SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-TCI-454
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 36-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 36-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On November 2, 2023, at 9:03 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant. According to the TPS, on November 1, 2023, the Complainant was arrested following a struggle in the course of which he was taken to the ground and handcuffed. The Complainant was subsequently examined by emergency medical services (EMS) and found not to be injured, nor in need of hospital attendance. He was transported to 51 Division and lodged in an interview room. The room was soundproofed with wall padding. At 5:26 p.m., the fire alarm activated at the station. The Complainant had torn the wall padding of the interview room, causing the insulation powder to trigger the alarm. It was also discovered that two screws that held the padding in place were missing. The Complainant was removed, and a level three search conducted; however, no screws were found. It was at that time that the Complainant's facial injuries became obvious. He was transported to Mount Sinai Hospital (MSH) where X-rays were taken, and he was diagnosed with a fractured nasal bone and left orbital bone. The Complainant was later transferred to Toronto Western Hospital where he was scheduled to be examined by a specialist on November 2, 2023, at 10:00 p.m. He was subsequently returned to 51 Division for a bail hearing, where he remained.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2023/11/02 at 9:12 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/11/02 at 2:00 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
36-year-old male; not interviewed; declinedCivilian Witness (CW)
CW InterviewedThe civilian witness was interviewed on January 16, 2024.
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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #7 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #8 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #9 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #10 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #11 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #12 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
The witness officials were interviewed between January 24 and 26, 2024.
Evidence
The Scene
The incident under investigation was associated with multiple scenes:- In and around the Tim Hortons, 26 Dundas Street East, Toronto;
- An interview room with wall padding at 51 Division, TPS;
- A search room at 51 Division, TPS; and
- A 51 Division cell, TPS.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
Police Communications Recordings
At 2:17 p.m., on November 1, 2023, WO #12 informed dispatch that the Complainant had been arrested at 26 Victoria Street [now known to be the Tim Hortons restaurant at 26 Dundas Street East] and another unit was requested to transport him. The Complainant had been arrested for ‘assault with a weapon’ in relation to an incident from a couple of days prior. WO #9 and WO #8, and an undesignated officer (UO), attended the scene to assist. WO #12 reported that the Complainant was hitting his head against the floor, but no ambulance was required. At 2:39 p.m., WO #9 and WO #8 took the Complainant to 51 Division.
At 2:49 p.m., WO #9 requested that an ambulance attend the sally port because the Complainant had struck his head against the partition of their police vehicle while en route to the station. The Complainant was conscious and bleeding from the head.
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – WO #12
WO #12’s BWC footage commenced at 2:16 p.m. WO #12 entered the Tim Hortons and approached the Complainant. The officer repeatedly asked the Complainant to give him his hands but he refused. WO #12 grabbed his right hand and grounded the Complainant on his stomach. WO #10 handcuffed him with his hands behind his back. At 2:17 p.m., WO #12 announced over the police radio that everything was fine, and the Complainant had been arrested for ‘assault with a weapon’. The Complainant yelled at the officers to shoot him.
At 2:19 p.m., the Complainant was on his right side on the floor. He lifted his head and struck the right side of his head twice on the floor. The Complainant was brought to his feet and faced up against a table.
At 2:30 p.m., the Complainant was escorted out the front door and seated in the rear seat of WO #8’s police vehicle. Shortly thereafter, WO #12 opened the rear passenger side door and guided the Complainant to his back as WO #8 and WO #10 secured leg restraints from the driver side door. The Complainant swore and shouted at the officers.
BWC Footage – WO #10
WO #10’s BWC footage captured the same events as WO #12’s. It further depicted the UO instructing WO #10 and WO #8 to secure leg restraints to keep the Complainant from hurting his head.BWC Footage – WO #8
WO #8’s BWC captured the events at the Tim Hortons as well as events at 51 Division. At 2:59 p.m., the Complainant was seated in a chair with his hands handcuffed behind his back smoking a cigarette in front of the entrance to 51 Division sally port. WO #8 and the UO stood watching him. WO #8 told him they were waiting for an ambulance to check his head. The Complainant stated he was suicidal.
At 3:21 p.m., EMS arrived and WO #8 told the paramedics the Complainant had cut his head from striking it on the Plexiglas in the police vehicle. The paramedic assessed the Complainant and cleared him of any serious injuries as the minor cut on his head did not require stitches.
BWC Footage – UO
The UO’s BWC footage captured mostly the same events as the other officers. It also depicted the Complainant with a small laceration with blood on the centre of his forehead during his booking at 51 Division.In-car Camera system (ICCS) Footage
Starting at 2:30 p.m., the Complainant was seated in the rear of WO #8’s police vehicle with his hands handcuffed behind his back. There was no injury seen on the Complainant’s head. Shortly thereafter, the Complainant leaned back and kicked the rear window twice.At 2:31 p.m., the Complainant struck the top of his head seven times against the window. The rear door was opened to stop the Complainant’s actions and then closed.
At 2:32 p.m., the Complainant stated, “Shoot me,” and again struck his head against the window. The Complainant continued to say, ‘‘Shoot me,’’ while watching the officers who were standing by the vehicle.
At 2:33 p.m., WO #12 and WO #8 held the Complainant and WO #10 bound his feet with a strap and secured it to the door of the vehicle. They told him that it was to prevent him from hurting himself.
At 2:34 p.m., the Complainant stated the officers would have to kill him and they would be on the news. He added he would, ‘‘Take every police officer,’’ and requested them to let go of his neck. They told him they did not want him to knock himself out. The Complainant replied that if he wanted to, he could kill himself in the back seat.
At 2:40 p.m., en route to 51 Division, the Complainant again struck his head six times against the left rear door window and continued to curse at the officers.
At 2:42 p.m., the Complainant struck the partition four times with his head. WO #9 told him to stop. The Complainant’s ranting continued, and he stated if he did not get a cigarette, they would not make it inside the ‘precinct’.
At 2:45 p.m., the Complainant said no one was stabbed and he was arrested on a false story. The Complainant stated they would have to shoot him outside the police vehicle.
At 2:46 p.m., the Complainant struck his head against the partition four more times. Again, the Complainant was told to stop. Seconds later, he struck his head one more time. Blood was now seen just to the top left of the centre of his forehead. He would speak of his father not wanting to see him and a knife not being found on him.
At 2:49 p.m., the Complainant struck his head once again against the partition.
At 2:50 p.m., the cruiser arrived at 51 Division.
Custody Footage
At 3:49 p.m., November 1, 2023, the Complainant was brought into an interview room by three officers. There were no visible injuries on his face. At 5:20 p.m., the Complainant was in the interview room when he struck himself twice on the right side of his head with a closed fist. He knelt and started to tear the wall padding. A little later, five officers [now known to have included WO #3 and WO #1] entered the room, grabbed the Complainant, and pulled him out the door.
At 5:29 p.m., the officers in a hallway were captured carrying the Complainant face down. WO #1 carried his back torso area, and two other officers carried his right and left foot as they took him out of view.
At 5:46 p.m., WO #3, and WO #1, WO #4, WO #5 and WO #11 attended the Complainant’s cell. The Complainant was pulled out of the cell by WO #5, WO #4 and WO #11, and escorted out of view with his head held facing downward. WO #3 and WO #1 followed them.
At 5:51 p.m., the Complainant was escorted back down the corridor. He was bent over at the waist with his head facing downward. His hood was up, his hands were handcuffed in front, and his face was not visible. WO #11 held him on his right arm and WO #4 held his left arm. Both officers held the Complainant’s head downward as they led him back to the cell.
Sally Port Footage
On November 1, 2023, at 3:35 p.m., the Complainant was seen with three officers and a paramedic at the sally port in 51 Division. He was escorted into the building and out of view. On November 2, 2023, at 12:27 a.m., the Complainant was carried into the sally port on a stretcher by two paramedics and placed into the rear of an ambulance, and the footage ended.
Booking Hall Footage
On November 1, 2023, at 3:36 p.m., the Complainant was escorted into the booking hall by WO #9, WO #8 and WO #12. He was seated on a bench. His hands were handcuffed behind his back, and he had a large bandage wrapped around his forehead. WO #9 informed WO #7 that the Complainant was arrested for ‘assault with a weapon’ and ‘utter threats’. The Complainant appeared agitated and was swearing at WO #7. WO #7 asked how the Complainant sustained his injury. WO #9 replied that the Complainant repeatedly struck his head against the partition in the back of their police vehicle while being transported to the station. WO #7 confirmed that the Complainant had been treated by paramedics in an ambulance outside and medically cleared. However, the Complainant would not confirm any health or medical conditions and indicated he had consumed alcohol and cannabis within the 24 hours prior to his arrest.
WO #7 was also informed that the Complainant had requested that police officers shoot him. The Complainant told WO #7 he felt suicidal. A level one search was conducted on the Complainant without incident.
On November 2, 2023, at 12:26 a.m., two paramedics carried the Complainant on a stretcher. WO #7 remarked that the Complainant had requested an ambulance as he was in pain. She added that the Complainant was being taken to MSH.
On November 2, 2023, at 2:01 p.m., while the Complainant was undergoing his release process in the booking hall, SIU investigators arrived. SIU requested to interview the Complainant. The Complainant indicated he did not wish to speak with the SIU about his interactions with TPS. He noted, “They beat the shit out of me.”
At 2:14 p.m., the Complainant walked out of the booking hall area.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS from November 3, 2023, through January 16, 2024:- BWC footage;
- ICCS footage;
- Custody video footage;
- Involved Officers List;
- Witness List;
- Communications recordings;
- Computer-aided dispatch;
- Person Detail Report;
- Arrest Procedure;
- Incident Response Procedure;
- General Occurrence Report; and
- Notebook entries 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.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police officers who dealt with the Complainant at times during his period of custody, and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario.
In the afternoon of November 1, 2023, the Complainant was arrested by WO #12 and WO #10 inside the Tim Hortons located at 26 Dundas Street East, Toronto. The officers had been alerted to his presence inside the shop by the CW, who explained that the Complainant had threatened him the day before with a metal rod. The Complainant refused to surrender willingly to arrest but was taken into custody without much issue after he was grounded by the officers.
WO #8 and WO #9 arrived on scene to transport the Complainant to 51 Division. The Complainant was placed in the rear seat where he started banging his head against a window. En route to the station, he repeatedly struck his head off the window and partition separating the front and rear compartments of the vehicle, eventually inflicting a cut to his forehead.
Arriving at the station, the officers called for paramedics to examine the Complainant given the laceration. They attended, examined the Complainant, and cleared him of any serious injury. The Complainant was brought into the station, booked and placed in an interview room with padding.
Inside the interview room, the Complainant struck himself twice to the right side of the head, after which he started to tear the padding from the wall. That action released particles into the air that set off a fire alarm. Officers attended at the interview room and, seeing the damage to the walls, decided to remove the Complainant.
The Complainant did not go willingly. He struggled against the officers as they forcibly removed him from the room and placed him inside another interview room before handcuffing him to the back. The Complainant was subsequently lodged in a cell but not for long. Concerned that he was in possession of screws from the padding he had damaged, the staff sergeant at the station authorized a strip search.
Officers removed the Complainant from the cell and escorted him to the search room where he again struggled while the strip search was being performed. The screws were not located and the Complainant was returned to his cell.
Just before midnight, the Complainant complained of pain. He was transported by ambulance to hospital and diagnosed with a broken nose and fractured left orbital bone.
In the afternoon of November 1, 2023, the Complainant was arrested by WO #12 and WO #10 inside the Tim Hortons located at 26 Dundas Street East, Toronto. The officers had been alerted to his presence inside the shop by the CW, who explained that the Complainant had threatened him the day before with a metal rod. The Complainant refused to surrender willingly to arrest but was taken into custody without much issue after he was grounded by the officers.
WO #8 and WO #9 arrived on scene to transport the Complainant to 51 Division. The Complainant was placed in the rear seat where he started banging his head against a window. En route to the station, he repeatedly struck his head off the window and partition separating the front and rear compartments of the vehicle, eventually inflicting a cut to his forehead.
Arriving at the station, the officers called for paramedics to examine the Complainant given the laceration. They attended, examined the Complainant, and cleared him of any serious injury. The Complainant was brought into the station, booked and placed in an interview room with padding.
Inside the interview room, the Complainant struck himself twice to the right side of the head, after which he started to tear the padding from the wall. That action released particles into the air that set off a fire alarm. Officers attended at the interview room and, seeing the damage to the walls, decided to remove the Complainant.
