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 16-year-old male (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 31, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On January 30, 2024, at 7:34 p.m., the PRP received a call reporting that several males were in a communal room of an apartment building in Mississauga. Security officers reported that the males were in possession of handguns. Officers were dispatched at 7:39 p.m. The officers arrived on scene and gave chase as the males fled the area. One male – the Complainant – ran to the intersection of Erin Centre Boulevard and Erin Mills Parkway. At around 8:13 p.m., the Complainant was struck by a cruiser operated by the SO, a police dog handler. The Complainant was transported to the Mississauga Hospital (MH) where he was diagnosed with a fractured right ankle and a broken big toe. Three other males were arrested without incident and transported to 11 Division.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/01/31 at 9:45 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/01/31 at 1:15 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Number of SIU Reconstructionists Assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on February 1, 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 February 28, 2024.

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 on February 6, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on Erin Centre Boulevard, north of Erin Mills Town Centre, and west of Erin Mills Parkway, Mississauga.

Physical Evidence

Figure 1 - Air-powered pellet gun located at scene

Expert Evidence

SIU Traffic Reconstructionist Report

A SIU Traffic Reconstructionist reviewed the body-worn camera (BWC) footage of WO #1, who chased the Complainant on foot prior to his arrest.

The first 17 seconds of the video captured the foot pursuit and the Complainant’s impact with a westbound SUV cruiser [driven by the SO]. Due to WO #1’s running, the video was unstable and Adobe Premiere Pro v24 was used to stabilize the footage.

The movement of the Complainant was clear as he initially ran northbound from the north parking lot of Erin Mills Town Centre. He crossed the south sidewalk of Erin Centre Boulevard and continued into the eastbound traffic lanes. As he entered the westbound traffic lanes, he appeared to observe an approaching cruiser with its emergency lights activated. The Complainant turned to the left and ran westbound in a westbound left-turn lane. At that time, there was a second cruiser travelling east in the eastbound passing lane. There was a 1.2-second segment of video where the Complainant and a westbound cruiser were obscured. During this time, contact was made between the SO’s SUV cruiser and the Complainant. Once the vehicle moved from obscuring the collision, the camera recorded the SO’s cruiser as a left tire ran over the Complainant’s leg while he laid on the road.

It was calculated that the Complainant ran at about 20 km/h as he entered onto the road and crossed into the eastbound lanes. The westbound cruiser travelled at about 30 km/h in the westbound passing lane as it approached the point of impact. The SUV cruiser then steered to the left and partially entered the westbound left turn lane around or just after impact with the Complainant.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

BWC Footage - WO #1

On January 30, 2024, at 8:12:37 p.m., the footage began. WO #1 was captured running in a parking lot of Erin Mills Town Centre. He was chasing a person [the Complainant] dressed in black clothing. WO #1 ran down a grass hill towards Erin Mills Boulevard, where the Complainant went out of sight due to vehicular traffic on the roadway.

At 8:12:52 p.m., a black truck or SUV was seen making a U-turn across the road.

At 8:12:57 p.m., the Complainant was captured laying on the pavement near the centre of the road. WO #1 grabbed the Complainant. There was a black handgun on the pavement near the Complainant. A male voice yelled, “Handgun recovered." The Complainant also had a pocketknife in one of his pants pockets, as well as a machete.

The Complainant said, “Got hit, ran me over.” Someone said, “Male, […], black puffer jacket, blue mask.” One of the officers told the Complainant that he was in custody for ‘possessing a firearm’, and he responded with, “I have it for safety.” He then complained that his leg was injured from the knee down and that he possessed the items because he was always getting robbed. The Complainant asked, “What happens to me?” and an officer told him that an ambulance had been called and that the charges would be dealt with later.

Police Communications Recording - 911 Telephone Call

A male security guard from a building in the area of Eglinton Avenue West and Erin Mills Parkway advised police that there were some males in the media room that had a handgun displayed. The security guard did not know if the firearm was an imitation. The security guard was watching the males on a security camera and described the firearm as a small handgun. There were four males in the media room. The security guard thought one of the males resided in the building and had booked the media room. The call-taker dispatched police officers to the address while speaking to the caller. During the telephone call, the call-taker was told that the police officers had arrived.

Police Communication Recordings - Radio Communications

The dispatcher confirmed that there were police officers going to see the security guard. Photos of males from the media room were to be distributed to the uniformed police officers.

A PRP unit advised that he was in the parking lot going mobile. A second PRP unit was also going mobile. A canine unit advised that he could track the males. Tactical units advised that they were on their way to the Erin Mills Town Centre. A PRP sergeant advised that one of the males was wearing a puffy jacket and carrying a firearm. A second PRP sergeant advised police units to cover the exits of the Erin Mills Town Centre. The first PRP sergeant advised that a witness had identified the males and provided a physical description. The second PRP sergeant advised a third PRP sergeant that it was possible the males were in the mall.

The second PRP sergeant asked for a perimeter around the building. The canine unit was placed on the call. Two males were observed on the video with two guns.

The canine unit requested the last known location and direction of travel of the subjects. He was advised that they had possibly crossed towards Erin Mills Town Centre. The third PRP sergeant advised that the two males were wearing puffer jackets and in possession of a firearm. Police units were searching the area.

A third PRP unit advised that he was in a foot pursuit. The third PRP unit advised that he had one male and a firearm north of the mall.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PRP between January 31, 2024, and February 7, 2024:

• General, Supplementary and Arrest Reports;
• Police communications recordings;
• BWC footage of involved police officers;
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
• Photographs, diagrams, and reports relating to scene examination;
• Incident Details Report;
• Duty notes of WO #1, WO #2, and WO #3;
• Person Details Report - the Complainant; and
• Global Positioning System data for police vehicle operated by the SO.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on March 1, 2024:

• The Complainant’s medical record from MH.

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

In the evening of January 30, 2024, tactical and uniform PRP officers made their way to the area of the Erin Mills Town Centre in Mississauga following reports of young males in possession of handguns at a nearby apartment building, who had since left in the direction of the mall. They were described as wearing dark puffy coats and personal protection masks.

WO #1 was among the uniform officers who attended at the scene. In the north parking lot of the mall, the officer encountered two males on foot fitting the description of the subjects. He exited his cruiser and called out to them. As he neared their location, the males started to run away. One of them was the Complainant.

The Complainant ran northwards across the parking lot and down a small grass hill towards the roadway that bordered the north end of the mall – Erin Centre Boulevard. With WO #1 still in pursuit, the Complainant entered the roadway.

At about this time, the SO, a police dog handler operating a cruiser with subdued markings and also responding to the scene, was travelling west on Erin Centre Boulevard. The officer spotted the Complainant as he traversed the eastbound lanes of the road before turning left and continuing westward in a westbound left-turn lane that accessed the mall. The SO edged his cruiser towards the Complainant and knocked him down – the front driver’s side of the vehicle making impact. As the cruiser continued past the felled Complainant, it ran over his right leg.

The Complainant was taken into custody and eventually transported to hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured right ankle and big toe.

An air-powered pellet gun was recovered on the roadway in proximity to where the Complainant landed. A machete was also recovered in a search of his person.

Section 34, Criminal Code - Defence of Person – Use or Threat of Force

34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:

(a) the nature of the force or threat;

(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;

(c) the person’s role in the incident;

(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;

(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;

(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and

(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by PRP officers on January 30, 2024, in Mississauga. 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 injuries.

Section 34 of the Criminal Code provides that conduct that would otherwise constitute an offence is legally justified if it was intended to deter a reasonably apprehended assault, actual or threatened, and was itself reasonable. The reasonableness of the conduct is to be assessed in light of all the relevant circumstances, including with respect to such considerations as the nature of the force or threat; the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force; whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon; and, the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force.

The SO was engaged in the execution of his lawful duties in the series of events that culminated in his cruiser’s collision with the Complainant. He had reason to believe that the Complainant was in possession of a firearm – he fit the description of the subjects, was running from WO #1, and was attempting to circumvent a number of cruisers on Erin Centre Boulevard. Clearly, there were grounds for the Complainant’s arrest.

With respect to the force the officer brought to bear in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, namely, the use of his cruiser to strike the Complainant, I am satisfied that it was intended to defend himself and others from a reasonably apprehended assault. According to the SO, the Complainant was reaching into his waistband moments before the collision and he (the officer) feared he was about to retrieve and use a firearm. That is what the officer told the SIU and there is good reason to believe him. Another officer travelling on Erin Centre Boulevard ahead of the SO had the same impression and actually called out, “He’s reaching,” to alert other officers to the danger of a firearm being brought into play. What is more, the officer was aware of the call to police indicating young males in possession of firearms and, in fact, an air-powered pellet gun that resembled a firearm was recovered on the roadway next to where the Complainant had come to rest after the collision.

I am also satisfied that the force chosen by the officer constituted reasonable force. While the use of his cruiser brought with it the risk of grievous bodily harm or death, the SO was also confronted with an imminent peril to life and limb at the time. To reiterate, he reasonably believed that the Complainant was reaching for a firearm. In the circumstances, it was imperative that the Complainant be incapacitated as quickly as possible to prevent that contingency from materializing. The only tool available to the SO in the moment was his vehicle. That said, it appears on the video footage that captured the incident in parts that the officer did not drive headlong into the Complainant. Rather, as he himself described it, his cruiser edged into the left-turn lane towards the Complainant and accomplished precisely what he had intended to accomplish – knock the Complainant over. Indeed, while the footage did not capture the Complainant holding a firearm, it is entirely conceivable that it was the impact with the SO’s cruiser that dislodged what appeared to be a firearm from the Complainant’s possession. On this record, while it is unfortunate that the Complainant suffered serious injuries in the collision with the SO’s cruiser, I am unable to reasonably concluded that the officer acted with excess when he chose to meet a lethal threat with a resort to potentially lethal force of his own.

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

Date: May 23, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit