SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-TCI-154

Warning:

This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.

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 27-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 9, 2024, the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the TPS, on April 8, 2024, at 6:22 p.m., TPS officers responded to a call for service involving a shoplifter at the LCBO at 3111 Danforth Avenue. Upon their arrival, officers assumed carriage of the Complainant’s custody. The Complainant was grounded and subsequently complained of an injury. He was transported to the Michael Garron Hospital (MGH) where he refused treatment before being taken to the station. At 2:02 a.m., April 9, 2024, the Complainant complained about a swollen ankle and was transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to MGH. At 8:00 a.m., he was diagnosed with two fractures of the right ankle by a hospital physician.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/04/09 at 10:06 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/04/09 at 11:30 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on April 9, 2024.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on April 9, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

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

WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between April 16 and 25, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the parking lot of the LCBO at 3111 Danforth Avenue, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On April 8, 2024, starting at about 6:08:22 p.m., the SO and WO #1 were captured arriving at the LCBO’s parking lot. The SO approached the Complainant and WO #3 told him they were going to put him under arrest. The Complainant began resisting. He was warned and subsequently taken to the ground by WO #3. The Complainant actively resisted WO #3 and the SO on the ground. The officers eventually handcuffed the Complainant behind the back and lifted him up. WO #3 and the SO told the Complainant to sit down on a grassy portion of the sidewalk. He refused, and they forcibly sat him down.

Starting at about 6:11:56 p.m., WO #2 arrived and joined the SO and the Complainant. The Complainant said that the crystal methamphetamine and paraphernalia were his. WO #2 asked where the methamphetamine was and the Complainant replied it was in his sock. WO #2 searched the pockets of the Complainant’s pants and WO #1 searched his jacket.

Starting at about 6:15:40 p.m., the SO and WO #2 lifted the Complainant off the ground and escorted him to driver’s side back door of the SO’s cruiser. WO #2 continued to search the Complainant’s pockets and shoes. The SO held onto the Complainant’s left arm.

Starting at about 6:17:30 p.m., WO #3 exited from the driver’s side of the cruiser and said, “Yo, man. Your name is not [redacted]. It’s [Complainant’s first name]. [Complainant’s first name], yeah. [Complainant’s first name]. Liar.”

Starting at about 6:19:31 p.m., the Complainant broke free of the SO’s grip and took off. The SO ran after him. The Complainant ran through the grassy median of the parking lot and the SO tackled him down. They landed on the asphalt surface of the parking lot. WO #2 approached them and said, “That’s not fucking cool, bro.” The SO and WO #1 lifted the Complainant up and walked him over to the SO’s cruiser.

Starting at about 6:20:05 p.m., the Complainant was placed into the driver’s side back seat. The SO closed the door. The SO subsequently opened the door and asked the Complainant, “Are you okay? Do you need medical attention?” The Complainant replied, “Yeah.” The SO asked, “For what?” and the Complainant said, “My leg is snapped.”

Starting at about 6:21:15 p.m., the SO asked a dispatcher to call EMS because a male in custody felt he broke his leg. The SO informed the Complainant the EMS was coming.

Starting at about 6:49:59 p.m., an ambulance arrived.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between April 10, 2024, and April 25, 2024:

  • General Occurrence & Supplementary Reports;
  • Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
  • Involved Officer List;
  • Injury Report;
  • Notes – WO #4, WO #5, WO #6, the SO, WO #1, WO #2, and WO #3;
  • Policies: Arrest and Incident Response;
  • BWC footage;
  • In-car camera footage;
  • Booking footage;
  • Witness List; and
  • Booking Record - the Complainant.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between April 9, 2024, and April 16, 2024:

  • Report – the CW;
  • Toronto EMS Ambulance Call Report and Incident Reports;
  • Video footage - LCBO; and
  • Medical records – MGH – the Complainant.

Incident Narrative

The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.

In the evening of April 8, 2024, the Complainant exited the LCBO retail outlet at 3111 Danforth Avenue, Toronto, followed by the CW. The CW took hold of the Complainant in connection with the theft of alcohol from the store. The Complainant struggled with the CW in the parking lot of the store attempting to free himself. He was soon approached by two police officers.

The SO was riding in the front passenger seat of a police cruiser operated by his partner, WO #3. They were travelling east on Danforth Avenue towards the LCBO when they were waved down by the CW. The officers turned right into the parking lot, stopped and exited their vehicle, and approached the Complainant, telling him he was under arrest.

The Complainant protested his arrest and refused to release his arms to be handcuffed. WO #3 encouraged the Complainant to cooperate and warned him that force would be used if he did not. The Complainant continued to struggle against the officers’ efforts and was grounded by WO #3. Following a further period of struggle on the ground, the Complainant was handcuffed and then sat on a nearby curb.

WO #2 and WO #1 attended the parking lot to assist the SO and WO #3. WO #2 and the SO lifted the Complainant and escorted him to the rear driver’s side of the SO’s cruiser. As he was being searched by the officers, the Complainant suddenly bolted away, running eastward towards a grassy median in the centre of the parking lot. He had travelled several metres and was on the median when he was tackled from behind by the SO.

The SO promptly lifted the Complainant, walked him to his cruiser and placed him in the rear driver’s side seat. The Complainant complained of pain to his leg.

The Complainant was transported from the scene to hospital but left before being assessed by a physician. He was taken to the station and subsequently asked to go to hospital again. On this occasion, the Complainant was diagnosed with fractures of the right ankle.

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 April 8, 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 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, based on the information they received from the store security guard, that the SO and WO #3 were proceeding lawfully to arrest the Complainant for theft.

I am also satisfied that the SO used no more force than was reasonably necessary to maintain custody of the Complainant. When he fled from the officers, despite being handcuffed behind the back, the SO was within his rights in running after him to re-assert control. The tackle, though forceful and resulting in fractures of the Complainant’s right ankle, was a reasonable tactic in the circumstances. The Complainant had demonstrated an unwillingness to succumb peacefully to arrest and the officer could reasonably anticipate continued resistance. With the Complainant on the ground, the SO would be in a position to better manage that resistance.

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

Date: August 7, 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.