Director's Report Details

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.

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 Personal 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.

Pursuant to section 21 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• 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.

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 22-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 2, 2024, at 4:57 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), 407 Detachment, notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the OPP, on January 1, 2024, at about 9:30 p.m., an OPP officer from the Dufferin County Detachment observed a suspicious vehicle travelling at a low speed near Orangeville. The officer attempted a traffic stop, but the vehicle did not stop. The officer initiated a pursuit, which was discontinued. Later, the Caledon OPP Detachment received calls regarding a vehicle on Highway 407. Officers headed to the area and located a vehicle travelling near McCowan Road. It was heavily damaged and missing its driver’s door. Officers attempted a traffic stop but the vehicle failed to stop and exited at the McCowan Road exit. The vehicle collided with two other vehicles and the suspect driver fled the area on foot. The registered owner of the vehicle was the Complainant. OPP officers went to the Complainant’s address. The Complainant arrived at his residence in an Uber. The Complainant was initially compliant with an officer’s commands but then attempted to flee. He was grounded and arrested, after which he complained of pain in his arm. The Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured radius. The OPP had interviewed the Uber driver, who advised that the Complainant had complained to him of having a sore arm during the drive home.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/01/02 at 11:27 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/01/02 at 12:30 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

22-year-old male; declined interview

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between January 3 and 20, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject official was interviewed on March 1, 2024.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between February 5 and 7, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the roadway outside a home in the area of Staines Road and Seasons Drive, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – WO #1’s and WO #2’s Cruisers

Starting at about 9:31 p.m., January 1, 2024,[3] WO #1’s police vehicle was captured following the Complainant’s Mustang southbound on Highway 10. The Mustang entered a left turning lane. WO #1 followed the Mustang, which then turned right back into the southbound lane and sped off. WO #1 turned on his emergency lights and began to pursue the Mustang. Shortly after, the Mustang disappeared, and WO #1 pulled over and terminated the pursuit.

Starting at about 10:10 p.m., as WO #2 was waiting on an on-ramp to Highway 407, the Mustang sped past at high speed. WO #2 and another police vehicle entered the highway and attempted to catch up. The Mustang was too far ahead to be visible on the ICC recording. WO #2 exited the highway, and the Mustang was seen turning right onto McCowan Road. WO #2 pursued the Mustang and both the Mustang and WO #2 weaved in and out of traffic. Part of the Mustang’s front left door or bumper was bent up, above the vehicle’s roof. It had clearly sustained considerable damage prior to WO #2 pursuing it.

Starting at about 10:17 p.m., WO #2 terminated the pursuit and stopped his vehicle on the side of the road.

Starting at about 11:34 p.m., WO #2 was outside the Complainant’s home and spoke to the Complainant. He re-cautioned him and began to drive him to the detachment. While en route, the Complainant complained of pain in his wrist. WO #2 told him he would arrange an ambulance to attend the station. WO #2 asked him why he was driving the way he did. The Complainant told him it was because his hood suddenly came off. Due to pain in his wrist, WO #2 handcuffed the Complainant’s hands to the front.

Video Footage – Area of the Complainant’s Residence

The footage captured the SO’s police vehicle parked across the road. About a minute later, an Uber vehicle driven by CW #1 pulled into the driveway of the Complainant’s residence. The police vehicle turned around and stopped across the driveway behind the Uber vehicle.

The SO spoke to the Complainant and led him to his police vehicle without incident. The SO held the Complainant’s right arm. The Complainant pulled himself away from the SO and began to flee to the left. The SO held on to his shirt and tried to pull him back. The Complainant appeared to slip and fell to the ground. The SO fell on top of him. They disappeared behind an unrelated parked sedan. The SO appeared to struggle with the Complainant, who remained out of view. The SO lifted the Complainant, whose hands were handcuffed behind his back, and escorted him back to the police vehicle.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between January 2, 2024, and February 1, 2024:

• A list of involved officers;
• OPP Occurrence and Arrest Report;
• ICC recordings;
• OPP witness statement transcript;
• Notes - WO #1;
• Notes - WO #2;
• Notes - WO #3; and
• Notes - WO #4.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources on January 7, 2024:

• Video footage from area of the Complainant’s residence.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with the SO and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the evening of January 1, 2024, OPP officers were alerted to reports of a vehicle – a Ford Mustang – travelling east on Highway 407 with significant damage to its hood and driver’s side door. WO #2 and other officers located the vehicle and pursued it. The Mustang exited onto southbound McCowan Road and continued at speed weaving in and out of traffic. When it crossed into the oncoming lane of traffic, WO #2 put an end to the pursuit.

The Mustang’s driver was the Complainant. While on McCowan Road in the area of the Highway 401 overpass, the Complainant was involved in a collision with two other vehicles. He fled the scene of the collision and made his way several kilometres on foot to a restaurant where he asked staff to order him an Uber. It was clear to staff that the Complainant had an injured left arm.

The SO learned of the collision involving the Mustang and decided to drive to the address of the registered owner (the Complainant). At about 11:10 p.m., the officer observed an Uber entering onto the driveway of the address. He parked his cruiser on the roadway behind the Uber and approached the Complainant as he exited the vehicle. The SO escorted the Complainant to his cruiser and advised him he was under arrest. The Complainant attempted to flee from the officer. The SO maintained his hold and the two fell to the ground. The Complainant was shortly handcuffed by the SO.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was transported to hospital and reportedly diagnosed with a fractured left radial bone.

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.

The Complainant was diagnosed with a serious injury following his arrest by the OPP on January 1, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming the SO the subject official. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO 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.

In light of the Complainant’s reckless driving, his involvement in (and departure from) a collision, and the fact that he was a prohibited driver at the time, the SO was within his rights in seeking to take him into custody.

I am also satisfied that the SO used no more force than was necessary in maintaining custody of the Complainant. Having been arrested without incident moments prior, the Complainant attempted to break free of the officer’s grasp and escape arrest once escorted to the cruiser. Aside from maintaining his grip of the Complainant’s right arm as the Complainant tried to yank it free, the SO did little else by way of force. Their falling to the ground, the officer landing on top of the Complainant, was the inadvertent product of the two parties exerting countervailing forces on each other. Thereafter, the officer managed to handcuff the Complainant without incident.

It is not altogether clear when and how the Complainant fractured his left arm. It is entirely possible the injury was incurred in the collision involving the Mustang and two other vehicles. Be that as it may, as there is no reason to believe the SO comported himself other than lawfully in his dealings with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: April 30, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit