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 32-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 14, 2024, at 5:20 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the PRP, on January 13, 2024, at 11:30 p.m., eight PRP officers were surveilling a stolen van located at 20 Resolution Drive, Brampton. The Complainant and two males were arrested inside the vehicle after two windows were smashed out and a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) deployed. The Complainant was taken to Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH) due to glass in his eye. He was later diagnosed with a fractured orbital bone.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/01/14 at 6:15 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/01/14 at 7:40 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

32-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on January 14, 2024.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on January 21, 2024.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

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

SO #3 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between January 22 and 26, 2024.

Service Employee Witness (SEW)

SEW Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The service employee witness was interviewed on January 26, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a white van that was parked in a parking spot near the west end of a row of parking spots at the far south of the building located at 20 Resolution Drive, Brampton. The building was a light industrial complex with office and warehouse businesses.

Figure 1 - Scene at 20 Resolution Way. Solid arrow is the stolen van. Hollow arrow was the Walmart where the van was originally seen.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – WO #1

At 11:31:29 p.m.,[2] January 13, 2024, the CEW trigger was pulled, Bay 1 was deployed, and electricity was discharged for 5.1 seconds.

At 11:31:37 p.m., Bay 1 remained deployed, and electricity was discharged for 4.9 seconds.

At 11:32:20 p.m., Bay 1 remained deployed, and electricity was discharged for 4.7 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Video Footage – Bimbo Corporation – 20 Resolution Drive, Brampton

A white van was captured backed into a parking space. [The van is known to have been occupied by the Complainant and two other individuals.]

Starting at about 11:24:58 p.m., January 13, 2024, four marked cruisers, one with roof lights activated, pulled to the front and side of the van. Two unmarked vehicles arrived on the street behind the van, one of which was a police canine team. Uniform and plainclothes officers approached both sides of the van.

Starting at about 11:25:17 p.m., the van moved forward and struck two cruisers. It reversed and then drove forward into the cruisers on two more occasions.

Starting at about 11:26:14 p.m., the van’s driver and passenger doors were opened. Two males were removed through the passenger door. The footage did not show the driver’s [the Complainant] exit.

PRP Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - WO #2

On January 13, 2024, starting at about 11:30:59 p.m., voices were heard yelling, “Show me your hands. Don’t move.” WO #2 removed his police dog from the rear of his cruiser and approached the stolen van as it attempted to ram its way through two marked cruisers that were positioned in front.

Starting at about 11:31:18 p.m., three uniform officers approached the passenger door of the van, and its window was smashed out with an ASP baton.

Starting at about 11:31:35 p.m., voices yelled, “Open it, open it.” The sound of electricity crackling was heard, and WO #1 was seen at the driver’s door of the van.

Starting at about 11:32:00 p.m., the passenger door was unlocked and opened. Two individuals were removed through the passenger door. WO #1 stood at the driver’s door and illuminated the inside of the van with the flashlight on his CEW.

Starting at about 11:32:41 p.m., WO #2 went to the driver’s side where SO #1 and several other officers were observed. WO #1 and SO #2 were seen. WO #3 and SO #3 were on top of the Complainant. Commands were heard, “Stop resisting. Show us your hands.” WO #2 asked if the Complainant was resisting and he was told, “Yes.” WO #2 then directed the officers to back away from the Complainant, who sat on the ground with his hands on his lap. The police dog was presented. WO #1 and SO #1 then grabbed the left arm and wrist of the Complainant while an undesignated officer (UO) grabbed the right. The Complainant was rolled onto his stomach and his hands were handcuffed behind his back. He was then stood up and searched.

BWC Footage - SO #1

On January 13, 2024, at 11:30:45 p.m., SO #1 drove his marked cruiser towards the front driver’s corner of a white van. He walked to the driver’s side of the van and yelled, “Get out of the car.” Another male voice yelled, “Don’t move.”

Starting at about 11:31:00 p.m., SO #1 attempted to open the driver’s door but it was locked. The engine of the van revved, and the officer retreated to the rear of his cruiser. The van accelerated and struck the front of a PRP cruiser, which was pushed into the officer.

Starting at about 11:31:37 p.m., SO #3 extended his ASP baton and approached the driver’s window of the van. SO #2 stood beside the van with a pistol pointed at the driver’s window. SO #3 struck the driver’s window and a male officer yelled, “Show me your hands.” SO #1 ran to the rear of a cruiser and approached the passenger side of the van. WO #2 and his police dog stood at the front of the cruiser. The dog was leashed and lunged towards the van. In the background, a discharging CEW was heard. Three PRP officers [WO #1, WO #3 and SO #3] stood at the driver’s door of the van. The door was opened by SO #2, while WO #1 held a CEW in his right hand. The CEW had been deployed and wires were observed to have entered through the now open driver’s window. The Complainant sat in the driver’s seat with his hands raised to his head.

A male voice was heard, “Put your hands up, keep them up.” SO #2 reached into the van and pulled out the Complainant by his left arm with the assistance of SO #3. The Complainant was taken to the ground and landed on his left buttocks with his head towards the rear of the van. The Complainant laid on his left side flailing his arms. It did not appear that his face or head impacted the ground. Multiple voices were heard yelling, “Stop resisting.” WO #3 was seen straddling the Complainant, who appeared to be crying. A male voice yelled, “Stop resisting. Get on your stomach now.” A CEW was heard in the background as it discharged, and a male voice said, “Ah fuck.” [It is believed that the officer received a shock by the CEW.] Approximately three to four PRP officers struggled to gain control of the Complainant’s hands, and a male voice was heard to say, “I still can’t see his hands.”

Starting at about 11:32:52 p.m., WO #2 was heard saying, “Off. Off. Off.” The officers stepped away from the Complainant and the dog stood near the driver’s door of the van. Leashed, the dog barked and lunged towards the Complainant, who laid on the ground. Voices were heard yelling, “Show me your hands.”

Starting at about 11:33:11 p.m., officers, including SO #1 and SO #2, reached for the Complainant’s left arm. A male voice was heard saying, “I got a hand. I got a hand,” and voices yelled, “Stop resisting.” At that time, SO #2 applied handcuffs to the Complainant, who was then stood up.

Starting at about 11:36:41 p.m., blood was visible near the Complainant’s left eye. SO #1 stated that the Complainant had a cut to his head.

ICCS Footage – PRP Cruiser - UO

The exterior footage of the camera captured the passenger side of the van, including the arrest of the two other occupants. It did not reveal the arrest of the Complainant.

The interior footage of the ICCS showed the Complainant as he was placed inside the rear seat of the cruiser. An injury was visible just above his left eye.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PRP between January 16, 2024, and March 8, 2024:

• Incident Details Report;
• Incident History;
• Occurrence Report;
• Communications recordings;
• BWC footage;
• ICCS footage;
• Copy of any civilian witness information/statements;
• List of involved officers and their roles;
• Duty notes –
• Duty notes – WO #3;
• Duty notes – WO #2;
• Duty notes – SEW;
• Policy - Criminal Investigations;
• Policy - Incident Response;
• Policy - Suspect Apprehension Pursuit;
• Training Summary – SO #3;
• Training Summary – SO #2;
• Training Summary – SO #1; and
• CEW deployment data.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between January 14 and January 25, 2024:

• Video footage from Bimbo Corporation - 20 Resolution Drive;
• The Complainant’s medical records from the BCH; and
• Ambulance Call Records from Peel Regional Paramedic Services.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with officers involved in the Complainant’s arrest and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officials did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the evening of January 13, 2024, PRP officers learned of a stolen van parked in the parking lot of the Walmart situated at 15 Resolution Drive, Brampton. SO #1 led police efforts to recover the van. He enlisted the services of the criminal investigation bureau, operating unmarked vehicles, to keep tabs on the van while plans were made to arrest its occupants.

The Complainant was seated in the driver’s seat of the van. With him in the front seat were two other individuals. At about 11:30 p.m., the Complainant drove the van across Resolution Drive and backed into a parking spot in the southernmost row of parking spots of the building situated at 20 Resolution Drive.

Shortly thereafter, SO #1 gave the signal for marked police cruisers to block the van. Several cruisers, including one operated by SO #1, were positioned to the front of the van. Uniformed and plainclothes officers exited their vehicles and surrounded the van, demanding that its occupants show their hands and exit.

The Complainant refused to surrender to police. He reversed the van and then drove forward into the blockade of cruisers in front, moving them. He would reverse and drive forward on two more occasions, each time striking the cruisers.

Officers by the driver’s door yelled at the Complainant to exit the van. Shortly, SO #3 smashed the driver’s door window with his baton. WO #1 fired his CEW at the Complainant through the open window with no apparent effect. The door was opened and the Complainant was pulled from the vehicle by officers, landing on the ground. There followed a struggle in which the Complainant refused to release his arms and was met by a combination of punches and kicks by police. WO #1 fired his CEW again during the melee, again to no apparent effect. WO #2 approached the struggle with his dog and directed the officers to withdraw. They did so momentarily, after which they physically engaged the Complainant once again, this time able to handcuff his arms behind the back without further incident.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left orbital 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.

On January 13, 2024, the Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by PRP officers. 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 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.

The Complainant was in possession of a stolen vehicle and was subject to arrest for ‘theft over $5000’.

With respect to the force brought to bear by the police in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence falls short of any reasonable suggestion it was excessive. The Complainant’s prompt apprehension was a matter of some urgency. He was using the van to ram the cruisers around him, imperiling the lives of the officers in the vicinity. The initial use of the CEW by WO #1 made sense in the circumstances, even though it did not work to incapacitate the Complainant. The Complainant’s forced extrication and takedown once the driver’s door was opened was reasonable for the same reasons. Once on the ground, the Complainant struggled against the officers’ efforts to secure his arms. His resistance was met by several punches and kicks to the body, and further CEW use by WO #1. Still, the officers were unable to take control of the Complainant’s arms. It was only after WO #2 asked the officers to separate themselves from the Complainant and presented his dog that officers re-engaged the Complainant and took him into custody. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the quantum of force used by the officers was more than was necessary.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: May 13, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit