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 23-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 20, 2024, at 7:26 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the TPS, on February 19, 2024, at 11:58 p.m., TPS Major Crime Unit (MCU) officers responded to an entry in progress at a restaurant in the area of Avenue Road and Haddington Avenue. The Complainant got into a vehicle and attempted to escape. MCU officers tried to block the vehicle, but the Complainant rammed a police vehicle and fled to Highway 401. The Complainant drove west on Highway 401 and exited at Keele Street where he was intercepted by additional TPS MCU vehicles. MCU officers boxed-in the vehicle and the Complainant fled on foot a short distance before being grounded. The Complainant complained of pain to his face and was taken to Humber River Hospital (HRH) where he was diagnosed with an orbital bone fracture.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/02/20 at 8:25 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/02/20 at 10:10 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists Assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on February 28, 2024.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject officials were interviewed between March 14, 2024, and April 18, 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

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes and body-worn camera (BWC) footage reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on March 6, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on a grass boulevard on the west side of Keele Street, about 200 metres north of Highway 401.

Figure 1 – Google Maps aerial view of the scene

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage – The Restaurant

The video opened with a view of the laneway behind the restaurant. About three minutes later, a black four-door sedan parked in the laneway and an occupant of the vehicle exited and walked to the back door of the restaurant. The person’s face was covered with a balaclava. The person exited and appeared to place items in his vehicle. The person entered the vehicle and SO #2 arrived in an unmarked police vehicle. The person reversed out of view and SO #2 stopped bumper-to-bumper with the person’s vehicle. Only half of the police vehicle was visible in the recording. The police vehicle pivoted to the right, about 30 degrees, after which it travelled off out of view.

Video Footage – Westmount Condos

Westmount Condos was located at 2737 Keele Street, on the east side of Keele Street.

At 12:03:44 a.m., February 20, 2024, the Complainant ran northbound on the west sidewalk of Keele Street. SO #2 chased after the Complainant on foot, followed shortly by SO #3. SO #2 tackled the Complainant and both men appeared to roll on the ground. SO #1 pulled up in an unmarked vehicle, followed shortly by a marked police vehicle with emergency lights illuminated. Due to the flashing lights from the police vehicle and the distance from the camera, the remainder of the footage was unclear.

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage from Police Cruisers

At 12:03:47 a.m., February 20, 2024, a police vehicle driven by WO #3 travelled onto Keele Street. SO #2 was captured tackling the Complainant on a grass boulevard on the west side of Keele Street, after which both men rolled on the grass. SO #2 punched the Complainant to the right side of his upper body area. SO #2 and SO #1 struggled with the Complainant on the ground. SO #3 arrived and stood above the head area of the Complainant. The officer kicked at the Complainant’s upper body area five times with short right-legged kicks. It was not clear where the kicks landed. One kick struck SO #2. WO #1 and WO #3 held onto the lower half of the Complainant’s body and struggled to control him. SO #1 tried to pull the Complainant’s left arm out and punched the Complainant’s upper body and the left side of his face about seven times. WO #2 helped WO #1 and WO #3 at the lower half of the Complainant’s body. The officers struggled to control the Complainant. WO #4 removed the Complainant’s balaclava and SO #1 knelt on the Complainant’s head. The Complainant was eventually handcuffed and stood on his feet.

The Complainant was sat in the rear seat of WO #2 and WO #4’s police vehicle. WO #2 informed the Complainant of the reasons for his arrest and advised him that he had three outstanding arrest warrants. An ambulance arrived and the Complainant was removed from the police vehicle.

Footage from the BWCs of WO #1, WO #3 and WO #4

At about 12:04 a.m., February 20, 2024, WO #1 and WO #3 exited their police vehicle. SO #1 and SO #2 were captured struggling with the Complainant on the ground. WO #1 and WO #3 grabbed the Complainant’s legs and WO #1 used both hands to try and pry the Complainant’s left arm out from under his body. Police officers repeated, “Give me your hands.”

SO #1 punched the Complainant in the upper body area as he directed him to give him his hands. WO #4 removed the Complainant’s balaclava. The Complainant looked to his right, with the left side of his face on the ground, and SO #1 placed his left knee over the Complainant’s head. The Complainant cried out that his wrist was broken. WO #2 handcuffed the Complainant’s hands behind his back. The Complainant was stood up and taken to WO #2’s police vehicle.

TPS Communications Recordings

On February 19, 2024, starting at about 11:54:08 p.m., a ‘Global Alarm Link’ operator requested a police dispatch to a restaurant near Avenue Road and Haddington Avenue. The key holder reported that someone [now known to have been the Complainant] was seen on security camera inside the premises. The Complainant had reportedly stolen items from the restaurant. The Complainant’s vehicle was parked in the back of the restaurant in the laneway.

Starting at about 11:58 p.m., SO #2 radioed that the Complainant had collided with his vehicle and fled the scene. SO #2 reported the vehicle’s description and path of travel.

Starting at about 12:03:20 a.m., a police officer reported they had the Complainant’s vehicle boxed-in, followed by an officer reporting that the Complainant was being pursued on foot.

Starting at about 12:04:19 a.m., a police officer reported they had the Complainant on the ground and were trying to get him into custody. Less than a minute later, the Complainant was said to be in custody.

At 12:10:12 a.m., a request for an ambulance was made.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following materials from TPS between February 20, 2024, and April 2, 2024:

• BWC recordings;
• ICC recordings;
• Occurrence Report;
• Communications recording;
• Computer-aided dispatch report;
• Video footage from the restaurant;
• Notes - SO #1;
• Notes - SO #3;
• Notes - SO #2;
• Notes - WO #1;
• Notes - WO #3;
• Notes - WO #2;
• Notes - WO #4;
• Policies regarding arrest and use of force;
• SO #1 Use of Force Training Certification;
• SO #3 Use of Force Training Certification; and
• SO #2 Use of Force Training Certification.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between February 21, 2024, and March 5, 2024:

• Video footage - Westmount Condos; and
• The Complainant’s medical records from HRH.

The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.

Just before midnight of February 20, 2024, a security company contacted TPS and asked that officers be dispatched to a break and enter in progress at a business on Avenue Road, Toronto. Security personnel had witnessed an intruder on the premises – a restaurant – removing items.

SO #2 was patrolling in the area and took up the call for service. He arrived at the laneway behind the restaurant and observed a black sedan. The sedan drove into his cruiser and made off northbound towards Highway 401, where it entered and travelled westward. SO #2 and SO #3, travelling separately, pursued the vehicle.

The sedan was being operated by the Complainant. The Complainant took the Keele Street exit and was stopped on the off-ramp when his vehicle was blocked from the front and rear by the cruisers operated by SO #2 and SO #3. SO #3 approached the vehicle’s driver side and used his baton to smash out the window. The Complainant tried to drive through the blockade before retrieving a backpack and exiting his vehicle via the front passenger door. SO #2, followed by SO #3, chased him on foot.

About 200 metres north of Highway 401, on the west side of Keele Street, SO #2 caught up to the Complainant and tackled him onto a grass boulevard. The parties rolled on the snow-covered ground and the Complainant ended up in a prone position. The officer, positioned to the Complainant’s right, attempted to secure his right hand, delivering about five punches to the back in the process. SO #3 and SO #1, the latter arriving on scene, joined in the struggle. The Complainant, still holding the backpack, refused to release his arms to the officers. SO #1 delivered about a half-dozen punches to the Complainant’s upper torso and head area. SO #3 kicked in the direction of the Complainant’s upper body. With the arrival of several uniformed officers, the Complainant’s arms were wrestled behind the back and handcuffed.

The Complainant was transported to hospital following his arrest and diagnosed with a broken 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.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest on February 20, 2024, by TPS officers. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming SO #2 and SO #3, and SO #1, 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 subject to arrest at the time of the struggle on Keele Street. The officers were apprised of information indicating he had just committed a break and enter at a restaurant.

With respect to the force brought to bear by the subject officials, I am satisfied the evidence falls short of any reasonable suggestion it was unlawful. The strikes delivered by the subject officials occurred as the Complainant resisted the officers’ efforts to bring his hands behind the back. The officers were motivated to subdue and handcuff the Complainant as soon as possible, and for good reason. He had demonstrated a propensity for violence – he had twice driven intentionally into police vehicles – and was reasonably thought to be armed – he had possession of a backpack and was coming from the site of a break and enter. On this record, when the Complainant resisted the officers’ efforts to bring his arms behind his back, they were entitled to react with sharp force to overcome his recalcitrance and place him in custody. And that is what they did without resort to weapons but with the application of manual force that was significant but not uncalled for. Once handcuffed, no further strikes were delivered by the officers.

It remains unclear when and how precisely the Complainant incurred his injury. The evidence suggests a number of possibilities – when the driver’s side window was smashed by SO #3, at the time of the takedown by SO #2, or the altercation that marked his arrest on the ground. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the subject officials comported themselves other than lawfully in their dealings with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.

Date: June 18, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit