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 sustained by a 32-year-old man during his arrest on April 28, 2017.

Notification of the SIU

The SIU was notified of the incident on April 28, 2017 at 10:30 p.m. by the Toronto Police Service (TPS).

The TPS reported that on April 28, 2017 at 1:37 p.m., the Complainant was arrested in Oshawa by members of the TPS Organized Crime Unit (OCU). He was taken to a TPS division, where the booking sergeant noticed blood on the Complainant’s face and sent him to the hospital. The Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured orbital bone and nasal bone, returned to the TPS division and lodged in a cell.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

SIU Forensic Investigators responded to the scene and identified and preserved evidence. They documented the relevant scenes associated with the incident by way of notes and photography, and made submissions to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS).

Complainant

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

Civilian witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

WO #5 Interviewed

WO #6 Interviewed

WO #7 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #8 Interviewed

WO #9 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #10 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #11 Interviewed

WO #12 Interviewed

Additionally, the notes from one other, non-designated officer were received and reviewed.

Subject officers

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right.

SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right.[1]

During the afternoon of April 28, 2017, Toronto Police Service (TPS) Organized Crime Unit officers were conducting mobile surveillance on the Complainant and followed his Nissan to a residence in Oshawa, where the Complainant stopped in the driveway and CW #1 entered the car.

SO #1 quickly approached the driver’s side door of the Complainant’s car, intending to arrest the Complainant for various drugs and firearms offences. At that moment, the Complainant pressed the gas and quickly reversed out of the driveway, trapping SO #1 between the car and the open door. The Complainant’s car struck the surveillance van being driven by WO #1, which was on the roadway at the end of the driveway. At that, SO #1 and SO #2 removed the Complainant from his seat and took him to the ground. Once the Complainant was handcuffed and brought to his feet, it was apparent that he had facial injuries.

The Complainant was transported to a TPS division, and then to the hospital, where it was determined he suffered four facial fractures on the right side of his face.

The scene

The collision took place on the roadway on the east side of a residential street in the City of Oshawa. The scene was released prior to notification to the SIU and was not examined by SIU Forensic Investigators.

Forensic evidence

SO #1’s Glock handgun with magazine and holster were submitted to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) for examination. A buccal swab from the Complainant was also submitted to the CFS. DNA comparisons were not done by CFS. With regard to their examination of the Glock firearm, the CFS report states “no blood-like staining observed”.

Video/audio/photographic evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence, and received video recordings from a private residence opposite and just east of the arrest scene, and from an automotive repair garage just west of the arrest scene. TPS provided the SIU with in-car-camera (ICC) recordings from two cruisers, the Complainant’s booking video, as well as photos of the Complainant’s vehicle and a cell phone audio recording of the Complainant’s arrest. Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) also provided scene photos.

Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) video recording from residence

This video camera is located across the street (north) and slightly east of the driveway where the arrest occurred. The Complainant’s car is seen travelling westbound on the street and pulling into the driveway. CW #1 is seen walking east along the south sidewalk toward the Complainant’s car.

CW #1 enters the front passenger side of the Complainant’s car and seconds later SO #1 pulls up along the right passenger side of the Complainant’s car. SO #1 is seen exiting his vehicle, removing his handgun from his rear waistband and running with his handgun drawn to the driver’s door of the Complainant’s car. He opens the driver’s door at which time the Complainant reverses his car. SO #1 gets caught between the open door and the body of the car, with the door slamming against him as it is reversing. SO #1 is pulled back with the Complainant’s car.

WO #1’s van is then seen driving eastbound on the street to the rear of the Complainant’s car and is struck by the Complainant’s car, effectively stopping both vehicles. Approximately five seconds elapse from the time SO #1 attends at the Complainant’s car until it collides with WO #1’s van. Within seconds, the other OCU police officers arrive and box the Complainant’s car in to prevent escape.

Police officers can be seen exiting their respective vehicles and running towards the Complainant, however due to the location of their vehicles, the CCTV camera does not capture the interaction between the police officers and the Complainant. The video does not show the Complainant being removed from his car. The police officers can only be seen from the shoulders up and are not identifiable due to the poor quality of the video. CW #1 cannot be seen exiting the car.

The Complainant is seen being walked to a fence along the east side of the driveway. He is handcuffed with his hands behind his back. No injuries can be seen.

CCTV video recording from automotive garage

The CCTV camera is located on the north wall of the building, providing a view to the north and west along the street. The camera captures the roadway at the end of the driveway. There are numerous cars parked along the fence line between the automotive garage lot and the street somewhat limiting the view. A wooden shed is located at the northeast corner of the lot blocking a view to the driveway.

The Complainant’s car is seen driving westbound on the street and turning into the driveway of the residence where it is out of view due to the shed in the automotive garage lot. The Complainant’s car is being followed by WO #1 who is driving a black or blue van. WO #1 continues west on the street past the driveway and out of the camera’s view.

SO #1 is seen driving west on the street and turning left onto the south side boulevard. SO #1 is seen exiting his vehicle and moving toward the Complainant’s vehicle, but is then out of the camera’s view behind the shed.

WO #1’s van is seen approaching from the west across the driveway. At the same time, the Complainant’s car is reversing out of the driveway colliding with WO #1’s van, pushing the van further into the roadway. SO #1 can be seen between the open driver’s door of the Complainant’s car and the car itself, being pulled backwards with the car.

The other OCU police officers are seen to arrive and block the Complainant’s car from escape.

The police officers are seen exiting their respective vehicles and running to the Complainant’s vehicle. However, due to vehicles blocking the camera’s view, the Complainant cannot be seen being removed from the car and no physical interaction can be seen between the police officers and the Complainant.

ICC video recordings

The first ICC recording details the Complainant’s transport to the TPS division by WO #5 and WO #6. The ICC recording clearly shows the injuries to the Complainant’s face. There is conversation between the police officers and the Complainant; however, nothing is said to identify how his injuries occurred.

The second ICC recording captures the Complainant’s transport from the TPS division to the hospital. Nothing of evidentiary value is recorded.

The cellular phone recording of the complainant’s arrest

TPS provided a copy of the recording of the Complainant’s telephone conversation during his “take-down” on April 28, 2017. A copy of the transcript of the recording was also provided. The audio recording was 21 seconds in length and the recording started at 1:28:29 p.m.

There was a screeching sound then the Complainant said something unintelligible. A male police officer said, “Get outta the car.” There were screeching sounds in the background. The Complainant said something unintelligible then a male police officer said, “Get outta the fucking car!” The Complainant said, “Sorry man” and something unintelligible.

A male police officer said, “Get outta the fucking car. Get out the car!” The Complainant said, “I have my seatbelt man.” There was background noise. The Complainant said, “My seatbelt, my seatbelt.” Three male police officers scream, “Get out the fucking car!”

The audio ends.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• TPS Communications recordings
• TPS booking video
• ICC video recordings from two TPS cruisers
• Cell phone audio recording of the Complainant’s arrest on April 28, 2017
• TPS photos
• DRPS photos
• DRPS Detailed Call Summary
• DRPS Motor Vehicle Accident Report
• Event Details Report
• General Occurrence Report
• Initial Report – WO #12
• Injury Report
• Motor Vehicle Collision Critique – WO #12
• Notes of WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5, WO #6, WO #7, WO #8, WO #9, WO #10, WO #11 and WO #12
• Notes from a non-designated officer
• Parade Sheet Report
• Procedure - Arrest and Release
• Procedure - Search of Persons
• Scenes of Crime Officer Report
• Automated Dispatch System (ADS) Summary Sheet - Summary of Conversation, and
• Transcript of the Complainant’s Cell Phone audio recording on April 28, 2017 (Redacted)

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

1. as a private person
2. as a peace officer or public officer
3. in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or
4. 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.

On April 28^th, 2017, the TPS OCU was involved in a project which was aimed at arresting the Complainant for offences of possession of Cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), and possession of firearms, contrary to the Criminal Code. The goal on April 28^th, 2017, was to locate and arrest the Complainant prior to executing several search warrants on three residences with which he was associated. Several officers had the Complainant under surveillance and followed him to a residential area in the City of Oshawa in Durham Region. The Complainant was observed operating a motor vehicle and driving to an address where he picked up CW #1, who entered the front passenger seat of the Complainant’s motor vehicle. Police were under the belief that the Complainant was conducting a drug transaction. The direction was issued to arrest the Complainant, and all officers moved in to do so. During the course of the arrest, the Complainant reversed his car into the motor vehicle driven by WO #1, and was then forcefully removed from his vehicle and arrested. He was later transported to hospital where he was assessed, and it was discovered that he had sustained four fractures to his facial bones on the right side of his face.

The Complainant, in his statement to investigators, alleged that SO #1 hit the Complainant on the face with his gun, causing a cut to his forehead. SO #1 then pulled the Complainant out of the car and put him face down onto the ground, causing him to sustain some road rash to the right side of his face. The Complainant advised that he was only struck the one time and believed that his injuries were sustained while he was still in the car.

The various CCTV videos from the area did not support the account given by the Complainant with respect to the following:

Contrary to the Complainant’s version of events, it is clear from the video that SO #1 exited his vehicle, drew his firearm, and ran with his gun drawn, towards the Complainant’s car and opened the car door before the Complainant reversed the car. When the Complainant then reversed the car, it caused SO #1 to be trapped between the open car door and the body of the car. The video then reveals that the car door closed against SO #1 as it is reversing, dragging SO #1 backwards with the car. Even without the video, it is obvious that the Complainant’s version of events in this regard could not be accurate, since, if the Complainant had put his car into reverse while SO #1 was still running around the back of the Complainant’s car, SO #1 would either have been pinned between the reversing car and WO #1’s van, or, if the collision had already occurred, his route would have been blocked by WO #1’s van which was in contact with the Complainant’s vehicle; and

The video further reveals that SO #1 had already been at the Complainant’s car for approximately five seconds before the Complainant reversed into WO #1’s van.

While SO #1 did not provide a statement to investigators, as was his legal right, he did relate to WO #12 very shortly after the fact, the sequence of events. SO #1 advised WO #12 that he was the first police vehicle to pull upon the grassy boulevard when the Complainant’s vehicle was in the driveway; he opened the door of the Nissan to arrest the Complainant, when the Complainant put the car in reverse in order to get out of the driveway; SO #1 then stepped into the Complainant’s vehicle hoping to avoid going under the car; and he then observed WO #1’s van travelling west to east and colliding with the Complainant’s vehicle, at which point other members of the team arrived and the Complainant was wrestled out of his vehicle and handcuffed. On a review of the video evidence, I find that the indirect evidence of SO #1, as related by WO #12, is confirmed by the video evidence, while the Complainant’s version is not.

According to all of the police team members who were interviewed by SIU investigators, it is clear that police were aware that reasonable grounds had been formed to arrest the Complainant for the possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and for possession of a firearm; furthermore, they were aware that the Complainant was believed to be in possession of a firearm at the time, that he had a history of violence, and that he was known to run from police. Once the Complainant was located and observed parked in the driveway of CW #1’s residence, the instruction was given to arrest as soon as all of the officers were in place.

WO #1 advised that he saw SO #1 exit his vehicle and run toward the Complainant’s car. As SO #1 neared the Complainant’s car, he approached the driver’s door and the Complainant reversed his car out of the driveway at what WO #1 described as a high rate of speed. WO #1 observed that the driver’s door was open and SO #1’s head was over the car. WO #1 then angled his van in behind the Complainant’s motor vehicle in order to block it in and prevent him from fleeing. He observed SO #1 holding on to the Complainant’s vehicle at the open driver’s door as the vehicle was reversing. The Complainant’s car then collided with the right front of WO #1’s van and pushed it approximately six feet [1.83 metres] north into the roadway.

WO #2 advised that he observed SO #1 exit his vehicle with his firearm out as he approached the side of the Complainant’s car. WO #2 also observed SO #1 at the open driver’s door of the Complainant’s car when the Complainant accelerated backward, trapping SO #1 between the driver’s door and the body of the car. While SO #1 was struggling to stay upright as he was being pulled back with the Complainant’s car, WO #2 observed WO #1 pull in behind the Complainant’s car and the rear of the Complainant’s car collided with the front passenger side of WO #1’s van, pushing it some five to six feet [1.52 to 1.83 metres] sideways.

WO #3 advised that as he approached the Complainant’s motor vehicle, he, too, observed that the driver door was open and SO #1 was at the door and was being dragged back with the car. WO #3 observed SO #1’s arm over the driver’s door window and that he was struggling to stay on his feet as he was being dragged backwards. When WO #1’s vehicle blocked the path of the Complainant’s motor vehicle, the rear of the Complainant’s motor vehicle collided with WO #1’s van with what WO #3 described as a tremendous amount of force, causing the door of the Complainant’s motor vehicle to slam against SO #1.

WO #4 also described the Complainant’s vehicle reversing out of the driveway at a high rate of speed and colliding with the front passenger side of WO #1’s van.

The other members of the team then attended and blocked the Complainant’s motor vehicle in attempts to prevent him from escaping. WO #1 advised that he saw SO #1 and SO #2 remove the Complainant from the car, but his view was blocked and he did not see the Complainant when he was taken to the ground, although he heard police officers yelling at the Complainant to get down on the ground and to show his hands. Similarly, WO #3 heard SO #2 yelling, “I can’t get his hands! I can’t get his arms! Give me your arm. Give me your hand”. WO #3 then ran to the driver’s side, where he observed the Complainant face down on the ground trying to get up, while SO #1 was pushing on his legs. The Complainant had his right arm underneath his body near his waistband. WO #3 advised that he was concerned because of the information that he had been given that the Complainant was believed to be armed, and he placed his left knee on the Complainant’s backside and, together, he and SO #2 were able to free the Complainant’s arms and place him in handcuffs.

WO #1 then jumped on and over the hood of WO #2’s vehicle to assist with the arrest and located SO #1’s firearm on the hood of WO #2’s vehicle, while SO #1 and SO #2 were dealing with the Complainant on the ground. WO #1 described the Complainant as being face down on the ground with SO #2 trying to pull the Complainant’s right arm out from under his body. WO #1 noted that the Complainant was not compliant in that he would not give up his hands and he was fighting with the police officers.

WO #2 advised that he and WO #4 arrested the passenger of the motor vehicle, and he heard a struggle taking place on the driver’s side, with SO #1 yelling something about his arm, while a second officer was yelling, “Give me your hands! I don’t have his hands!” Once the passenger was handcuffed, WO #2 moved to the driver’s side, where he observed the Complainant face down on the ground with SO #2 trying to “dig” his right arm out from under his body and SO #1 was trying to control the Complainant’s lower body. WO #2 believed at that time that the Complainant might have a firearm in his possession and was trying to access it. WO #2 advised that he considered the arrest of the Complainant to be a “high risk takedown” because the police officers did not know whether or not the Complainant would be armed. WO #2 then grabbed a hold of the Complainant’s left arm and delivered two knee strikes to the Complainant’s left shoulder in order to subdue the Complainant. WO #2 continued to hold the Complainant to the ground with his right knee on the Complainant’s left shoulder and neck area, while his left knee was on the Complainant’s back, and he observed that the Complainant was face down at the time.

Following the arrest, WO #1 observed a quantity of cash and what appeared to be a quantity of crack cocaine in the console of the Complainant’s motor vehicle. The Complainant was observed to have a right puffy eye and a cut above his left eye, which was bleeding. SO #1 was observed to be in some discomfort and indicated that his arm did not feel right and he was observed to have road rash and swelling to his elbow. The subsequent execution of the three search warrants in the three residences associated with the Complainant turned up a loaded 9mm handgun at one location, and two fully loaded 9mm magazines at another.

With respect to the Complainant’s injury, I find that the location of the injury, as described as being primarily on the right side of the Complainant’s face, is not consistent with having been struck by SO #1’s firearm. If the Complainant, who was seated in the driver’s seat, was facing forward when SO #1 approached and told him to get out of the car, it would have been the left side of the Complainant’s face that was exposed to SO #1. If the Complainant was turned towards SO #1, the front of the Complainant’s face would have presented itself. Furthermore, in order to cause the amount of damage that the Complainant had to his face, I would expect that a significant degree of force would have had to have been behind whatever struck the Complainant. In the confines of the car, with the right side of the Complainant’s face either facing away from SO #1, where he could not have reached it at all, or, if the Complainant was facing SO #1, with the right side of his face in close proximity to the steering wheel, SO #1 would not have had enough space to be able to deliver a significant blow to the right side of the Complainant’s face.

Furthermore, CFS, which examined SO #1’s firearm, found no traces of blood whatsoever, which one would certainly have expected had he struck the Complainant in the face, causing him to bleed as extensively as did.

The photographs of the Complainant’s motor vehicle in contact with WO #1’s van reveal extensive damage to the rear of the Complainant’s vehicle, with the rear bumper seen to be coming away from the body of the car, the trunk of the car popped open from the force, and the centre of the Nissan’s bumper being significantly pushed in. While this would not have been significant damage if caused while both vehicles were travelling at speed, I find that with the car having been stationary just prior, and then ramming into the van stopped behind his vehicle, the Complainant must have given the car quite a bit of gas to cause it to strike the van with this great a degree of force. I find that the amount of damage is consistent with the observations of the various police officers that the Complainant reversed at “a high rate of speed” and struck the van with “a tremendous amount of force”. The law of physics being what it is, with any action having an equal and opposite reaction, the impact at the rear of the car would of necessity have caused the Complainant to move forward towards the steering wheel with an equal amount of force. While normally a person would be looking behind them when reversing, it is very likely that the right side of the Complainant’s face would then have been exposed to the steering wheel, and equally likely that he then sustained his injury when his face struck the steering wheel. I find further support in this conclusion based on the evidence of the Complainant himself, that he sustained his injuries in the car, and not later when he was removed from the car.

The other possibility that I have considered, but which I believe is less likely, is that the Complainant was injured when he was taken to the ground. While the Complainant did not allege that he was taken to the ground hard, I note that the side of his face that he recalled striking the ground would have coincided with his facial fractures. I have no difficulty accepting that if this was the mechanism by which the Complainant received his injury, that the actions of the police officers in putting the Complainant to the ground with force would not offend s.25(1) of the Criminal Code. I form this opinion based on the following factors: the Complainant was actively attempting to escape by dangerously reversing his vehicle back into SO #1 and ramming into the motor vehicle of WO #1; as a result of the actions of the Complainant in trying to escape, SO #1 was trapped between the door and the car and was being dragged along with the car; the Complainant would not give up his hands for handcuffing; all of the officers were in possession of reasonable grounds to believe that the Complainant had access to firearms; there had been some indication that the Complainant may have been armed at the time of his arrest; and the Complainant had his right hand in the area of his waistband when he was face down on the ground, refusing to surrender his hand for handcuffing. On these facts, I have no difficulty accepting that in this moment, which undoubtedly would have been extremely high stress, urgent, and fast-moving, that SO #1’s grabbing and dragging the Complainant out of the car and along with SO #2 then taking the Complainant forcefully to the ground, as a means of saving SO #1 from injury, without the time or the opportunity to weigh their actions and the degree of force behind their actions, would not have amounted to an excessive use of force in the circumstances.

While I find that the Complainant, in all likelihood, sustained the fractures to his face when he was actively engaging his motor vehicle in an attempt to escape and then collided with the police van driven by WO #1, if his injury was caused when SO #1 and SO #2 forcefully removed the Complainant from his car and placed him face down on the ground, with the right side of his face striking the ground, I cannot find that in these circumstances such an action could be construed to have been an excessive use of force. In coming to this conclusion, I am mindful of the state of the law as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Nasogaluak, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206, as follows:

Additionally, I have considered the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Baxter (1975), 27 C.C.C. (2d) 96 (Ont. C.A.), that officers are not expected to measure the degree of their responsive force to a nicety. On this record, it is clear that the force used by SO #1 and SO #2, in removing the Complainant from his motor vehicle and taking him to the ground, fell within the range of what was reasonably necessary in the circumstances to effect his lawful detention and to remove the risk that he continued to pose as long as he was seated in the driver’s seat with SO #1 trapped between the moving car and its open door. I further find that the officers would have been under additional pressure to subdue the Complainant as quickly as possible on the basis not only that they had reasonable grounds to arrest him for possession of a firearm, but also because the observations of WO #1, which were communicated to the other team members, was that the Complainant had been observed with his right hand over his right jacket pocket and a two to three inch [5 to 7.6 centimetres] bulge was seen from that pocket, leading to the suspicion that the Complainant was armed at the time. This suspicion would have been further heightened when the Complainant had his right hand near his waist area and refused to give it up for handcuffing, when he was down on the ground.

In the final analysis, on all of the evidence, while I accept that the Complainant most likely injured his face when he forcefully struck the steering wheel in his car, it is also possible that he was injured when he was forcefully taken to the ground while trying to escape and was dragging SO #1 with his car. In either scenario, however, I am satisfied for the foregoing reasons that the Complainant’s detention, and the manner in which it was carried out, were lawful notwithstanding the injury which he suffered, even were I to find that the officers caused the injury, which I am hesitant to do on this evidence. I am, therefore, satisfied on reasonable grounds on this record that the actions exercised by the officers fell within the limits prescribed by the criminal law and there are no grounds for proceeding with charges in this case.

Date: January 23, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] SO #2 submitted his notes when initially designated a witness officer. The notes were returned and not referred or used in any other way when he was re-designated a subject officer. [Back to text]