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 of a 26-year-old man, during his interaction with police on March 1, 2010 at approximately 3:30 a.m.

Notification of the SIU

The SIU was notified of the incident by the Toronto Police Service (TPS) on October 18, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. TPS reported that due to criminal charges being laid against three police officers in a 2015 SIU file, the TPS immediately suspended the officers. The TPS conducted a review of the suspensions and came across the Complainant’s allegation of assault against one of the Subject Officers (SOs).

The information indicated that on March 1, 2010 at 3:30 a.m., the Complainant was arrested on Cameo Crescent for theft from motor vehicles. The Complainant alleged he was taken to a dog park on Rockcliffe Court by the SOs. The Complainant alleged that the SOs struck him in the face and knocked him unconscious. The Complainant received a broken nose. The SOs then dropped off the Complainant at Clouston Avenue. The Complainant called an ambulance and was taken to hospital. The Complainant’s medical record indicates that he told the doctor that he was assaulted by the police.

The review further indicates that on March 1, 2010, the Complainant advised TPS of the assault, but no action was taken. On April 13, 2010, the Complainant again reported the assault to TPS. Consequently, an internal investigation was conducted by the TPS. The TPS concluded that the matter was unsubstantiated. The Complainant did not provide a formal statement.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 6

Complainant

26-year-old male, medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed, interview deemed not necessary

WO #3 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed, interview deemed not necessary

WO #4 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed, interview deemed not necessary

WO #5 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed, interview deemed not necessary

WO #6 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed, interview deemed not necessary

WO #7 Interviewed

WO #8 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed, interview deemed not necessary

WO #9 Interviewed

WO #10 Interviewed

WO #11 Interviewed

WO #12 Interviewed

Subject officers

SO #1 Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

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

The scene

The scene of arrest is a small residential street. The exact location in which the SOs first encountered the Complainant is unknown but it has been described as being near Cameo Crescent.

The second scene is a small park which was identified by TPS as a dog park on Rockcliffe Court.[1]

Neither scene was visited or processed by SIU due to the time lapse since the event.

TPS Internal investigation

TPS conducted an internal investigation into this matter between April and November, 2010. Summaries of the police officer interviews conducted have been provided as well as the reviewing officer’s own notes.

It should be noted that no in-car cameras were installed in that TPS division police vehicles at that time.

Automated Vehicle Locator (AVL) data was reviewed by TPS and it was noted that the police vehicle assigned to SO #1 and SO #2 at the time, attended the scene on Cameo Crescent and stayed there until 5:38 a.m. They then travelled to Rockcliffe Court, arriving at 5:41 a.m. and departing there at 5:52 a.m.

The SIU was advised verbally that the complaint was closed as unsubstantiated in relation to the assault allegation however a number of internal policy breaches were documented and dealt with under the Code of Conduct.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Criminal Investigative Processing System (CIPS) reports;
• Community Inquiry Report;
• Contact Details of a person of interest;
• Event Details Report;
• General Occurrence Report;
• Known Offender Summary;
• 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;
• Occurrence Reports;
• Person Search - Complainant;
• Automated Dispatch System (ADS) - Summary of Conversation;
• TPS Crown brief;
• TPS Interview Summaries – WO # 1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5, WO #6, WO #10, WO #11 and WO #12;
• TPS Interview Summaries of two non-designated officers;
• TPS Interview Summary - SO #2; and
• TPS Investigator Log Notes.

During the early morning hours of March 1, 2010, the Complainant was arrested by the SOs for theft from motor vehicles. The Complainant was intoxicated at the time. After his arrest, the Complainant was placed in their cruiser, and taken by the SOs to a parking lot behind a middle school, and then to a more isolated park nearby. After a period of time, the SOs gave the Complainant a Promise to Appear and released him after driving the Complainant to the area of a friend’s home. The Complainant had visible injuries to his face and head at the time.

An ambulance was called by the Complainant’s friend and the Complainant was transported to the hospital. At the hospital, a computerized tomography (CT) scan was done and it showed no internal head trauma, although the Complainant was noted to have had abrasions and lacerations to his face and the back of his head. He was released with instructions to follow for monitoring for a possible head injury.

On March 1, 2010 at approximately 3:30 a.m., the Complainant was arrested by SO #1 and SO #2 for theft from motor vehicles. After he was arrested, he was taken by the police officers to the parking lot behind Rockcliffe Middle School, and then to a more secluded dog park across the street. He was given a Promise to Appear and released at 5:09 a.m. After the Complainant was released and went to a friend’s home, he was transported by ambulance to the hospital. At the hospital, it was noted that the Complainant had abrasions and lacerations to his face and the back of his head, and was released with instructions to follow for possible concussion symptoms.

The issue before me is how the Complainant came to have those injuries. The Complainant claims that he was repeatedly punched in the head by the SOs, both at the original scene when he was in the police cruiser, and later at the dog park. The Complainant’s medical records from the hospital on March 1, 2010, indicate that he told the attending physician that he was assaulted by the police and knocked out. The same day the Complainant told various TPS officers about the assault. No action was taken. Approximately six weeks later, the Complainant again reported the assault to TPS. The SIU was not notified and instead the TPS decided to conduct an internal investigation into the allegations. After six months, TPS determined that the allegations were unsubstantiated, curiously without the Complainant providing a formal statement or, it appears, without any effort made to locate or interview other civilian witnesses.

Two civilian witnesses were interviewed by SIU investigators. Unfortunately, because the TPS did not locate or interview any witnesses to the Complainant’s allegations at the time of their investigation in 2010, these interviews occurred more than seven years after the incident. Given the passage of such a significant period of time, I am concerned about relying on the accuracy of these witnesses’ recollections. Nevertheless, neither witness recalled observing SO #1 or SO #2 kick, punch or hit the Complainant at any time. In fact, both civilian witnesses saw the complainant on the ground just as the police arrived on scene. CW #1 indicated that he saw the Complainant falling over his own feet at the end of his driveway and hitting his face so hard that he went unconscious and did not move. Further, he recalled that the Complainant was on the ground for one or two minutes before the two officers picked him up and put him in the rear of their cruiser. Similarly, CW #2 saw the complainant on the ground prior to the arrival of the police but he did not see how he got there.

In his interview almost six and a half years after the incident, the Complainant had no recollection of what happened immediately upon arrival of police but was able to describe the events occurring after he was placed in the rear of the cruiser. Obviously, the fact that the civilian witnesses did not recall the police officers assault the Complainant in any way at the scene contradicts the Complainant’s version of events in a material way. Both civilians describe the Complainant as being very intoxicated at the time, and even the Complainant acknowledged his consumption of alcohol affected his recollection of events. This calls into question the reliability of his version of subsequent events.

SO #1 stated that when he and SO #2 arrived at the scene, the Complainant was standing at the end of the driveway. He claimed that he saw the Complainant lunge at SO #2. This is not corroborated by either civilian witness. His next observation was the Complainant on his stomach on the ground and SO #2 was handcuffing him. The Complainant was not resisting, and he did not see SO #2 assault the Complainant in any way. SO #1 recalled that the Complainant had a little blood on his upper lip, and heard SO #2 offer to call an ambulance but the Complainant declined any medical attention. It is noteworthy that SO #1 recalled this detail in his interview over seven years after the incident, given that he had not made any record of the Complainant’s injury in his memo book. SO #1 also did not put into his memo book any notes regarding taking the Complainant to either the parking lot behind Rockcliffe Middle School or the dog park. Yet he was again able to speak to those events in detail in his interview over seven years later. SO #1 denied punching the Complainant, and did not see SO #2 punch the Complainant at any time that he was with them. Accordingly, SO #1 can offer no explanation for the Complainant’s injuries. Given the obvious concerns with SO #1’s evidence, I am reluctant to give any weight to his version of events unless it is corroborated by other evidence.

In his interview in August 2010 for the internal TPS investigation, SO #2 stated that when he arrived on scene, he first observed the Complainant walking northbound away from him. Again, this is not what the two civilian witnesses recollected. SO #2 told him to stop and the Complainant became assaultive. SO #2 placed the Complainant under arrest for theft and, during the arrest, a struggle ensued and SO #2 took the Complainant to the ground. The SO #2 believed he may have hit the Complainant with his elbow. The Complainant resisted for a few seconds and then became compliant enabling SO #2 to handcuff him. After he was placed in the rear of the police cruiser, SO #2 observed a small cut on the Complainant’s upper lip and a small amount of blood coming from his nose. SO #2 offered medical attention, but the Complainant refused. SO #2 acknowledged taking the Complainant first to the parking lot behind Rockcliffe Middle School and then, because he thought it was unsuitable for their private discussion, the dog park across the street. SO #2 denied assaulting the Complainant. I also have difficulty accepting SO #2’s version of events, particularly given the questionable errors in his notebook entries regarding the Complainant’s release time, the time that he spoke to WO #12, and the lack of a late entry relating to the injury report for the Complainant.

Because of the passage of time, no other witnesses to the events could be located, or, if located, could not provide any meaningful evidence for our investigation. Without question, our investigation was significantly compromised by the passage of time. Despite the Complainant notifying TPS twice of his allegations, TPS did not notify us for over six and a half years from the time of the incident. The SIU investigation determined that the TPS did not address the Complainant’s first complaint (on the day of the incident), and only conducted an internal investigation after his second notification (six weeks later). That internal investigation took six months to complete, and did not involve locating or interviewing independent witnesses nor was a formal statement taken from the Complainant. However, because SO #1 is currently the subject of criminal charges, TPS conducted a review of SO #1’s files and in so doing, located the Complainant’s original complaint.

Finally, no audio or video recording exists of what occurred during the interaction with the Complainant. As a result, neither the version of events of the three officers present[2] nor the Complainant’s account of the event can be corroborated. In the absence of any real or independent evidence that support the allegations of assault made by the Complainant, I am only left with the Complainant’s recollection of events. I believe that something happened in the early morning hours of March 1, 2010 between the Complainant and the SOs after his arrest and transport to the public school and then the dog park. Unfortunately, given the issues that I have with the evidence of each of the Complainant and the SOs, and given the adverse effects of the extreme passage of time on our ability to properly investigate these allegations, I cannot reasonably say what happened. The Complainant’s injuries are equally consistent with a significant fall as with being punched in the head.

Accordingly, I do not have reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence has occurred and no charges will be laid.

Date: October 13, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] The dog park in that area no longer exists. [Back to text]
• 2) [2] WO #12 was also present at the scene on March 1, 2010. He had limited independent memory of the events, but recalled from his notes that he attended the area of Cameo Crescent and assisted other police officers in searching the neighbourhood for a second suspect who had fled on foot. He knew that one person was in custody but had no dealings directly with the Complainant. He recalled that the Complainant was seated on the curb of the street near the police vehicle operated by the SOs. WO #12 did not recall seeing any sign of injury to the Complainant. [Back to text]