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 26-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 12, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 11, 2024, uniformed police officers located a vehicle and conducted a routine query of the licence plate. The information obtained identified the Complainant as having outstanding arrest warrants for domestic violence-related offences. PRP 22 Division investigators attended the location at Chuck’s Roadhouse, 2 Kennedy Road South, Brampton, and commenced surveillance. At 10:51 p.m., the Complainant attempted to enter the vehicle and was confronted by Witness Official (WO) #1 and the Subject Official (SO), both attired in plainclothes. A struggle ensued and the Complainant was taken to the ground. He was eventually handcuffed and transported to 12 Division for processing. During the booking process, the Complainant complained of back pain. He was taken to Trillium Health Partners - Mississauga Site (THP-MS) and diagnosed with a fractured number four lumbar.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/03/12 at 9:30 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/03/13 at 12:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 15, 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 April 29, 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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between March 17 and 22, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired just outside the front doors of Chuck’s Roadhouse, 2 Kennedy Road South, Brampton.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage - Chuck’s Roadhouse – 2 Kennedy Road South, Brampton

Two black vehicles were captured parked close to the entrance. There was an empty space to the east of the vehicles and then a parked white vehicle.

Starting at about 10:21:09 p.m., March 11, 2024, four male patrons exited the roadhouse and walked out of camera range in a northwest direction. The shadow of a person was observed to move back and forth in front of one of the parked black vehicles.

Starting at about 10:21:17 p.m., a black vehicle [now known to be a police vehicle] stopped facing westbound in the lot behind the two black vehicles. The silhouette of a person, dressed in dark clothing with white lettering across the chest [now known to be a police officer], exited the vehicle and ran in the direction of the front doors of the roadhouse. At the same time, the shadow of a person [believed to be the Complainant] ran in front of the police officer.

Starting at about 10:21:38 p.m., four persons were captured kneeling at the right side of the screen [identified as police officers by their police vests]. One person stood to the extreme right of the screen and another police officer stood and walked around in front of the door.

Starting at about 10:22:54 p.m., two plainclothes police officers stood at the head area of a person on the ground [the Complainant], who was handcuffed behind the back and face down.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – Officer #1 and Officer #2

Starting at about 10:48 p.m., on March 11, 2024, two Criminal Investigations Bureau (CIB) police officers walked the Complainant from the front of Chuck’s Roadhouse to a waiting unmarked police vehicle. The Complainant was handcuffed with his hands behind the back. Officer #2 and Officer #1 took custody of the Complainant, searched him and transported him to PRP 12 Division. They arrived at 12 Division at 11:08 p.m.

Starting at about 12:45 a.m., March 12, 2024, the Complainant was placed in the rear of an ambulance. In conversation with the paramedic, the Complainant complained his back, buttocks and chest hurt, but the worst area was his lower back and tailbone area. The Complainant advised the pain began when he was arrested, and the police officers climbed on top of him. In a conversation with Officer #1, the Complainant asked if the SIU had been notified because he was injured and did not want it covered up. The Complainant was told it depended on his injury. They arrived at the hospital at 1:10 a.m.

PRP Custody Video Footage

Starting at about 8:16 a.m., March 12, 2024, the Complainant arrived at the sally port, and was walked into the booking area of PRP 22 Division. He wore a hospital gown.

Starting at about 8:21 a.m., after a conversation with the booking supervisor, the Complainant was taken to a cell, where he remained until 10:24 a.m. The Complainant slept most of the time when in the cells. After he was brought before the booking supervisor, at 10:27 a.m., the Complainant was taken to a waiting police vehicle and, at 10:29 a.m., left the division.

Police Communications Recordings

On March 11, 2024, at 10:31 p.m., a PRP Unit [now known to be Officer #2 and Officer #1] advised they had one person [now known to be the Complainant] in custody. The Complainant was under arrest at Chuck’s Roadhouse located at 2 Kennedy Road. They transported the Complainant to PRP 12 Division and then went to THP-MS.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PRP between March 12, 2024, and March 20, 2024:

• Video footage from Chuck’s Roadhouse;
• Police communications recordings;
• BWC footage;
• In-car camera footage;
• Custody video;
• Notes – WO #1;
• Notes – WO #3;
• Notes – WO #2;
• Notes – WO #4;
• Notes – WO #5;
• Incident Details Report;
• Incident History Report;
• Occurrence Report;
• Officer List;
• Person Details Report – the Complainant;
• PRP Policy - Criminal Investigations;
• PRP Policy - Incident Response;
• Training Summary – WO #1;
• Training Summary – the SO; and
• Executed Arrest Warrants.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between March 26, 2024, and April 18, 2024.

• Ambulance Call Report from Peel Regional Paramedic Services; and
• The Complainant’s medical records from THP-MS.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the evening of March 11, 2024, PRP officers located a vehicle parked in the parking lot outside Chuck’s Roadhouse, 2 Kennedy Road South, Brampton, registered to the Complainant. The Complainant was wanted on warrants held by the PRP and Toronto Police Service. The officers notified the PRP CIB, which dispatched plainclothes officers in unmarked vehicles to the location. The plan was to confirm the Complainant’s presence in the area and to arrest him before he could re-enter the vehicle.

At about 10:20 p.m., the Complainant exited the restaurant. Shortly thereafter, he was confronted by one of the plainclothes officers – WO #1 – telling him to put his hands up. WO #1 had taken hold of the Complainant when another of the plainclothes officers in the area – the SO – ran towards the Complainant and tackled him to the ground. WO #1 was also felled in the process. With the Complainant in a prone position, WO #1 and the SO handcuffed him without incident.

The Complainant complained of pain at the police station. He was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a spinal fracture.

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 PRP officers on March 11, 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.

There were multiple arrest warrants in effect for the Complainant at the time of the takedown. He was clearly subject to arrest.

With respect to the force used during the Complainant’s arrest, namely, a takedown and perhaps the placement of a knee on the Complainant’s back once he was prone on the ground, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was unlawful. There is some evidence in which it is alleged that the Complainant had put his hands up and had effectively surrendered to police when he was tackled to the ground. The SO does not suggest that the Complainant physically resisted arrest or tried to get away. The officer does say that the Complainant did not lower himself to the ground as he rushed towards him telling him to do so. Given the Complainant’s record, including a history of firearm possession, the SO was concerned to get him onto the ground as quickly as possible to minimize the risk of violence on the Complainant’s part. While I have no reason to doubt the Complainant submitted to his arrest, I also accept that the SO, from his perspective, had a reasonable safety concern for which a takedown was a legitimate tactic. As for the possible knee on the back, the Complainant is unable to identify which officer might have done that, nor does the evidence in its totality reasonably establish that such force was something other than incidental to the takedown.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was the result of the force brought to bear by the police in his arrest, most likely, the takedown, I am not reasonably satisfied that it was attributable to any unlawful conduct by the arresting officers. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: July 9, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit