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.

On March 7, 2016, TPS officers responded to an alarm call at a business in the City of Toronto. When a police officer commanded the driver of a van believed to be involved in a Break and Enter to get out, the van drove away at a high rate of speed. A 44-year-old man fell out of the back of the van, and there was an interaction between the man and police officers. The medical evidence confirmed the man had a fractured left pelvis and hip.

Notification of the SIU

On Monday, March 7, 2016, at 11:50 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the custody injury of a 44-year-old man (the complainant), which occurred shortly after midnight on March 7, 2016 at 1603 The Queensway, Toronto.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Complainant

Interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian Witness

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Interviewed

WO #6 Interviewed

WO #7 Interviewed

WO #8 Interviewed

WO #9 Interviewed

WO #10 Interviewed

WO #11 Interviewed

WO #12 Interviewed

Subject Officer

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence.

In-Car Video for TPS Cruiser – March 7, 2016

00:53:38 hrs

TPS cruiser’s emergency lighting was turned on at 00:55:43 hrs. The vehicle turned onto The Queensway and its emergency lighting was turned off.

00:55:56 hrs

The cruiser entered the California Sandwiches lot coming from an easterly direction.

00:56:00 hrs

A cube van with black lettering was observed backed up against the east door of California Sandwiches.

00:56:03 hrs

The van drove east out of the view of the camera away from the building.

01:06:59 hrs

The video finished and the cruiser was never moved from the time it stopped. No one was seen in the van or falling from the van and no police officers were seen.

Video from Interior of California Sandwiches

The video showed different locations within the California Sandwiches from 0040 hrs to 0110 hrs. The video showed that there was broken glass, which confirmed a break-in; however, apart from the fact that light was seen somewhere in the parking lot apparently from a vehicle, the video had no investigative value.

Police Communications Recordings

Communications Report – Monday, March 7, 2016

00:51:12 hrs

Alarm company contacted TPS dispatch and advised of a company alarm to California Sandwiches at 1603 The Queensway, Toronto.

00:52:18 hrs

The call was dispatched as alarm with breaking glass and multiple motion alarms.

00:54:09 hrs

SO and WO #12 were dispatched.

00:56:51 hrs

SO advised that a white cube van with black lettering on its side was eastbound on The Queensway from California Sandwiches, with the back door open. SO was out of breath and he advised that he had one in custody.

01:04:55 hrs

SO requested an ambulance and advised that a 44-year-old male complained of a sore head when he fell out of the back of the van.

Materials obtained from TPS

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

• COMM summary of conversation
• general occurrence
• ICAD-event details report
• WO notes
• parade sheet reports, and
• prisoner log-22Div-Mar 7, 16.

On March 7, 2016, at 12:56 a.m., TPS officers responded to an alarm call at California Sandwiches at 1603 The Queensway, in the City of Toronto. The SO and WO #12 observed a white cube van backed up to the east door of the restaurant. Believing that a Break and Enter was in progress, the SO exited his vehicle with his firearm drawn and commanded the driver to get out of the van. Instead, the van drove forward at a high rate of speed through the parking lot towards The Queensway. As the van turned before leaving the lot, articles fell out of the back of the van, along with the complainant. The van turned right onto The Queensway and sped off.

The complainant landed on his front right side and he slid on the ground. The complainant got up and ran, while the SO and WO #12 gave chase. The SO issued three verbal warnings to the complainant to stop, but he did not stop. As the complainant was not running very fast, the SO was able to put both of his hands on the back of the complainant’s shoulders at which point the complainant went forward and down onto the sidewalk, landing on his front. In the process, the SO also fell. WO #12 then got on top of the complainant and put his right knee against the complainant’s back. Both officers then handcuffed the complainant with his hands behind his back. No strikes were required or used against the complainant.

Ambulance services were called to assist the complainant when he complained of a sore hip and leg and he was transported to hospital.

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

(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,

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.

Assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm

267 Every one who, in committing an assault,

(a) carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation thereof, or

(b) causes bodily harm to the complainant,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

The weight of the reliable evidence in this case, including the in-car camera video recording, belies any suggestion that the complainant was harmed by either being struck or run over by the police cruiser. Rather, the injury sustained by the complainant is consistent with him falling from the back of the van or being struck by the van. I find it unlikely that his injury was caused when he was apprehended or handcuffed by police, especially in light of the fact that, when complaining to ambulance personnel, the complainant made no mention that it was the behaviour of police in arresting and handcuffing him that caused his injury.

In the unlikely event that the complainant’s injuries may have been sustained when he was lawfully apprehended, arrested and handcuffed by the SO and WO #12, I do not find that their bringing a suspect fleeing from a Break and Enter in progress to the ground and putting their knees on his back to restrain him while he was being handcuffed constituted an excessive use of force as contemplated by s.25(1) of the Criminal Code.

I find on the record before me that the evidence falls far short of providing me with reasonable grounds to believe that an offence of assault causing bodily harm or assault with a weapon pursuant to the Criminal Code has been committed. I find that I am unable to determine with any degree of certainty exactly how the complainant sustained his injury, due to the conflicting and inconsistent evidence on this point; however, I am satisfied that in all likelihood, his injury was caused by his falling from the van, and not at the hands of any police officer. As such, in the absence of some clear and cogent evidence I am unable to find that there are any grounds for the laying of criminal charges.

Date: June 22, 2017

Original signed by
Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit