SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OCI-441
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
Mandate of the SIU
The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.
Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.
Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.
Information Restrictions
Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019
Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:- The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person.
- Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault.
- Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person.
- Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.
- Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.
- Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published.
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Pursuant to section 14 (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 that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.
- The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials;
- 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
Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.Other proceedings, processes, and investigations
Information may also have 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.Mandate Engaged
Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.
A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.
In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.
This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injury of a 35-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.
In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.
This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injury of a 35-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On October 26, 2023, at 11:15 p.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.On October 26, 2023, at around 1:45 p.m., YRP officers were in a parking lot near Dixie Road and Kingston Road, Pickering, intending to arrest the Complainant. When the Complainant arrived in the parking lot, he saw police officers as he exited his vehicle and fled on foot. Officers ran after the Complainant, and he was apprehended a short distance away after being grounded. The Complainant was transported back to YRP 5 District in Markham. While in custody, the Complainant complained of pain to his leg. He was taken to Markham Stouffville Hospital (MSH) where it was determined that his leg suffered no injury; however, he was diagnosed with a fractured rib. The Complainant was transported back to the YRP station and held for a bail hearing the next day.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2023/10/27 at 12:51 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/10/27 at 10:53 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
35-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on October 27, 2023.
Subject Officials (SO)
SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal rightSO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
SO #3 Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
The subject official was interviewed on November 16, 2023.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewedWO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
The witness officials were interviewed between November 8 and 16, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in a parking lot near Dixie Road and Kingston Road, Pickering.Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
Video Footage – Parking Lot
The footage captured a parking lot. There were two camera views. Camera 1
The Complainant was depicted running south, then east, north and, finally, west between parked vehicles and out of sight.
Camera 2
The Complainant was depicted running north in the parking lot between parked vehicles. A YRP Emergency Response Unit (ERU) officer faced east. The Complainant appeared to run into this ERU officer while being chased by two other ERU officers. Two ERU officers appeared to fall, and the Complainant also went down between the two vehicles. It appeared that one of the officers directed a right-handed punch downwards.
YRP In-car Camera (ICC) Footage
The video captured the rear seat of a YRP marked police cruiser that the Complainant was placed in after his arrest, at 1:51 p.m. The Complainant complained about an injury to his leg and reported that he had been shot a few months back. The Complainant explained that he ran away from police because he did not recognize them as real police officers and did not understand why he was being arrested on a charge of ‘obstruct’. A police officer advised the Complainant that she was just transporting him to the police station and had no information for him. Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained the following materials from the YRP between October 31, 2023, and November 1, 2023:- Incident Summary Report;
- General, Supplementary and Arrest Reports;
- Communications recordings;
- ICC recordings;
- Video footage YRP obtained at scene;
- Mission Plan, Immediate Action Plan, and Arrest Plan, including any risk assessments for incident;
- Duty notes – WO #2;
- Duty notes – WO #1;
- Duty notes – WO #3;
- Duty notes – WO #4; and
- Duty notes – WO #5.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on November 1, 2023:- MSH medical records of the Complainant
Incident Narrative
In the afternoon of October 26, 2023, the Complainant arrived in a parking lot near Dixie Road and Kingston Road, Pickering. He was walking across the parking lot when he turned back to return his vaping device to his vehicle. As he did so, the Complainant was confronted by an officer emerging from a nearby van.
The officer was YRP ERU officer – SO #3. He was followed out of the van by three additional ERU officers, including SO #2. The officers were among a team of ERU members set up in different unmarked police vehicles in the parking lot. Earlier that day, they had been enlisted by the Human Trafficking Unit to assist in the arrest of the Complainant, who was known to keep a firearm, for obstruction of justice.
SO #3 and SO #2 chased the Complainant around the parking lot as he fled south, then east and north, and finally west into a row of parked vehicles. At the other end of the row was SO #1, who had run to that position to head off the Complainant. The Complainant and SO #1 body-checked each other, after which the Complainant was taken down by the three officers. Following a brief engagement on the ground, in which the Complainant was punched once and, perhaps, twice, he was handcuffed to the back and taken into custody.
The Complainant was transported to hospital following his arrest and diagnosed with a fractured left rib.
The officer was YRP ERU officer – SO #3. He was followed out of the van by three additional ERU officers, including SO #2. The officers were among a team of ERU members set up in different unmarked police vehicles in the parking lot. Earlier that day, they had been enlisted by the Human Trafficking Unit to assist in the arrest of the Complainant, who was known to keep a firearm, for obstruction of justice.
SO #3 and SO #2 chased the Complainant around the parking lot as he fled south, then east and north, and finally west into a row of parked vehicles. At the other end of the row was SO #1, who had run to that position to head off the Complainant. The Complainant and SO #1 body-checked each other, after which the Complainant was taken down by the three officers. Following a brief engagement on the ground, in which the Complainant was punched once and, perhaps, twice, he was handcuffed to the back and taken into custody.
The Complainant was transported to hospital following his arrest and diagnosed with a fractured left rib.
Relevant Legislation
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.
Analysis and Director's Decision
The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by YRP officers on October 26, 2023. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3 subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the subject officials committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s arrest and injury.
Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.
I am satisfied that the subject officials were engaged in the lawful execution of their duties when they sought to take the Complainant into custody. Earlier that day, they had attended a briefing by the Human Trafficking Unit at which they were apprised of information that the Complainant had obstructed justice in connection with ongoing proceedings in a human trafficking case.
I am also satisfied that the force used by the officers in aid of the Complainant’s arrest was legally justified. As was captured on video, the Complainant was determined to escape. He ran as fast as he could from the officers chasing him and was only stopped when he bumped into SO #1 approaching from another direction. Thereafter, the subject officials were prudent in taking the Complainant down given the information they had of a firearm in his possession. On the ground with officers overtop, he would find it more difficult to access a weapon on his person. SO #3 says he punched the Complainant’s left side on the ground when he refused to release his hands from under his chest, after which the officers were able to control and handcuff his arms behind the back. That would not seem an excessive use of force given the information about the gun and the need to restrain the Complainant as quickly as possible. It would appear on the video footage that another of the officers, possibly, SO #2, also directed a punch at the Complainant as he was being brought to ground. For similar reasons, I am unable to reasonably conclude that that punch, if it connected, was out of bounds. No further force was brought to bear.
In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s rib fracture was incurred in the physical engagement that marked his arrest, the evidence falls short of any reasonable suggestion it was attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the subject officials. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: February 22, 2024
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.
I am satisfied that the subject officials were engaged in the lawful execution of their duties when they sought to take the Complainant into custody. Earlier that day, they had attended a briefing by the Human Trafficking Unit at which they were apprised of information that the Complainant had obstructed justice in connection with ongoing proceedings in a human trafficking case.
I am also satisfied that the force used by the officers in aid of the Complainant’s arrest was legally justified. As was captured on video, the Complainant was determined to escape. He ran as fast as he could from the officers chasing him and was only stopped when he bumped into SO #1 approaching from another direction. Thereafter, the subject officials were prudent in taking the Complainant down given the information they had of a firearm in his possession. On the ground with officers overtop, he would find it more difficult to access a weapon on his person. SO #3 says he punched the Complainant’s left side on the ground when he refused to release his hands from under his chest, after which the officers were able to control and handcuff his arms behind the back. That would not seem an excessive use of force given the information about the gun and the need to restrain the Complainant as quickly as possible. It would appear on the video footage that another of the officers, possibly, SO #2, also directed a punch at the Complainant as he was being brought to ground. For similar reasons, I am unable to reasonably conclude that that punch, if it connected, was out of bounds. No further force was brought to bear.
In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s rib fracture was incurred in the physical engagement that marked his arrest, the evidence falls short of any reasonable suggestion it was attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the subject officials. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: February 22, 2024
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) Unless otherwise specified, the information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s finding of facts following its investigation. [Back to text]
- 2) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]
Note:
The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.