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 injuries of a 30-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 16, 2024, at 10:51 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At approximately 7:30 a.m., that same day, members of the TPS Fugitive Squad (FS) attended a residence near Caledonia Road and Rogers Road in Toronto to locate a male – the Complainant – wanted on an outstanding Peel Region bench warrant as well as an immigration warrant. The Complainant was observed exiting the residence. The officers called out to the Complainant indicating their presence and he fled the area northbound from the residence. A short distance away, the Complainant was observed to slip on ice and fall to the ground. The pursuing police officers ended up on top of the Complainant and a brief struggle ensued before he was arrested and handcuffed. Notification of the arrest was relayed to Peel Regional Police (PRP) and the Complainant was subsequently transported to PRP 11 Division and lodged in cells. While in cells, he reported a bleeding nose and indicated that he had been beaten by TPS officers. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was notified, and the Complainant was transported to the Credit Valley Hospital where, at 8:45 p.m., he was diagnosed with two fractures in the back, a fractured nose, and a bruised liver. The Complainant was admitted to hospital and was to undergo surgery on January 17, 2024.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/01/17 at 6:31 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/01/17 at 9:48 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

30-year-old male; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on January 25, 2024.

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The CW was interviewed on January 25, 2024.

Subject Official

SO #1 Interviewed, but declined to submit 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 #1 was interviewed on February 8, 2024.

Witness Official

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Notes reviewed; interview deemed not necessary

The WOs were interviewed on January 31, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in a laneway near Caledonia Road and Rogers Road, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

On January 18, 2024, the SIU received a clip from a residence near Caledonia Road and Rogers Road relevant to the date of the incident. The clip was of no investigative value.

On January 25, 2024, the SIU received a clip of the laneway where the Complainant was arrested, and a photo taken by the Complainant. The records were of no investigative value.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the TPS and PRP between January 17, 2024, and January 31, 2024:

• Annual Use of Force recertification - SO #1 and SO #2 (TPS);
• Policies - Arrest / Incident Response (Use of Force/De-Escalation) (TPS);
• Canadian Police Information Centre record – the Complainant (PRP);
• General Occurrence Report (TPS);
• Immigration Warrant (TPS);
• Involved Officer List (TPS);
• Notes – WO #4 (PRP);
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3 (TPS);
• Person Details Report – the Complainant (PRP);
• Prisoner Details Report (PRP);
• Occurrence Report (PRP); and
• Warrant Executed – the Complainant (PRP).

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following additional records between January 17, 2024, and January 25, 2024:

• Ambulance Call Report from Peel EMS;
• The Complainant’s medical records from Trillium Health Partner (Credit Valley Hospital);
• Mobile video; and
• Still image.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and SO #1, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, SO #2 chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the morning of January 16, 2024, the Complainant exited a residence near Caledonia Road and Rogers Road, Toronto, and started to walk on the roadway – the sidewalks were snow-covered. He had travelled a short distance when he was confronted by a male asking him to stop. The Complainant reversed course and ran towards a pathway that separated two homes. He continued along the pathway until a laneway, at which point he turned right and continued his flight.

The male who had confronted the Complainant was SO #1. SO #1 was in plainclothes at the time, as were other officers with the TPS Fugitive Squad (including SO #2) who had convened in the area to arrest the Complainant. They had information that the Complainant, wanted on a bench warrant and an immigration warrant, was associated with the residence. SO #1 was in an unmarked police vehicle north of the Complainant’s location when he exited and approached the Complainant. The officer chased after the Complainant onto the laneway and watched as he slipped and fell on the ground.

The Complainant was still on the ground when the officers, first SO #1 and then, within moments, SO #2, caught up with him. He was subjected to several strikes by the officers before he was handcuffed.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to a PRP station before being transported to hospital where he was diagnosed with a broken nose, fractures of the back and a bruised liver.

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 seriously injured in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on January 16, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming SO #1 and SO #2 subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s arrest and 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.

SO #1 and SO #2 were within their rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody. There were warrants in effect authorizing his arrest.

With respect to the force brought to bear by the subject officials during the Complainant’s arrest, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was unjustified. There is some evidence that the Complainant was immediately set upon by the first officer – SO #1 – who punched him about the head a half-dozen times or so, and that the second officer – SO #2 – kicked him several times to the right side before he was handcuffed. There is no suggestion of resistance by the Complainant in this account. On the other hand, SO #1 admits he punched the Complainant four to five times, but explains he did so while the Complainant was refusing to release his hands to be handcuffed. SO #2, says SO #1, punched the Complainant once in the face, again, as the Complainant clenched his fists and kept his arms tight to his body. The former account suggests excessive force. The latter, in my opinion, can be reconciled with a view that suggests the force used was proportionate to the exigencies of the moment. Given this stalemate in the evidence, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the more incriminating rendition of events is sufficiently cogent to warrant being put to the test by a court. This is particularly true when one considers that the Complainant’s injuries are as consistent with the more incriminating evidence as they are with the circumstances described by SO #1, including the fact of the Complainant’s fall.

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

Date: May 15, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit