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 31-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 25, 2024, at 8:00 p.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On January 25, 2024, at 8:39 a.m., plainclothes police officers with the High-Risk Offender Unit (HROU) were in the area of McCowan Road and South Unionville Avenue, Markham, investigating the whereabouts of the Complainant, who was wanted on an arrest warrant with the Hamilton Police Service. At about 11:30 a.m., a man resembling the Complainant attended a residence on Caboto Trail in Markham. He spoke to an occupant in the driveway and then drove[2] to the Hope Bible Church in Markham, where he picked up an unknown woman. The vehicle was subsequently followed by HROU officers to a commercial plaza located at 2625 Weston Road, Toronto. The Complainant entered a LCBO store, made purchases, got back into the vehicle and drove to a business near Lawrence Avenue West and Weston Road. The Complainant parked and went inside, and the unknown female drove the vehicle away. At 1:52 p.m., the vehicle returned and the Complainant exited the business. At that time, HROU officers wearing marked “POLICE” vests approached the Complainant, who ran north on Weston Road, all the while trying door handles of vehicles as he ran. Officers caught the Complainant at Weston Road, between Fern Avenue and King Street Crescent, after he tripped and fell on the sidewalk. At 1:53 p.m., the Complainant was arrested without incident. At that time, he did not complain of any injuries, only protesting that his handcuffs were too tight. Officers subsequently loosened the handcuffs, and the Complainant was later placed in a waiting marked Toronto Police Service (TPS) cruiser. A marked YRP cruiser subsequently arrived, and the Complainant was transported to 4 District where he was processed and placed in a holding cell. After arriving at 4 District, the Complainant complained that his ankle hurt and requested medical attention. At 4:23 p.m., the Complainant was transported via Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital, where X-rays confirmed that he had suffered a fractured left ankle.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/01/25 at 8:45 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/01/25 at 9:50 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant 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 March 19, 2024.

Witness Official

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on February 7 and 8, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the intersection of Weston Road and King Street Crescent, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Booking Video – YRP 4 District

On January 25, 2024, at 2:53 p.m., the video began with a view of the YRP 4 District Booking Desk. The Complainant was escorted by uniformed police officers and appeared to be walking at a normal pace without issue.

At 3:01 p.m., the booking sergeant asked the Complainant to identify any injuries he might have. The Complainant indicated that his left foot was swollen. The Complainant believed that his injury occurred when police were chasing him, but he also disclosed that he had previously injured his ankle and was unsure if this was new. The Complainant requested to attend hospital.

At 4:15 p.m., EMS arrived and transported the Complainant to hospital.

At 4:24 p.m., the video concluded.

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – Officer #1

On January 25, 2024, at 1:51:38 p.m., the footage opened with a northbound view of the west sidewalk on Weston Road, Toronto. The Complainant rested on his stomach with his hands handcuffed behind his back. The Complainant wore a black jacket, black jeans, and orange and beige hiking boots. Four plainclothes YRP officers [WO #4, WO #3, SO #1 and WO #2] stood at the Complainant’s feet.

At 1:52:14 p.m., SO #1 stepped to the right side of the Complainant, knelt beside him, and performed a pat-down search. SO #1 and SO #2 assisted the Complainant to his feet. Officer #1 grabbed the left side of the Complainant’s jacket to assist.

At 1:53:22 p.m., the Complainant was directed to lean on a retaining wall. He asked what he was under arrest for and SO #1 answered, “Warrants and several breaches.”

At 1:59:06 p.m., the Complainant said, “It’s too tight…the left hand’s too tight.” The Complainant cried out in pain as SO #1 tried to open the handcuffs. The Complainant said, “Ahhh, it’s in my fucking bone.”

At 2:02:24 p.m., the Complainant was secured in two pairs of linked handcuffs.

At 2:03:00 p.m., the Complainant was placed on the driver’s side rear seat of a TPS cruiser. The Complainant spoke with SO #1 and SO #2 and said, “Even with these on my feet you couldn’t catch me, I slipped over there.”

Video Footage – Business near Lawrence Avenue West and Weston Road

On January 25, 2024, the video opened with a southbound street view of Weston Road. The Complainant stood at the corner with his hands handcuffed behind his back as five plainclothes YRP police officers stood around him. The police officers were wearing vests that clearly identified them as police. The Complainant did not appear to be in distress.

Cell Phone Video Footage

On January 25, 2024, the video opened with a street view. The camera pointed southbound on the west side of Weston Road. Two uniformed TPS police officers and four plainclothes police officers stood over the Complainant. The Complainant rested on his stomach with his hands behind his back. The Complainant was rolled to his left side and a pat-down search was performed by SO #1. SO #1 and SO #2 took the Complainant by each arm and assisted him to his feet. Another plainclothes police officer [WO #4] picked up a cell phone from the pavement and handed it to SO #1. The police officers wore vests with ‘POLICE’ clearly visible.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the YRP between January 29, 2024, and February 2, 2024:

• General Occurrence Report;
• Event Chronology;
• Arrest Warrant - the Complainant;
• Notes – WO #1;
• Notes – WO #2;
• Notes – WO #3;
• Notes – WO #4;
• Booking video – YRP 4 District; and
• BWC footage from TPS (x2).

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between January 25, 2024, and February 7, 2024:

• Video footage from business near Lawrence Avenue West and Weston Road;
• Cell phone videoand
• The Complainant’s medical records from Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and SO #1, as well as interviews with other officers present at the time of the events in question, and video footage that captured the incident in parts, 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 afternoon of January 25, 2024, plainclothes YRP officers in unmarked vehicles convened in the area of Weston Road and Little Avenue, Toronto. They had surreptitiously followed the Complainant to a business in the area. The Complainant was wanted on an arrest warrant by the Hamilton Police Service and the officers were intending to arrest him as soon as he exited the business and before he could re-enter his vehicle.

The Complainant exited a business near Lawrence Avenue West and Weston Road at about 1:50 p.m. and was quickly approached by several plainclothes officers, including SO #1 and SO #2. He immediately fled northwards in the middle of southbound traffic as the officers gave chase. After about a hundred metres, the Complainant turned left just north of King Street Crescent and toppled onto the west sidewalk of Weston Road. He was soon handcuffed and taken into custody.

Following his arrest, after his arrival at a YRP station, the Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left ankle.

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 reportedly seriously injured in and around the time of this arrest by YRP officers on January 25, 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 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 subject officials were within their rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody. There was a warrant in effect authorizing his arrest and the officers had observed him breaching a term of a release condition, namely, that he refrain from operating a motor vehicle.

The Complainant fled on foot in an attempt to evade arrest. When he did so, the officers were entitled to chase after him to thwart his escape. There is some evidence that the Complainant was not aware he was being chased by police and that his fall was the result of being pushed or tripped by an officer. The weight of the evidence, however, says otherwise. The vests worn by the officers were clearly emblazoned with the word ‘Police’ and utterances made by the Complainant captured on video in the wake of the incident clearly suggest he fell of his own volition. In the circumstances, there is no credible evidence of any force having been brought to bear by the police. The handcuffing process itself was without incident.

In the result, whether the Complainant’s fractured ankle occurred when he fell,[4] there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the injury is attributable to any unlawful conduct on the part of the subject officials. The file is closed.

Date: May 23, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit