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 on August 1, 2016 while being pursued for shoplifting.

Notification of the SIU

On August 1, 2016, Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of injuries suffered by a man during his arrest.

TPS reported that at 3:07 p.m. that day, a man whose identity was unknown at the time of the notification walked into the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) store at 232 Dupont Street and stole a bottle of champagne. The man left the store but returned a short time later and drank the champagne in the store. He then stole another bottle of champagne and left the store.

Shortly afterward, citizens called 911 and reported seeing a man lying in the roadway. Paramedics arrived and when they attempted to treat the injured man he fled on foot, falling a short distance away. The paramedics immediately recognized that the man had suffered a dislocated left elbow when he fell. TPS police officers arrived shortly thereafter and arrested the man [who was later determined to be the Complainant].

The Complainant was taken to the hospital and was found to have a broken left forearm. Although the paramedics initially identified a dislocated arm, the arm fracture was not apparent when the paramedics dealt with the Complainant. It was believed the fracture might have occurred during the Complainant’s arrest.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Complainant

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

Civilian witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

Subject officers

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed.

The scene

An LCBO store located at 232 Dupont Street, on the north side of the street. To the south of the LCBO store, Huron Street intersects Dupont Street in a T-shaped intersection.

The residences on Huron Street in the area where the Complainant was located are semi-detached homes. The front yard of one is covered in a small shrub garden and paving stones. The residence of its neighbour has a grass-covered front yard. To the south, the residences are separated by a driveway.

The backyards of these residences, as with many other residences along Huron Street, have been paved over and converted into parking spaces.

Video/audio/photographic evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence. Closed circuit television (CCTV) recordings from the LCBO at 232 Dupont Avenue were provided to the SIU.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Intergraph Computer Aided Dispatch (ICAD) reports
• Notes of WO #1 and WO #2
• Parade sheet for the TPS division – day and evening shifts, and
• TPS and Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) search information for the Complainant

During the afternoon of August 1^st, 2016, the Complainant was observed shoplifting sparkling wine from the LCBO at 232 Dupont Street, and then later lying on the roadway. He was very intoxicated. 911 was called and the SO and WO #1 responded. Paramedics also attended.

The Complainant ran through the homes and yards on nearby Huron Street, falling at one point. The SO and WO #1 located the Complainant lying on his back in an alley between two houses. The Complainant got up and walked away, eventually stumbling and falling face down again. The Complainant was arrested and handcuffed. He complained of pain in his left arm.

An ambulance was called and the Complainant was transported to the hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured left forearm.

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 August 1^st, 2016, at approximately 3:25 p.m., the SO and WO #1 were dispatched to the LCBO at 232 Dupont Street in the City of Toronto in response to a call reporting a theft. Officers attended in the area of the liquor store and located the Complainant, who appeared to be the individual they were looking for. They arrested the Complainant and he was taken thereafter to the hospital where he was diagnosed with a fracture to his left forearm.

It is not in dispute that the Complainant attended the LCBO store on Dupont Street that day, and took a bottle of sparkling wine and left the store without paying for it. Nor is it in dispute that he was intoxicated.

During the course of the investigation, SIU investigators interviewed four civilian witnesses, in addition to the Complainant, and three police witnesses, including the SO. Notebooks of all involved officers were also made available for review, as was the communications record.

In his statement to the SIU, the Complainant had difficulty recalling what happened after he ran from the police, prior to falling to the ground. The Complainant alleges that the officers twisted his arms behind his back when they handcuffed him, thereby breaking the bones in his left elbow in the process. He could not describe the officers involved.

The civilian witnesses who observed the Complainant’s arrest consistently described the Complainant falling down onto a concrete walkway prior to the police officers arriving and handcuffing the Complainant, and the Complainant indicating that he had broken his arm in his fall to the ground. None of the civilian witnesses observed the officers apply any force to the Complainant in the course of his arrest or handcuffing.

Both the SO and WO #1 were interviewed by investigators. The SO advised that they were initially dispatched to a theft call at the LCBO for a theft and then he heard a second dispatch for a personal injury collision in the same area with the reported description of the Complainant matching the description of the suspect of the theft. WO #1 advised that she recalled a dispatch reporting that the Complainant was lying in the middle of Dupont Street outside of the LCBO store and was possibly high on drugs followed by a dispatch regarding a personal injury collision at the same location with a matching description. The officers were en route to the LCBO when a man on the corner advised them that the person they were looking for had gone southbound on Huron Street, whereupon the SO drove in that direction and observed the Complainant lying on his back in an alleyway between two houses. The SO observed the Complainant to have a bottle of champagne and he believed he was the same suspect they were looking for. As WO #1 was about to report that they had located the Complainant, she observed him to stand up with a large bottle of wine in his hand and start to walk and stumble down the alleyway. The SO advised that he observed the Complainant raise his head and shoulders off the ground, look directly at the cruiser, which he appeared to recognize as a police cruiser, slowly stand, pick up his bottle and start to walk away. The Complainant did not appear injured at that time. Both officers exited their vehicle and followed the Complainant with the intention of placing him under arrest for theft. The SO observed that the Complainant was intoxicated, by the way he was moving, and saw him run, not very fast, up the driveway. CW #3 was standing on the sidewalk at the end of the driveway and put up his hands and yelled “stop” at the Complainant, who then ran sideways into CW #3, spilling his champagne on him. The Complainant then lost his balance, and within a short distance, fell onto the ground and landed on an elevated walkway in front of the houses while still holding onto his champagne bottle as he landed. The Complainant was lying face down with his arms out to each side of his body. The Complainant was then handcuffed using minimal force, at which point he said, “Ouch, my arm’s hurt.” The cuffs were then removed and the paramedics examined the Complainant.

On a review of all of the evidence, a fairly clear picture emerges as to what occurred in this matter. All of the witnesses, with the exception of the Complainant himself, are in agreement as to the facts. Where the evidence of the Complainant differs from that of the civilian witnesses, I have rejected his evidence based on the fact that he was clearly, extremely intoxicated and he admitted that he had difficulty recalling some of the crucial events.

The Complainant’s assertion that the officers broke his bones when they twisted his arms behind his back during handcuffing is contradicted by the civilian witnesses, who were very clear in their evidence that no force was used by either officer against the Complainant. Further, with respect to the officers jumping on the Complainant and therefore causing him to fall, again, the civilian witnesses indicated that the Complainant fell of his own accord, the officers not yet even having arrived at the time of his fall.

Considering the evidence of the civilian witnesses, it appears quite clear that the Complainant, at the time that he was being pursued by the officers, wished to protect his bottle and, in doing so, did not put out his hands to protect himself from the fall but rather protected the bottle. Furthermore, despite the statement of the Complainant as to the source of his injury, I find there is no doubt, based on the evidence of all of the civilian witnesses, that the Complainant sustained his injury in the fall when he tripped and he was overheard to admit this fact at the time, in the presence of all the civilian witnesses.

On a review of the record in this case, there is no evidence that the officers used any force to apprehend the Complainant, other than the very minimal force required to place the handcuffs onto the Complainant, which were immediately removed when he complained of pain. What is clear on all of the evidence from all witnesses is that the bottle of wine came through this ordeal unscathed and undamaged. I find that the Complainant, in attempting to flee from the officers in his state of extreme intoxication and for the sole purpose of protecting his alcohol, caused the injury to himself without any intervention by police. It is notable that at no time were any allegations made against these officers by any of the four independent civilian witnesses who observed the interaction between the officers and the Complainant, with respect to any inappropriate actions on their part and I am satisfied on reasonable grounds on this record that the actions exercised by the officers fell well within the limits prescribed by the criminal law and there are no grounds for proceeding with charges in this case.

Date: October 20, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit