and was tripped to the ground, his left knee fracturing in the process.
The SO rolled the Complainant onto his front and handcuffed his hands behind the back without further issue.
The Complainant was released at the scene following his arrest. He subsequently attended hospital and was diagnosed with his injury.
Section 25(1), Criminal Code -- Protection of persons acting under authority
(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,
Section 402.2(1), Criminal Code - Identity Theft
Analysis and Director's Decision
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.
In light of what the officer had learned of the 911 call reporting the Complainant’s fraudulent efforts to obtain a bank card, the SO was within his rights in seeking to arrest him for identity theft contrary to section 402.2(1) of the Criminal Code.
I am also of the view that the force used by the SO was not unlawful. The Complainant resisted arrest by making it difficult for the officer to secure his right hand. In the circumstances, the officer was entitled to resort to a measure of force to press his objective as safely as possible. Taking the Complainant to the ground made sense in this context as it would better position the officer to better manage any further challenges to the handcuffing process. While it is unfortunate that the Complainant’s leg was fractured in the takedown, I am satisfied that the injury fell within the risks inherent in the tactic and was not the result of any heavy-handed force by the officer.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case against the SO. The file is closed.
Date: January 17, 2024
Electronically approved by
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]
- 3) Times are derived from the Incident Details Report and are approximations. [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.