SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-TCI-147
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 April 2, 2024, at 1:16 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.
According to the TPS, on April 1, 2024, at 9:00 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) and Witness Official (WO) attended a residence in the area of Bayview Avenue and York Mills Road to arrest the Complainant in connection with a bail surety revocation. He resisted and was grounded by the police officers, after which he complained of pain in his shoulder. The Complainant was taken to North York General Hospital (NYGH) and diagnosed with a fractured left scapula.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2024/04/02 at 1:54 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/04/02 at 8:30 a.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 received and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on April 4, 2024.
Subject Official
SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The subject official was interviewed on July 2, 2024.
Witness Official
WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The witness official was interviewed on April 21, 2024.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired on the driveway of a house situated in the area of Bayview Avenue and York Mills Road, Toronto.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage
On April 1, 2024, at 9:29:19 p.m., the footage captured uniformed police officers on a driveway of a house.
At 9:29:34 p.m., a police officer – the SO – was in front of the garage on the driveway, near a vehicle.
At 9:29:51 p.m., a police officer – the WO – rang the front doorbell of the house. A man – Witness #1 – opened the door. He told the WO that the Complainant was in the garage.
At 9:30:50 p.m., the WO asked Witness #1 if the Complainant was able to come out and talk to the police officers. Witness #1 said that the Complainant was ill and had just walked there because he had no place to go.
At 9:31:12 p.m., the garage door was opened by the Complainant.
At 9:31:14 p.m., Witness #1 opened the side entrance door to the garage.
Starting at about 9:31:15 p.m., the Complainant was observed exiting the garage with a bicycle. The SO advised the Complainant, “You are under arrest,” and told him to get down. The SO took the Complainant to the ground on the driveway. The SO told the Complainant to get down and stop moving. The Complainant said he was not moving. The WO told the Complainant to stop fighting, and, “You don’t need to run.” The WO told the Complainant to relax.
At 9:32:06 p.m., a police officer placed handcuffs on the Complainant’s wrist with his hands behind his back while he was on the ground.
At 9:32:12 p.m., a police officer read the Complainant his Charter rights, and a police caution.
At 9:32:20 p.m., a police officer told the Complainant, “It’s time to relax, okay.”
At 9:33:04 p.m., the Complainant was lifted off the ground by the police officers. He uttered, “Not too much on the left. Just don’t put too much weight on me.”
At 9:33:19 p.m., a police officer radioed, “We got one in custody.”
At 9:33:31 p.m., a police officers asked the Complainant if he had any identification on him. He advised them it was in a breast pocket of the jacket.
At 9:34:37 p.m., a police officers asked the Complainant if he was hurt. He said his shoulder hurt.
At 9:34:55 p.m., the Complainant was again read his rights and a caution.
At 9:35:26 p.m., the Complainant’s left shoulder appeared to be in pain.
At 9:37:55 p.m., the Complainant asked for an ambulance.
At 9:40:34 p.m., the Complainant was placed in the rear seat of the police vehicle.
At 12:14:22 a.m., April 2, 2024, the Complainant was observed with a sling in a hospital [later known to be NYGH] parking lot, and his handcuffs were taken off him.
Police Communication Recordings
At 9:10:34 p.m., April 1, 2024, the communicator advised a police officer to attend an address in the area of Bayview Avenue and York Mills Road for a “wanted party”. An officer from 14 Division had asked that police officers attend at the address and confirm that the Complainant resided there.
At 9:11:12 p.m., the communicator advised police officers that the Complainant was wanted, and had an arrest warrant out of 22 Division. He had breached his conditions of release.
At 9:12:00 p.m., the communicator provided details of the Complainant’s conditions, which included that he remain in his residence at all times, and not attend certain locations.
At 9:33:18 p.m., an officer broadcast that one person was in custody.
At 9:44:13 p.m., Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was called.
At 10:05:30 p.m., EMS headed to NYGH with the Complainant on board.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between March 27, 2024, and July 3, 2024:
- Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
- Communications recordings;
- General Occurrence Report;
- BWC footage;
- Notes – the SO;
- Notes – the WO;
- Policy – Arrest; and
- Policy – Incident Response.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on April 17, 2024:
- The Complainant’s medical records from NYGH.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario.
In the evening of April 1, 2024, the SO, in the company of the WO, arrived at a residence situated in the area of Bayview Avenue and York Mills Road, Toronto. They were there to arrest the Complainant on the strength of outstanding arrest warrants, including one in relation to a surety revocation. Witness #1 opened the door and informed the WO that the Complainant was in the garage.
The Complainant, inside the garage at the front of the house, was aware of the officers’ presence and his pending arrest. Deciding he would flee, he activated the garage door opener, grabbed a bicycle, and attempted to step through the garage door before it had completely lifted. He was in a crouched position with the bike, having just stepped across the door’s threshold, when he was grounded by an officer.
The SO had observed the Complainant’s exit and pushed him to the ground in a prone position. The officer used his body weight to keep him pinned as the Complainant struggled for a period. The WO arrived to assist his partner. Within moments, the Complainant was handcuffed to the back.
The Complainant complained of pain following his arrest. An ambulance was called and transported him to hospital. Medical imaging was inconclusive – the Complainant might or might not have suffered a fractured left scapula of indeterminate age.
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 diagnosed with a possible serious injury following his arrest by TPS officers on April 1, 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.
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 WO were within their rights in moving to take the Complainant into custody based on the warrants in effect at the time.
The force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, I am satisfied, was reasonable. The officer was entitled to thwart the Complainant’s flight attempt by taking him to the ground. Once on the ground, the officer and his partner could also better expect to manage any continuing resistance on the part of the Complainant, which is precisely what occurred. The video footage establishes that the takedown was not effected with undue force. And no strikes of any kind were delivered by either officer.
In the result, whether or not the Complainant’s left scapula was fractured in the course of his arrest, I am unable to reasonably conclude that any such injury was attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the SO. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: July 29, 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.