SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-TCI-139
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 injuries of a 59-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU[1]
On March 26, 2024, at 10:49 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.
On March 26, 2024, at approximately 8:00 p.m., the TPS Hold-Up Squad (HLDS) attempted to execute a search warrant at a residence in the West Hill area of Scarborough. As they prepared to enter the building, their target, the Complainant, exited the building. They moved to arrest the Complainant, and he resisted and produced a knife. There followed a brief standoff. Emergency Task Force (ETF) police officers discharged Conducted Energy Weapons (CEW). Eventually, a Blunt Impact Projectile (BIP) gun was deployed, striking the Complainant in the chest. The Complainant was apprehended and transported by Toronto Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to Scarborough Centenary Hospital.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2024/03/26 at 11:32 p.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/03/27 at 7:00 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
59-year-old male; interviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on March 27, 2024.
Civilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between April 11 and 17, 2024.
Subject Officials (SO)
SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Interviewed
WO #6 Interviewed
WO #7 Interviewed
WO #8 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
The witness officials were interviewed between April 2 and 10, 2024.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in and around a grass-covered parkette located next to an apartment building situated in the West Hill area of Scarborough.
Physical Evidence
On March 27, 2024, at 2:25 a.m., a SIU forensic investigator arrived at the scene. A fence divided the scene, but there was a hole in the fence for access. In the grassed area on the north side of the fence were remnants of a deployed BIP projectile. Located to the south side of the grassed area was evidence of less-lethal weapons deployment. In the immediate southwest corner of this area were BIP projectile remnants, CEW deployment items, and Distraction Device (DD) deployment items. The scene was photographed and the evidence, including two BIP projectile remnants, two DD safety levers, and six CEW probes, was collected. An additional CEW probe was located that had been buried in the mud.
On April 2, 2024, at 8:45 a.m., a SIU forensic investigator revisited the scene during daylight hours for an extended search. An additional CEW probe was found in the immediate area where other exhibits were located.
On March 27, 2024, at 1:24 a.m., a SIU forensic investigator attended the ETF Headquarters and met with an officer who provided the less-lethal weapons used in the incident. The first weapon was a BIP weapon, which was model number GL65-40 40 mm launcher. The weapon had the capacity to carry six BIP projectiles. Four live rounds and two spent cartridge cases were provided for examination. The weapon was photographed, and the SIU forensic investigator took possession of the two spent cartridge cases.
Two CEWs had been deployed during the arrest. The first CEW belonged to WO #4. The second CEW belonged to SO #1.
Figure 1 – The BIP launcher and projectiles
Figure 2 – SO #1’s CEW
Forensic Evidence
CEW Deployment Data
On March 26, 2024, at 7:58:30 p.m.,[2] WO #4 deployed Bay 1 of his CEW and electricity discharged for .541 seconds. At 7:58:31 p.m., he deployed Bay 2 from his CEW and electricity discharged for 4.928 seconds.
On March 26, 2024, at 7:57:58 p.m., SO #1 deployed Bay 1 from his CEW and electricity discharged for .853 seconds. At 7:57:59 p.m., he deployed Bay 2 and electricity discharged for 4.952 seconds.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - WO #6
On March 26, 2024, at 5:22 p.m., WO #6 was at the rear of the apartment building. The Complainant stood behind a fence, and he held onto his dog. The Complainant wore a parka with a hoodie up over his head. WO #6 asked if the dog was vicious, and why the Complainant was wearing a bullet-proof vest. WO #6 told the Complainant that he was going to be arrested and the Complainant told him that he could not be arrested as he would lose his dog and his apartment. He said he would not go without a fight. WO #6 asked if the Complainant had weapons and he said he had a knife. After some coaxing, the Complainant took off his jacket and allowed WO #6 to search it. A plainclothes police officer [now known to be WO #5 from the HLDS] was on scene.
At 6:12 p.m., three ETF police officers approached, and WO #6 briefed WO #3. WO #6 then took up scene maintenance and the ETF police officers negotiated with the Complainant until his arrest.
BWC Footage - WO #7
Starting at about 6:18 p.m., WO #7 was at the parkette with other ETF police officers. He re-deployed some Primary Response Unit police officers to the side of the park for containment. The officer subsequently visited and spoke to WO #5, who was outside the fence. WO #5 briefed WO #7 and then WO #7 spoke to CW #1.
Starting at about 7:13 p.m., WO #7 was speaking to ETF police officers about losing daylight.
Starting at about 7:29 p.m., WO #7 told an ETF police officer to make sure that the Complainant was aware of a focus group which assisted prisoners to pay their rent.
Starting at about 7:30 p.m., WO #7 advised his staff sergeant that he would give it 15 minutes and then they could call in a negotiator group. He arranged to have the Toronto Fire Service (TFS) turn on the artificial lighting, and then he paused his camera to speak to his staff sergeant.
Starting at about 7:58 p.m., the video resumed as ETF police officers started to walk across the parkette. The sound of DDs could be heard and there was smoke in the air. The sound of a BIP was heard and the Complainant fell to the ground on his right side. ETF police officers moved in. WO #7 moved around looking for, and asking about, the dog. Numerous voices could be heard saying, “Show us your hands.”
Starting at about 8:00 p.m., the Complainant was handcuffed.
Starting at about 8:01 p.m., WO #7 called his staff sergeant and told him they had one person in custody.
BWC Footage - WO #4
On March 26, 2024, at 6:08 p.m., WO #4 entered the parkette through a hole in the fence. Other ETF police officers were present and WO #4, accompanied by two other ETF police officers - WO #3 and WO #2 - went to the side of the parkette outside the fence. He approached the fence and the Complainant appeared hyper and walked up and down on the other side of the fence with his dog. WO #4 introduced himself and asked the Complainant to secure his dog. The conversation with the Complainant went in circles and eventually the Complainant said, “You better take a head shot.” WO #3 took over the negotiations and he tried to get the Complainant to tie up the dog and give up the knife in return for a cigarette. The Complainant spoke about being locked up for a number of years. They started to lose daylight and the Complainant began to walk to the corner of the park, where there was an opening in the fence that was blocked by a police vehicle.
Starting at about 7:58 p.m., there was the sound of two explosions [now known to be DDs]. WO #4 followed WO #3 to the opening in the fence. WO #4 ran around a structure and, as he entered the hole in the fence, the Complainant was lying on the ground with three ETF police officers over the top of him. It was apparent that WO #4 had deployed his CEW when wires were seen to protrude from the CEW. Police officers were heard to shout, “Show us your hands.” Eventually the Complainant was handcuffed with his hands behind his back.
BWC Footage - WO #3
The video started at 6:05 p.m., March 26, 2024, as WO #3 exited his unmarked SUV in the parking lot of the building. He approached an ETF supply vehicle and obtained a dog snare from the rear before climbing through a hole in the fence at the corner of the parkette. He detailed two ETF police officers WO #4 and WO #2 - to accompany him. He then walked along the outside of the fence and then to the exterior of the fence, where the Complainant was located on the inside of the fence. He was briefed by WO #5 from HLDS and WO #6. He detailed one of the ETF police officers - WO #4 - to negotiate with the Complainant. WO #3 then assisted WO #4 with the negotiation.
Starting at about 7:58 p.m., the Complainant started to walk in the direction of the corner of the parkette. WO #3 ran north along the outside of the fence line and then along the north side of the fence line. Two explosions were heard [now known to be from DDs]. WO #3 jumped up on the hood of a police vehicle, which was partially blocking a hole in the fence, as two more explosions were heard. WO #3 jumped through the hole in the fence. Three ETF police officers were on the ground on top of the Complainant, who was on his stomach. Police officers shouted, “Drop the knife.”
WO #3 used his extended ASP to pry the Complainant’s right arm from under his body. Blood was visible on the left, outside of the hood of the Complainant’s hoodie. A police officer - WO #1 - stood on the Complainant’s head, and WO #3 said, “Watch out,” and he moved WO #1’s foot off the Complainant’s head. The Complainant moaned in pain, and he was handcuffed with his hands behind his back.
BWC Footage - SO #2
The video started on March 26, 2024, at 6:09 p.m., as SO #2 walked across a parking lot towards a hole in a fence line. SO #2 carried a BIP, which at times blocked the view of the camera. He then entered through a second hole in the fence line which was located at the corner of the parkette. SO #2 met with other members of the ETF. The Complainant and his dog could be seen at a distance against the fence line of the parkette.
At 6:50 p.m., the ETF members moved to the side of the parkette, south of the Complainant’s location. The team remained at that location. As daylight faded, the TFS activated lighting at the south side of the parkette at 7:43 p.m.
Starting at about 7:58 p.m., the Complainant walked to the corner of the parkette where the hole in the fence was located. Two ETF police officers - WO #3 and WO #4 - ran along the outside of the fence line at the north side of the parkette and two DDs exploded near the Complainant. The ETF police officer to the right side of SO #2 deployed his CEW and SO #2 fired his BIP. At SO #2 got closer, the Complainant stood facing SO #2 with a knife in his right hand. SO #2 fired his BIP a second time and the ETF police officer to the right of the Complainant deployed his CEW a second time. The Complainant fell to the ground with his head facing east. Voices were heard to shout, “Drop the knife.” The Complainant could not be seen for the ETF police officers who blocked the view.
BWC Footage - SO #1
The video started at 6:11 p.m., on March 26, 2024, as SO #2 stood inside the parkette. ETF members made their way to the side of the parkette, south of the Complainant’s location.
At 7:43 p.m., darkness had descended and the TFS activated artificial lighting at the south side of the parkette.
Starting at about 7:58 p.m., the Complainant walked to the corner of the parkette. Someone shouted go back and then two DDs exploded in front of the Complainant. The ETF, including SO #1, made their way to the corner of the parkette. SO #1 deployed a CEW from his left hand and, to his left, a BIP was fired. SO #1 deployed his CEW a second time and a second BIP was fired, and the Complainant fell to the ground. He could not be seen for the ETF bodies on top of him. Numerous times police officers shouted, “Drop the knife.” The Complainant was eventually handcuffed.
BWC Footage - WO #1
At 6:10 p.m., March 26, 2024, the video started as WO #1 stood at the corner of the parkette with other members of the ETF. Discussions took place about a dog, and ETF police officers - WO #3, WO #4 and WO #2 - made their way to the side of the parkette to speak with the Complainant. WO #1 accompanied by other members of the ETF attended the corner of the parkette south of the Complainant’s location. WO #1 carried a C8 rifle.
At 7:43 p.m., as it got dark, the TFS activated artificial lighting at the north side of the parkette.
Starting at about 7:58 p.m., the Complainant started to walk in the direction of the corner of the park, and a voice said, “Go back.” Two DDs exploded and WO #1 also deployed a third DD. The Complainant stood facing WO #1. The camera view was partially blocked by WO #1’s C8 rifle. The Complainant fell to the ground on his right side, and someone shouted twice, “Drop the knife.” Someone to WO #1’s left side dropped a ballistic shield on the ground. Someone shouted, “Show us your hands.” A police officer with an ASP - WO #3 - pried at one of the Complainant’s arms and WO #1 grabbed the arm. The Complainant was handcuffed, and a voice said, “It’s over [first name of the Complainant].”
BWC Footage - WO #2
WO #2’s video started at 6:08 p.m., on March 26, 2024, as he exited his unmarked police vehicle in the parking lot of the apartment building. He carried a dog snare, which he handed off to another ETF police officer when he entered the area at the corner of the parkette. He was detailed to attend the east side of the fence by an ETF police officer - now known to be WO #3. He stood on the outside of the fence as WO #3 and WO #4 negotiated with the Complainant. Eventually, he made his way to the other side of the fence and then entered the parkette.
At 7:23 p.m., WO #2 joined other ETF members, who stood south of the Complainant.
Starting at about 7:58 p.m., as the Complainant walked to the corner of the park, WO #2 followed the Complainant with three ETF police officers on his right side. WO #2’s shotgun blocked the view of the camera. Four explosions could be heard, and smoke was visible. WO #2 stayed back at the time of the takedown and he turned to look for the dog. Voices shouted, “Give us your hands,” and, “Where’s the dog.”
Custody Footage
On March 27, 2024, the Complainant was brought into a booking room at 43 Division at 1:10 a.m. The Complainant was handcuffed to the front of his body. A faint reddish stain was seen on the left side of the hood of the Complainant’s hoodie. A police officer told the Officer in Charge that the Complainant was under arrest for Break and Enter with Intent, Weapons Dangerous, Forcible Confinement, Possession of Property Obtained by Crime and Robbery with a Weapon. ETF police officers had originally arrested the Complainant, and he was handed over to uniform officers. The Complainant had been taken to hospital by ambulance and cleared medically.
Police Communications Recordings
On March 26, 2024, at 5:23 p.m., WO #6 attended a residential building to follow-up on information received from a member of the HLDS that they had a search warrant for the Complainant’s residence. The Complainant could be arrested for robbery.
Starting at about 5:24 p.m., WO #6 was outside the building and the Complainant was present with a dog. WO #6 spoke with the Complainant and advised that the dog could be aggressive but was presently friendly. The Complainant reportedly said there would be trouble if the police tried to arrest him. WO #5 of the HLDS advised he was on scene and WO #6 was speaking with the Complainant. WO #5 advised that, at 5:36 p.m., he notified the ETF.
WO #6 advised that the Complainant wore a bulletproof vest, and he was ready to fight. WO #6 did not believe that a CEW would be effective. WO #6 advised the Complainant had a knife and it was unknown if he had another knife. The Complainant reportedly indicated that if he had to be arrested, they might as well shoot him.
Starting at about 6:23 p.m., WO #5 advised that the Complainant had the knife in his hand. ETF was on scene and had taken over negotiations. TFS were requested to provide lighting as darkness was starting to set in and they were on scene at 7:26 p.m.
At 7:59 p.m., CEWs were deployed and, at 8:01 p.m., WO #6 advised they had the Complainant in custody and an ambulance was on scene.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between March 27, 2024, and May 15, 2024:
- BWC footage;
- Search Warrant – the Complainant’s residence;
- Communications recordings;
- Notes - WO #1;
- Notes - WO #2;
- Notes - WO #3;
- Notes - WO #6;
- Notes - WO #8
- Notes - WO #5;
- Notes - WO #4;
- Notes - WO #7;
- Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
- Procedure - Arrest;
- Procedure - Incidents Requiring the Emergency Task Force;
- Procedure - Incident Response - Use of Force;
- CEW deployment data;
- Use of Force Record – SO #1;
- Use of Force Record – SO #2; and
- General and Supplementary Occurrence Reports.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on March 27, 2024:
- The Ambulance Call Report from Toronto EMS.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officials did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes.
The Complainant was walking his dog in the parkette next to an apartment building in the West Hill area of Scarborough when he was approached by TPS officers. Told that he was subject to arrest for robbery, the Complainant asked for a few days to pay his rent and make arrangements for his dog before he turned himself in. Angered when that request was refused, the Complainant made it clear he would not be taken without a fight and indicated that the police would have to shoot him. The Complainant was wearing a bullet proof vest and in possession of a knife and screwdriver.
A team of ETF officers, including SO #1 and SO #2, were dispatched to the scene, arriving at about 6:10 p.m. From outside a fence that bordered the parkette, WO #4 and WO #3 took the lead in speaking with the Complainant. They stressed the need for the Complainant to surrender peacefully and explained that they were not at liberty to defer his arrest. The Complainant could not be persuaded. He walked with his dog around the parkette and noted he would rather die than be arrested. He variously picked up and dropped the knife he had with him.
Just before 8:00 p.m., the knife in his right hand, the Complainant and his dog began to walk towards a hole in the fence at the corner of the parkette. WO #4 and WO #3 followed him from outside the fence, warning him not to exit. At the same time, a group of ETF officers, that had taken a position inside the field south of the Complainant’s location throughout the negotiations, began to progress northwards towards the Complainant. Before the Complainant arrived at the hole, WO #4 and WO #3 each threw a distraction device over the fence in his direction. Shortly thereafter, additional distraction devices were thrown by WO #1 and WO #7 as they approached from the south. The Complainant remained on his feet and was facing the officers to the south when WO #4 and SO #1 discharged their CEWs, and SO #2 fired his BIP gun twice. The Complainant was felled by either a CEW or the BIP gun, or both.
ETF officers rushed towards the Complainant on the ground. The Complainant struggled against their efforts to wrestle his arms behind the back. SO #1 struck the Complainant twice in the face before WO #3, with the use of his baton, was able to pry one of the Complainant’s arms free. Shortly, the officers were able to secure his second arm and the Complainant was handcuffed behind the back.
Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left orbital bone and broken nose.
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 26, 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 injuries.
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.
I am satisfied the Complainant was subject to arrest at the time of the events in question. There was a search warrant in effect naming the Complainant as the subject with respect to a recent home invasion.
With respect to the force brought to bear by the ETF, including the subject officials, the evidence falls short of any reasonable suggestion it was unlawful. For more than an hour-and-a-half, the ETF had attempted to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the standoff. The Complainant steadfastly refused to surrender and then forced the ETF’s hand when he started to make his way towards an opening in the fence that bordered the parkette. Armed with a knife as he was, I am satisfied that the ETF were right to want to prevent the Complainant’s egress from the parkette in the interests of public safety. The ETF were wise to forego a hand-to-hand physical engagement with the Complainant as it would have risked officers being grievously hurt or killed by a knife attack. And the deployment of distraction devices – four in total – was not enough to deter the Complainant; he remained standing with the knife in hand. In the circumstances, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officers’ resort to less-lethal weaponry – CEWs and a BIP gun – was unjustified. If they worked, the Complainant’s temporary incapacitation would give the officers an opportunity to safely approach and take him into custody without the infliction of serious injury. The fact that the weapons might have directly caused one or both of the Complainant’s fractures, while regrettable, does not detract from the reasonableness of their use. Of course, SO #1 and the punches he delivered might be responsible for some share of the Complainant’s injuries. Here too, however, it would appear the force was commensurate with the imperatives of the moment, namely, the need to quickly subdue a man possibly still in possession of a knife and struggling against arrest. Of note, the Complainant continued to resist even after the punches.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges on this case.
Date: July 24, 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 times are derived from the internal clocks of the weapons and are not necessarily synchronous between weapons and with actual time. [Back to text]
- 3) 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.