The Complainant did not go willingly. He struggled against the officers as they forcibly removed him from the room and placed him inside another interview room before handcuffing him to the back. The Complainant was subsequently lodged in a cell but not for long. Concerned that he was in possession of screws from the padding he had damaged, the staff sergeant at the station authorized a strip search.
Officers removed the Complainant from the cell and escorted him to the search room where he again struggled while the strip search was being performed. The screws were not located and the Complainant was returned to his cell.
Just before midnight, the Complainant complained of pain. He was transported by ambulance to hospital and diagnosed with a broken nose and fractured left orbital bone.
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 while in the custody of the TPS on November 1, 2023. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any TPS officer committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s injuries.
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 Complainant was lawfully in custody from the moment of his arrest on November 1, 2023, until his release in the afternoon of the following day. Having spoken to the victim of a reported assault at the hands of the Complainant the day before, WO #10 and WO #12 were within their rights in effecting his arrest for assault.
I am further satisfied that the Complainant was treated lawfully by his custodians at all times. The takedown at the Tim Hortons appears to have been in order. The officers had reason to believe that the Complainant might be armed with a weapon and would reasonably have wanted to minimize the risk of a weapon being brought into play at the first sign of resistance by the Complainant, which is what occurred. Thereafter, officers exercised a reasonable standard of care over the Complainant’s health and well-being, as was demonstrated by WO #9 and WO #8 when they arranged for paramedics to examine the Complainant prior to being booked at 51 Division. When the Complainant complained of pain late in the day on November 2, 2023, he was transported to hospital for medical attention. The strip search that occurred of his person would also appear to have been justified. The Complainant had just damaged an interview room and there was genuine concern that he had secreted on his person some screws that seemed to be missing from the wall. As the Complainant had been acting in a disorderly manner and expressed suicidal ideations en route to the division, there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a strip search was necessary in the interests of his safety and the safety of the officers. It is clear that some force was brought to bear against the Complainant by his custodians but, aside from several strikes delivered by WO #1 and WO #11, this consisted of the officers attempting to wrestle control of a resistant prisoner and would not appear responsible for the injuries in question. Nor would it appear that the strikes, delivered to the Complainant’s midsection during the strip search, caused the injuries or were excessive in light of the physical challenge the officers were facing. In fact, the evidence suggests that the Complainant’s facial fractures were self-inflicted and very likely the result of his purposefully striking his head, whether against a rear window or partition in the police cruiser on the way to the division or the floor while being strip searched.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: March 1, 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 Complainant was lawfully in custody from the moment of his arrest on November 1, 2023, until his release in the afternoon of the following day. Having spoken to the victim of a reported assault at the hands of the Complainant the day before, WO #10 and WO #12 were within their rights in effecting his arrest for assault.
I am further satisfied that the Complainant was treated lawfully by his custodians at all times. The takedown at the Tim Hortons appears to have been in order. The officers had reason to believe that the Complainant might be armed with a weapon and would reasonably have wanted to minimize the risk of a weapon being brought into play at the first sign of resistance by the Complainant, which is what occurred. Thereafter, officers exercised a reasonable standard of care over the Complainant’s health and well-being, as was demonstrated by WO #9 and WO #8 when they arranged for paramedics to examine the Complainant prior to being booked at 51 Division. When the Complainant complained of pain late in the day on November 2, 2023, he was transported to hospital for medical attention. The strip search that occurred of his person would also appear to have been justified. The Complainant had just damaged an interview room and there was genuine concern that he had secreted on his person some screws that seemed to be missing from the wall. As the Complainant had been acting in a disorderly manner and expressed suicidal ideations en route to the division, there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a strip search was necessary in the interests of his safety and the safety of the officers. It is clear that some force was brought to bear against the Complainant by his custodians but, aside from several strikes delivered by WO #1 and WO #11, this consisted of the officers attempting to wrestle control of a resistant prisoner and would not appear responsible for the injuries in question. Nor would it appear that the strikes, delivered to the Complainant’s midsection during the strip search, caused the injuries or were excessive in light of the physical challenge the officers were facing. In fact, the evidence suggests that the Complainant’s facial fractures were self-inflicted and very likely the result of his purposefully striking his head, whether against a rear window or partition in the police cruiser on the way to the division or the floor while being strip searched.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: March 1, 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.