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 22-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 5, 2024, at 3:05 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 5, 2024, at 9:48 a.m., TPS Guns and Gangs Task Force officers executed a warrant at a residence in the area of Lakeshore Boulevard West and Park Lawn Road, Toronto. Emergency Task Force (ETF) members conducted the entry into the apartment and arrested the Complainant. He sustained a bloody nose. The Complainant was taken to St. Joseph’s Health Centre (SJHC) for assessment and was diagnosed with two fractured nasal bones. The Complainant was released from SJHC and held at TPS 22 Division station pending a bail hearing the next morning.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/03/05 at 3:15 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/03/05 at 6:49 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 5, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO 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 March 12 and 19, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired inside the bedroom of a residence in the area of Lakeshore Boulevard West and Park Lawn Road, Toronto.

The scene was secured by TPS and held for the SIU. SIU investigators arrived at the scene on March 5, 2024, at 6:49 p.m. The scene was processed by TPS Forensic Identification Service. There was no physical evidence collected from the scene. Red stains consistent with blood were located on the carpeted floor at the foot of the left side of the bed.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage – Apartment Building

On March 5, 2024, the SIU received videos from the apartment building where the incident occurred. The videos contained no relevant information.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On March 6, 2024, the SIU received footage from the BWCs of the SO, WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, Officer #1, Officer #2, Officer #3 and Officer #4, and a sergeant, Officer #5.

On March 5, 2024, at 8:44:50 a.m., ETF officers were captured arriving at the Complainant’s apartment building.

At 8:49:08 a.m., ETF officers breached the apartment door. A distraction device was thrown into the apartment and an ETF officer yelled, “Police search warrant, get down on the ground”.

At 8:49:27 a.m., WO #1 kicked open a door and entered a bedroom. He was equipped with a rifle. He said, "Let me see your hands." The Complainant was seated on the side of the bed closest to the entrance. The Complainant wore boxer shorts and had his hands raised. Officer #4 followed WO #1 inside. The SO entered the room next. Officer #4 and the SO were also equipped with rifles. WO #1 ordered the Complainant to the ground. The Complainant laid prone in a narrow space between the bed and a dresser. His head was oriented towards the bedroom door.

WO #1 approached the Complainant and knelt down. WO #1 repeated the "let me see your hands" command to the Complainant. Officer #4 went to the other side of the bed to clear the area. He looked outside to the balcony and searched under the mattress. The SO remained in an upright position near the Complainant’s head.

At 8:49:34 a.m., the SO’s right leg hinged at the knee and his right foot lifted off the ground. His right leg moved forward. WO #1’s BWC became obscured for several video frames by WO #1’s rifle. When the BWC became unobscured the SO’s right foot was on the right side of the Complainant’s head. The SO’s right foot appeared to hold the Complainant’s head in place. The SO held his rifle in his left hand and used his right hand to stabilize himself on the nearby dresser with his right hand.

At 8:49:39 a.m., the Complainant’s right hand was on the ground near his head. The left hand was wrapped around his head in a protective fashion. His hands appeared to try and push the SO’s boot off of his head. The Complainant squirmed and moved onto his left side.

At 8:49:40 a.m., the SO’s foot came off the Complainant’s head.

At 8:49:41 a.m., the SO re-applied his foot to the Complainant’s head.

At 8:49:42 a.m., WO #1’s BWC became obscured again by his rifle for several video frames. When it became unobscured, the SO’s foot was on the ground next to the Complainant’s head. WO #1’s BWC became obscured again.

At 8:49:46 a.m., WO #1’s BWC became unobscured. The Complainant was on his left side with his left arm wrapped around his head protectively. His right arm was down at his side. Blood was observed on the Complainant’s left bicep. The SO’s right foot appeared to be on the ground above the Complainant’s head. WO #1 secured the Complainant’s right arm behind his back.

At 8:49:54 a.m., the SO said, “I’ve got his head pinned, he’s pinned,” while other ETF officers gave repeated direction to “show us your hands”. The ETF officers also said, “Stop resisting,” and, “Hand behind your back.” WO #1 knelt on the ground beside the Complainant. WO #1 had the Complainant’s right arm behind his back and issued commands to “give me your other hand”.

An ETF officer [WO #3] arrived and straddled the Complainant’s midsection. Another ETF officer [WO #2] entered the bedroom and assisted WO #3 to handcuff the Complainant’s hands behind his back. WO #1 stood up and checked the closet beside the Complainant. The SO exited the bedroom.

At 8:50:15 a.m., Officer #5 told the Complainant that he was under arrest for possession of a firearm and robbery. He said this was a Criminal Code search warrant. He then issued the Complainant his rights to counsel and caution. The Complainant was prone on the floor beside the bed with his head near the entrance to the living room. His nose bled. There was blood on his left arm.

At 8:51:06 a.m., Officer #5 asked for paramedics to attend the apartment.

At 8:51:32 a.m., a paramedic entered the bedroom and knelt beside the Complainant. Officer #5 spoke briefly with plainclothes police investigators.

At 8:52:29 a.m. all the ETF officers exited the apartment.

Police Radio Communications

On March 21, 2024, the SIU received radio communications from TPS. The radio communications contained no relevant information.

TPS Forensic Identification Photographs

On April 30, 2024, the SIU received photographs of the scene and the Complainant’s injuries from TPS.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between March 6, 2024, and April 30, 2024:

• General Occurrence Report;
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
• Incident Response Policy;
• BWC videos;
• Communications recordings;
• Notes – WO #1;
• Notes – WO #2;
• Notes – WO #3; and
• Forensic Identification Photographs.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between March 5, 2024, and March 8, 2024:

• Video footage from the apartment building; and
• The Complainant’s medical records from SJHC.

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

In the morning of March 5, 2024, the TPS ETF was enlisted by the Guns and Gangs Task Force to assist in the execution of a search warrant at a residence near Lakeshore Boulevard West and Park Lawn Road, Toronto. The target of the warrant was the Complainant, thought involved in a recent carjacking in which the victim had been pistol whipped.

The ETF, including the SO, arrived at the address shortly before 9:00 a.m. The door of the unit was forced open, a distraction device was deployed and officers announced their presence before entering. WO #1 found the Complainant sitting on the bed inside the unit’s bedroom and guided him to the floor. The two found themselves in a tight space between the bed and a dresser. WO #1 struggled to bring the Complainant’s hands behind his back. The SO entered the bedroom, positioned himself by the Complainant’s head and, from a standing position, placed his right foot on his head. The Complainant reacted by bringing his hands up to his head in a defensive posture. The SO would re-position his right foot on the Complainant’s head, keeping it pinned to the floor, on several more occasions before the Complainant’s hands were cuffed behind the back.

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

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 March 5, 2024. 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 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 SO and the ETF officers were lawfully placed and in the execution of their duties throughout the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s arrest. The decision to deploy the ETF, and their dynamic entry into the residence and subsequent arrest of the Complainant, were reasonable and lawful. There was a search warrant in effect naming the Complainant, whom they had reason to believe was armed with a firearm, as the subject in a violent carjacking incident.

With respect to the force brought to bear by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was unlawful. According to one version of events, though the Complainant did not resist the officers on the floor, one of them repeatedly stomped on his head, resulting in his broken nose. This account, however, is contested by the evidence of WO #1, who first physically engaged the Complainant. He says that the officers had difficulty securing the Complainant’s arms on the floor. While the struggle to control the Complainant was ongoing, according to WO #1, the SO kept the Complainant’s head pinned to the floor with a foot; there was no stomping action. The video footage did not capture the SO’s conduct without interruption and, therefore, did not fully resolve the conflict in the evidence. It did depict the SO, initially, lifting his right foot a short distance and bringing it down with moderate force towards the Complainant’s head. Later, the officer seemed to reposition his right foot on top of the head without any stomping action. Given the need to quickly subdue the Complainant to mitigate the risk of his accessing a firearm, and the tight quarters in which the officers found themselves, pinning the Complainant to the floor to restrict his movements, including by applying pressure to the head, was not an unreasonable tactic in the circumstances. The moment the Complainant was in handcuffs, the foot was removed. As I am unable to reasonably conclude with any confidence that one version of events is any more accurate than the other, the evidence of excessive force is insufficiently cogent to be put to the test by a court.

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

Date: July 2, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit