SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-TCI-133
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
Mandate of the SIU
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.
Information Restrictions
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.
Mandate Engaged
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 40-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU[1]
On March 24, 2024, at 10:58 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.
According to the TPS, on March 23, 2024, at 7:53 p.m., TPS were called to a home in the area of Rexdale Boulevard and Islington Avenue in relation to a domestic assault that was occurring between a man [later known to be the Complainant] and Witness #1. TPS officers arrived at the address and learned that the Complainant had fled to a nearby residence. TPS officers attended the home and arrested the Complainant. He was transported to 23 Division and was going to be released on an undertaking until it was learned that the Complainant had an outstanding warrant out of Peel Regional Police (PRP). He was turned over to PRP officers. While in the PRP police vehicle, he complained of a foot injury that occurred during the arrest by TPS 23 Division officers.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2024/03/25 at 8:21 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/03/26 at 12:38 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
40-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on March 26, 2024.
Civilian Witness (CW)
CW Interviewed
The civilian witness was interviewed on April 10, 2024.
Subject Officials (SO)
SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
SO #2 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed
The subject official was interviewed on May 7, 2024.
Witness Official (WO)
WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The witness official was interviewed on April 18, 2024.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired on the roadway outside a residence in the area of Rexdale Boulevard and Islington Avenue, Toronto.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage
Starting at about 8:55 p.m., March 23, 2024, the WO and SO #2 were seen pulling up in front of a residence. The WO followed behind SO #2 up the driveway on foot. The police officers proceeded around to the backyard; their flashlights were on. They appeared to be looking for someone. They approached the rear glass doors and observed a man inside - the Complainant. He opened the door and the police officers asked to talk to him. The Complainant asked, “Do you want me to leave?” SO #2 told the Complainant he was under arrest for assault on Witness #1 and asked him to turn around so he could handcuff him. SO #2 handcuffed the Complainant behind his back and he was escorted by the police officers down the driveway to the police vehicle parked on the street. The WO was observed unlocking the door to the police vehicle. Her attention was distracted by SO #2 behind her taking the Complainant to his knees and onto the ground. SO #2 said, “Why are you trying to run away?” The Complainant denied it and said he tried to “break away to breathe”. The police officers stood him up and walked back to the police car. The WO told a male [now known as the CW] “to get away”.
The Complainant was seated in the police vehicle, feet out, and complained that the handcuffs were too tight. He stated he could not sit like that and wanted double-handcuffs placed on him. He complained that he could not breathe. SO #2 asked him if he was going to behave, and he replied, “Yes.” The police officers proceeded to remove the handcuffs and the Complainant attempted to break loose. The WO told him to “stop” and SO #2 told him to “stop resisting”. The Complainant was told to put his hands behind his back.
Another police officer - SO #1 - assisted with the handcuffing and was observed on the ground with the Complainant. SO #2 and SO #1 handcuffed the Complainant behind his back with single handcuffs. He was then stood up by the police officers and walked over to the police vehicle.
The Complainant complained he could “not breathe”. He asked for double-handcuffs. SO #2 and SO #1 said they would double-handcuff him if the Complainant stopped fighting.
The police officers unlocked his single handcuffs, removed them and placed double-handcuffs on the Complainant. He was placed back in the police vehicle and the door was closed.
Police Communications Recordings
On March 23, 2024, at about 7:52:24 p.m., Caller #1 requested police assistance at a home in the area of Islington Avenue and Rexdale Boulevard – Residence #1.
At 7:53:12 p.m., Caller #1 reported that the Complainant had attended at the house. He had been drinking and assaulted Witness #1. The assault occurred 30 to 45 minutes ago. The Complainant was no longer in the house.
At 7:54:30 p.m., EMS was requested to attend Residence #1.
At 8:46:05 p.m., Caller #1 again called 911 to request police assistance at a second nearby residence, Residence #2, where the Complainant was present. He was fighting and harassing the occupant.
At 9:28:55 p.m., Caller #2 called 911 to report that the Complainant was banging at the front door of Residence #2. He was not leaving until the police officers picked him up. He was intoxicated. She felt like a hostage and her children were terrified. The Complainant asked her to call the police because he had no place to stay and needed somewhere warm to go.
At 9:51:37 p.m., a police officer advised dispatch that one male was in custody.
At 10:14:00 p.m., the Complainant was transported to the police station.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between April 3, 2024, and April 17, 2024:
- Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
- Communications recordings;
- Booking Report;
- General Occurrence Report;
- BWC footage;
- Notes – the WO;
- Notes – SO #2;
- Notes – SO #1;
- Policy – Arrest; and
- Policy – Incident Response.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on April 15, 2024:
- The Complainant’s medical records from Credit Valley Hospital.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and one of the subject officials, SO #1, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, SO #2 did not agree an interview with the SIU. Both subject officials did authorize the release of their notes.
In the evening of March 23, 2024, SO #2, in the company of his partner, the WO, arrived at a home in the area of Islington Avenue and Rexdale Boulevard. They understood that the Complainant, whom they had reason to believe had just assaulted Witness #1, was at the address – Residence #2. The officers located the Complainant in a room at the back of the house and asked him to step outside. The Complainant did so and was taken into custody without incident.
The Complainant was handcuffed behind the back and escorted down the side of the house towards the officers’ cruiser. He was standing by the driver’s side of the vehicle when he attempted to break free of SO #2, who had a hold of him from the back. The officer reacted quickly and took the Complainant to the ground.
The Complainant was assisted to his feet and sat in the rear compartment of the cruiser, his feet out. He complained of discomfort and asked to be handcuffed with the use of two sets of handcuffs. The officers removed him from the cruiser and placed him up against the side of the cruiser, intending to restrain him as requested. They had released one of the cuffs when the Complainant started to resist. He refused to place his arms behind his back and jostled with the officers as they attempted to secure him in cuffs.
SO #1 arrived on scene as the struggle by the cruiser’s driver’s side was unfolding. He intervened and eventually forced the Complainant to the ground with or without the aid of SO #2.
The Complainant was transported to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with a fractured left foot.
Relevant Legislation
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.
Analysis and Director’s Decision
The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on March 23, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming two subject officials - SO #1 and SO #2. 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.
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.
Having met and spoken with the victim of the Complainant’s reported assault earlier in the evening, the WO and SO #2 had grounds to take and keep him in custody.
With respect to the force used by the officers, namely, two takedowns, I am satisfied it was lawful. Each occasion was preceded by an active effort on the part of the Complainant to free himself from the officers’ hold. The first one occurred quickly as a reaction on the part of SO #2 to prevent the Complainant breaking free of his grasp. The second followed a protracted struggle by the cruiser during which the Complainant had made clear he was not inclined to have his arms brought behind the back. Bringing the Complainant to ground in these circumstances made sense as it would assist in overcoming his resistance and ensuring his custody. As for the manner in which the takedowns were executed, the video footage does not depict excessive or reckless force being brought to bear.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: July 22, 2024
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) Unless otherwise specified, the information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s finding of facts following its investigation. [Back to text]
- 2) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]
Note:
The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.