Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving police officers where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. The Unit’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation. If, after an investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the officer. Alternatively, in all cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director does not lay criminal charges but files a report with the Attorney General communicating the results of an investigation.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act (“FIPPA”)

Pursuant to section 14 of FIPPA (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 whose release 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 of FIPPA (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this document. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• subject officer name(s)
• witness officer name(s)
• civilian witness name(s)
• 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 (“PHIPA”)

Pursuant to PHIPA, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may have also 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.

The Unit’s investigative jurisdiction is limited to those incidents where there is a serious injury (including sexual assault allegations) or death in cases involving the police.

“Serious injuries” shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. “Serious Injury” shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault. Where a prolonged delay is likely before the seriousness of the injury can be assessed, the Unit should be notified so that it can monitor the situation and decide on the extent of its involvement.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injury reportedly sustained by a 61-year-old man during his arrest on April 26^th, 2017.

Notification of the SIU

At approximately 12:46 a.m. on Thursday, April 27^th, 2017, the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of a leg fracture suffered by the Complainant.

The TPS reported that at 9:01 p.m. on April 26^th, 2017, police officers executed a drug search warrant on a residence in the City of Toronto. The Complainant was among the parties arrested and when police officers were putting the Complainant into a police vehicle, he complained of a sore leg. The Complainant was taken to hospital where he was diagnosed as having suffered a broken right fibula.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

SIU investigators immediately travelled to the courthouse to interview the Complainant.

SIU investigators later interviewed the individuals who were arrested with the Complainant, with the exception of one party, who declined to be interviewed.

The SIU reviewed several in-car camera recordings and several in-station video recordings from the custody areas of the police station.

Complainant:

61-year-old male, interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Notes reviewed, interview deemed unnecessary

WO #3 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Notes reviewed, interview deemed unnecessary

WO #5 Notes reviewed, interview deemed unnecessary

WO #6 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #7 Notes reviewed, interview deemed unnecessary

WO #8 Notes reviewed, interview deemed unnecessary

WO #9 Notes reviewed, interview deemed unnecessary

WO #10 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #11 Notes reviewed, interview deemed unnecessary

WO #12 Notes reviewed, interview deemed unnecessary

WO #13 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

The notebook entries of the witness officers were reviewed. The SIU elected to interview those police officers who were directly involved with the Complainant. The involvement of several of the other witness officers was documented on the various video recordings reviewed by the SIU.

Subject Officers

SO #1 Interviewed, notes and written statement received and reviewed

SO #2 Interviewed, notes and written statement received and reviewed

On Wednesday, April 26^th, 2017, members of the TPS Major Crime Unit (MCU) conducted a Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) search at the apartment of CW #1. Also inside the apartment with CW #1 were CW #3, CW #2, another male party and the Complainant. All of the occupants of the apartment were arrested and charged with possession of drugs and possession of a weapon, the weapon being a knife that was found inside the apartment. There was no report of any force being used in the arrests of the apartment occupants.

All of the apartment occupants were escorted down the building staircases to police cruisers, to be transported to the police station. The Complainant was transported in the same police cruiser as CW #1. During his short journey to the police station, the Complainant made no complaint of injury or mistreatment.

Due to a high level of activity in the booking area of the police station, there was a delay of approximately one and a half hours before the Complainant and CW #1 were paraded before the officer in charge. The Complainant was eventually taken into the booking hall, where he underwent a Level Three (strip) search, and he was then escorted upstairs to an interview room in the MCU office.

The Complainant was later escorted to a cell to await transfer to court. In the morning, he was suffering significant pain in his right leg and the decision was made to have the Complainant taken to the hospital.

Nature of Injuries / Treatment

The Complainant suffered a fibula neck fracture in the area of his right knee. The Complainant was provided a type of brace to support his leg. He was not expected to receive any additional medical support for his injury.

The Scene

The Scene – TPS Vehicle

The TPS fleet vehicle used to transport the Complainant was a Ford Crown Victoria sedan, marked with the markings of the TPS.

There was a fixed barricade mounted behind the front seats of the vehicle, resulting in the foot wells of the rear passenger area being very confined.

Forensic Evidence

No submissions were made to the Centre of Forensic Sciences

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

Video Recordings

On April 26^th, 2017, at 10:23 p.m., the passenger side rear door of the police vehicle was opened and SO #2 could be heard saying that the camera system was “rolling.” The Complainant could be heard asking the police officers to remove his jacket.

At 10:24 p.m., the Complainant, who was handcuffed with his hands behind his back, backed into the open door of the vehicle and he sat down on the rear seat, with his legs outside the vehicle. The Complainant then moved deeper into the vehicle and he slowly pulled his legs into the foot well. He made no complaint of pain and there was no other indication that he might have suffered an injury getting into the vehicle.

SO #1 read the Complainant his rights to counsel and read the cautions given to a person under arrest. The vehicle door was then closed. The Complainant appeared to be extremely groggy and significantly sedated.

At 10:28 p.m., the driver side rear door was opened and CW #1 entered the vehicle.

CW #1 and the Complainant were transported to the police station. Once in the parking lot of the police station, there was a substantial delay in removing both men from the vehicle. SO #1 explained to the two men that there was a backup in the processing area. SO #1 often called out to the Complainant to make sure he was okay, as the Complainant was displaying great difficulty staying awake. In the approximately one and a half hours that the Complainant and CW #1 spent sitting in the rear seat of the police vehicle, the Complainant made no complaint of mistreatment or injury. He was very cordial with SO #1 and SO #2 while they waited in the vehicle. CW #1 was much less pleasant about the delay, and the Complainant tried to calm him on several occasions.

At 12:09 a.m., on April 27^th, 2017, the Complainant exited the police vehicle in the sally port of the police station. He walked to the booking hall with perhaps an almost imperceptible limp. The Complainant was asked by the booking officer, WO #9, if he had any medical issues and the Complainant responded, “No.” The Complainant denied he had consumed alcohol or prescription drugs that evening. The Complainant was taken into an adjacent room for a Level Three (strip) search and at 12:17 a.m. he exited the room and was walking with no difficulty.

Later in the morning, the Complainant appeared in front of the booking officer, who stated that the Complainant had complained of problems with his right knee. The booking officer, known to be WO #10, stated that the Complainant had indicated his knee was injured when he was entering the scout car following his arrest. WO #10 stated they wanted to first fingerprint the Complainant, so he could be transported to the hospital and then be taken directly to court following his visit to the hospital.

At 7:25 a.m., the Complainant entered the fingerprinting and photographing room and he was limping significantly, favouring his right leg. The Complainant had great difficulty walking and he appeared to be in significant pain. At 7:52 a.m., he exited the room and was led to a police vehicle, to be taken to hospital.

During his transport to hospital, by WO #12 and WO # 11, the Complainant was very cordial with the police officers. He made no complaint of injury or mistreatment.

At 11:28 a.m., following his visit to hospital, the Complainant re-entered the police vehicle and WO #11 and WO #12 drove him to court, arriving there at 11:30 a.m.

The Complainant was returned to the booking hall of the police station at 12:23 p.m. He was wearing a brace on his right leg and he was limping badly. The booking sergeant asked the Complainant to explain what the hospital had told him about his leg, and the Complainant responded that he was told he had a fracture to his right knee. The booking sergeant responded that he understood the injury was a fracture to the Complainant’s right fibula. The booking sergeant advised the Complainant that he would be lodged until the necessary paperwork was completed, and he would then be taken to court.

The booking sergeant asked the Complainant if he had disclosed his injury when he was initially brought into the police station. The Complainant responded that he had raised the issue, but the police officers were rude and they thought it was a joke. He stated he had never been treated so poorly over an injury.

After the Complainant was escorted back to the cells, the booking sergeant spoke to someone on the telephone. They discussed whether the Complainant had stated on-camera that his knee was injured when it became twisted in the police vehicle.

At 1:54 p.m., three of the men who had been arrested with the Complainant were standing in the booking hall, in preparation for their transfer to court. The Complainant entered the booking hall and CW #3 asked the Complainant about his leg, to which the Complainant responded, “The fucking goofs broke my leg last night and they’re laughing about it all fucking night when I told them.” All four men were then escorted to a court wagon to be transferred to court.

Communications Recordings

The police transmissions communications recordings and log were reviewed.

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the TPS

• Event Details Reports
• General Occurrence Report
• The TPS Injury Report
• Police Transmissions Communications Recording
• Booking hall and cell area video recordings
• The notebook entries of the designated witness officers, and
• A copy of the Warrant to Search

The SIU also obtained the Complainant’s medical records.

The conclusion of the investigation was delayed while the SIU awaited receipt of video recordings from the cell block area of the police station. Those recordings were received on August 1^st, 2017. Upon review of those recordings, the SIU issued an additional designation for WO #13, who can be seen on the video recordings engaging in conversation with the Complainant regarding the Complainant’s leg.

Section 4(1), Controlled Drugs and Substances Act - Possession of substance

4 (1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall possess a substance included in Schedule I, II or III.

On April 26^th, 2017, a Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) search warrant was executed at a residence in the City of Toronto. Members of the Toronto Police Service Major Crime Unit executed the warrant and five persons were located inside the residence and arrested and transported to the police station. Of those arrested, the Complainant was later transported to hospital where he was diagnosed as having sustained a fibula neck fracture in the area of his right knee and was given a leg/knee brace to wear. No further treatment was deemed necessary.

During the course of this investigation, four civilian witnesses, including the Complainant, were interviewed, as well as the subject officers and five witness officers. Fortunately, SIU investigators also had access to the in car camera video from the cruiser that transported the Complainant and CW #1, as well as video from inside the police station.

While the Complainant had little recall of his arrest inside of the residence, three of the four other occupants of the residence, at the time that police entered, agreed to be interviewed and each advised that they did not observe police use any force against the Complainant during his arrest or while being handcuffed and removed from the apartment.

The evidence from the in-car camera (ICC) footage reveals that at no time did the Complainant make any complaint in the car about having hurt his leg.

The evidence provided by all of the police officers involved, that the Complainant had told them that he been working out earlier that day, was confirmed by one of the civilian witnesses.[1]

On the evidence of all of the occupants of the apartment who agreed to be interviewed, there is no dispute that the Complainant was not assaulted by any police officer inside the apartment nor did any officer use any force against the Complainant, as the Complainant did not apparently resist. The evidence of the civilian witnesses fully confirms the statements provided by both WO #1 and WO #3, the arresting officers of CW #1 and the Complainant, that both men were fully compliant, got onto the floor on their own without any physical contact with police, and that in fact there was no physical contact at all during the arrest, with either man, other than to handcuff them and assist them to their feet.

Furthermore, despite the Complainant’s assertion that he had not consumed any drugs, I take the observations of one of the civilian witnesses that the Complainant was still suffering from an earlier party, as meaning that some drugs had been consumed earlier at the party and the Complainant was feeling the effects. I find support in this interpretation from the officers who observed the Complainant either in the apartment, or thereafter during transport and at the police station, and described him as being sleepy and slow to respond, or “on the nod,” which WO #1 described as a sleepy state symptomatic of opioid use. The ICC video confirms that the Complainant was extremely groggy while seated in the cruiser and he appears to be significantly sedated.

Additionally, despite the Complainant’s later assertions to the other occupants of the apartment that his leg was injured when police ‘jammed’ him into the police cruiser, I find this not only inconsistent with his statement to SIU investigators, wherein he advised that his leg was already hurting when he descended the stairs before entering the cruiser and that he really did not know how his leg was injured, but also with the ICC video which confirms that police had no physical contact with the Complainant as he entered the police cruiser and that he did so under his own steam without assistance. The ICC video clearly confirms that if the Complainant’s leg was injured when he entered the police cruiser, it was injured by his own actions as police had no physical contact with him at the time. When asked during the booking-in process if the Complainant had an injury, the Complainant is clearly heard on the recording to indicate that he did not. At no time, either during the arrest, the transport, or at the station, is the Complainant ever heard to make any complaint that he had been injured or that his leg was causing him pain.

On all of the evidence from both the civilian witnesses and the various video obtained, which confirmed the evidence of the police officers, I can find no evidence that the Complainant sustained his injury at the hands of police. The utterances of the Complainant to various officers, as confirmed by one of the civilian witnesses, that he had carried out a heavy leg work-out earlier that day, lifting over 400 pounds, and that his leg was already hurting when he was descending the stairs before ever entering the police cruiser, seems to leave open the possibility that the Complainant’s leg was injured prior to his being placed into the cruiser.

The evidence of all witnesses to the arrest inside the residence fully confirms that he was not injured during the course of being arrested.

As such, on all of the evidence, I can find no evidence to form the basis to find reasonable grounds to believe that the injury suffered by the Complainant was caused by police. If he was injured when he entered the police cruiser, the video confirms positively that the injury was caused by the Complainant himself, and he may simply not have realized that he had injured himself until he became less groggy and was more aware of what was going on. If he did not sustain his injury while entering the police cruiser, the only remaining alternative is that the injury was sustained prior to police arrival. In conclusion, I can find no basis here for the laying of criminal charges against any police officer and none shall issue.

Date: March 20, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] He is said to have indicated that he had had an intense leg work-out that morning squatting up to 480 lbs. He complained to one SO that his leg was hurting. [Back to text]