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 March 20, 2024, at 12:56 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS), notified the SIU of an injury to the 23-year-old Complainant.

According to the TPS, on or about March 6, 2024, the TPS became involved in an internet-based extortion investigation. TPS officers pretended to be a 16-year-old female and set a meet with a group of men at the Scarborough Town Centre (STC), where several Major Crime Unit (MCU) officers were positioned. The Complainant arrived, appeared to become startled, and ran when he saw the police. He jumped over a civilian vehicle and fell to the ground. MCU officers took control of the Complainant and arrested him before he was taken to 43 Division, where he complained of right elbow pain. He was taken to hospital and diagnosed him with a fractured elbow.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/03/20 at 7:54 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/03/20 at 8:10 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

23-year-old male; declined interview; medical records obtained and reviewed

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between March 28, 2024, and April 17, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the exterior grounds of the STC, 300 Borough Drive, Toronto, outside the main entrance to the mall’s movie theatre.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage - STC

The only camera that monitored the area relevant to the investigation was mounted above the front entrance of the theatre and faced (essentially) east. It captured parking lots north and east in its field of view, the parking lot’s arterial roadways, and the sidewalk and stairs in front of the theatre. There was no audio component or date/time stamps associated to the recording.

At run time four minutes, 55 seconds, a vehicle [now known to be an unmarked police vehicle driven by SO #1] entered the camera’s frame of view from the north and parked at the curb, outside the theatre, behind a white car.

At five minutes, eight seconds, a marked police SUV arrived from the north, and stopped behind a parked silver vehicle. Another marked police SUV approached and parked in front of that silver vehicle.

At five minutes, 33 seconds, as the driver’s door of the first marked police vehicle opened, two men [now known to be plain-clothed police officers] ran towards the entrance of the theatre. Uniformed police officers exited the marked vehicles and ran in the same direction. A man - the Complainant - entered the camera’s frame of view running from beneath a canopy at the theatre entrance chased by uniformed police officers and two plain-clothed police officers. That view was partially obstructed by a canopy and signage.

At five minutes, 36 seconds, SO #1 exited his police vehicle and ran towards the driver’s side of the vehicle he had parked behind. The view of the front end of that car was obstructed by the theatre’s sign.

At five minutes, 37 seconds, a figure appeared over the hood of the white car, then disappeared over its driver’s side. SO #1 ran to that area. Several more police officers, some in plainclothes, others in uniform, ran to the driver’s side of the car. Due to the camera placement the events occurring at that side of the vehicle could not be seen.

At six minutes, 49 seconds, one of the plainclothes police officers escorted the Complainant to a marked police SUV where he was searched before, at nine minutes, 13 seconds, he was escorted out of the camera’s view.

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

Beginning on March 19, 2024, at 7:56:40 p.m., the video opened with a view of the roadway outside the theatre at the STC. It was dark, the pavement was wet, and a light snow fell. A man - the Complainant - was prone on the pavement in the passing lane of the two-lane, traffic control marked roadway next to a white sedan. A dark vehicle was parked behind that white vehicle.

Plainclothes police officers – SO #2 and WO #1, SO #1 and WO #3 - were over the Complainant as another MCU member - WO #4 - approached the Complainant’s legs. The Complainant was on his stomach; his hands were underneath him. WO #1 was near the Complainant’s head, on the Complainant’s left side. SO #1 was near the Complainant’s head on the Complainant’s right-hand side. WO #3 was to SO #1’s left, at the Complainant’s lower body. SO #2 rested his upper torso into the huddle surrounding the Complainant at the Complainant’s left side. WO #4 was on the Complainant’s left, at his legs.

At 7:56:42 p.m., a uniformed police officer [now known to be WO #2] approached the fray.

At 7:56:51 p.m., WO #4 used his right knee to strike the Complainant’s right side.

As the recording progressed it was difficult to interpret the minutiae of movement or clearly see the position in which the Complainant was oriented before TPS Officer #1 was directed to assist in taking the Complainant’s associate into custody and he left the area.

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

The footage did not capture the Complainant’s arrest.

TPS Custody Video

On March 19, 2024, at 8:52:09 p.m., the Complainant was brought before a booking sergeant by WO #2 and TPS Officer #2. At 8:54:10 p.m., the booking sergeant asked if he wanted to talk to a lawyer. The Complainant said, “Ah, yeah, sure. My elbow hurts. Can I get some water, please?” The booking sergeant asked him if he had any injuries. The Complainant responded, “From the arrest?” The booking sergeant said, “Yes.” The Complainant said his right elbow was “killing” him, he had a “horrible pain” in his left wrist from the handcuffs and pain on the left side of the head, and he was not sure if he was bleeding. WO #2 lifted the Complainant’s hair to inspect his head. There was no bleeding.

TPS Officer #2 told the booking sergeant there had been a foot pursuit during the arrest and, at 8:57:21 p.m., he removed the handcuffs from the Complainant. The Complainant rubbed his right elbow and said he thought it had been dislocated. He appeared to be in pain, quietly moaned, and favoured his right arm while his property was inventoried. At 9:01:51 p.m., he was escorted off camera, out of the booking area.

At 10:07:19 p.m., the Complainant was returned to the booking desk by two police officers [now known to be TPS Officer #3 and TPS Officer #4]. He was told he would be taken to hospital to have his arm checked and returned to the station. He was escorted off camera before, at 10:07:43 p.m., the recording ended.

At 11:52:26 p.m., the recording began again as TPS Officer #3 and TPS Officer #4 walked the Complainant towards a bench, where he sat. His right arm was in a cast and sling. At 11:55:51 p.m., the booking sergeant reviewed the medical paperwork for the audio record, reading the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured right elbow and had been prescribed pain medication. He was escorted off camera, out of the booking area, on March 20, 2024, at 12:00:03 a.m.

Police Radio and Telephone Communication Recordings

On March 19, 2024, at 5:15:55 p.m., the dispatcher alerted police officers that one of the vehicles associated to their suspects had been involved in a carjacking, a robbery with a firearm, wearing a disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence, conspiracy, and possession of property obtained by crime over five thousand dollars.

At 5:22:48 p.m., a broadcast was made that a police officer [now known to be TPS Officer #5] had communicated with their suspects to say they were getting ready to meet them and asked where they were to meet.

At 5:24:31 p.m., a police officer broadcast the vehicle (mentioned above) was parked on Kingston Road, west of Markham Road, in a plaza. Another police officer made a broadcast directing the team to keep observations on that car until they had more information.

At 5:56:03 p.m., TPS Officer #5 broadcast she received a message from their suspects with instructions to meet at the STC. She asked what time the team could be there. A police officer asked TPS Officer #5 to reply they could meet in an hour, so they could try to follow the vehicle from Kingston Road and Markham Road. At 6:00:26 p.m., a police officer broadcast that vehicle was moving.

At 6:36:30 p.m., TPS Officer #5 broadcast she was sending a text saying she was on the way to the STC. At 6:44:03 p.m., she broadcast that police officers were to meet the suspects on the lower-level food court of the STC.

At 7:39:23 p.m., a police officer [now known to be WO #3] broadcast the suspects were ten minutes away. Instructions followed to let the suspects get to the food court where they would be arrested.

At 7:49:42 p.m., a police officer broadcast a second vehicle, associated to their suspects, entered the parking lot, and was headed towards the movie theatre. Information followed that it parked in front of the theatre.

At 7:51:14 p.m., TPS Officer #5 broadcast she received a message from their suspects to meet in the theatre.

At 7:53:24 p.m., WO #3 directed the Public Safety Response Team members to block the driver’s side door of their suspect’s vehicle. At 7:54:53 p.m., a police officer broadcast their suspects got out of their car and were walking towards the theatre. The Complainant was identified as wearing red pants. At 7:55:28 p.m., a police officer broadcast for the (arrest team) to, “Go.” At 7:57:47 p.m., a police officer [now known to be WO #2] reported one person was in custody. A police officer [now believed to be TPS Officer #2] also broadcast he had someone in custody.

At 8:06:15 p.m., WO #2 broadcast they were beginning to transport the Complainant to 43 Division station. At 8:20:07 p.m., WO #2 broadcast they arrived at the police facility.

At 10:04:35 p.m., a police officer broadcast they were beginning a prisoner transfer [now known to be the Complainant] to Centenary Hospital.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between March 21, 2024, and April 6, 2024:

• Names and identifiers of involved police officers;
• BWC recording;
• ICC recordings;
• Video footage – STC;
• Police communications recordings;
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
• Notes – WO #1;
• Notes – WO #2;
• Notes – WO #3;
• Notes – WO #4;
• Notes – SO #1;
• Subject Official use of force requalification records;
• Policy – Arrest; and
• Policy – Use of Force.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on March 25, 2024:

• The Complainant’s medical records from the Rouge Valley Health System Centenary Health Centre Site.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with officers who participated in the Complainant’s arrest and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU. SO #1 did authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of March 19, 2024, members of the TPS MCU, including SO #1 and SO #2, gathered in unmarked vehicles and plainclothes at the STC. They were there to arrest the Complainant and an associate of his in relation to an extortion investigation. The pair had reportedly extorted money from an individual and believed they were meeting with the victim again at the mall to extort even more money. In fact, the victim had gone to police and the police had set up a sting operation. Officers, pretending to be the victim, had agreed to meet with the pair at the mall.

The Complainant and his companion arrived at the mall’s movie theatre and texted the ‘victim” directing him to their location. They were just outside the front doors of the theatre when they were approached by plainclothes officers indicating they were under arrest. The Complainant immediately fled. He jumped down the flight of steps leading up to the theatre’s entrance and ran across a walkway towards the parking lot. Reaching the end of the walkway, the Complainant jumped onto the hood of a white sedan, lost his footing, and fell onto the ground on the other side of the hood.

SO #1 and SO #2 had parked their vehicles in front of the theatre behind the white sedan. The former was the first to reach the Complainant following his fall. The Complainant was attempting to right himself when the officer pulled him back to the ground. Other officers soon arrived, and the Complainant was handcuffed behind the back.

The Complainant immediately complained of pain. He was transported to the station in a marked cruiser and subsequently taken to hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured right elbow.

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 and around the time of his arrest by TPS officers on March 19, 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.

The officers appear to have been within their rights in moving to arrest the Complainant for extortion. The MCU had been briefed about the ongoing extortion investigation prior to the operation in which the Complainant and his associate were identified as the suspects.

As for the force brought to bear by the officers in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, there is no reason to believe it was unlawful. The evidence indicates that the Complainant did not readily surrender himself to arrest following his fall, and that SO #2 and SO #1 used a measure of force to wrestle control of his arms. They neither resorted to weapons nor delivered strikes of any kind. While it is conceivable that the Complainant’s fracture was incurred in the manipulation of his arms behind his back, it is more likely attributable to his fall off the sedan’s hood onto the ground. The video footage depicts WO #4 kneeing the Complainant’s right side on the ground, but this would appear to have been a legitimate tactic to overcome a resistant subject who had yet to be handcuffed at the time. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the Complainant was on the receiving end of excessive force.

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

Date: July 18, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit