SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-TCI-193
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 43-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU[1]
On May 5, 2024, at 4:30 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.
On May 4, 2024, TPS were called to the area of Victoria Park and Sheppard Avenue, Scarborough, for a fight in progress. Reportedly, a male [the Complainant] had attempted to drive away from a location in an intoxicated state, and citizens intervened and attempted a citizen’s arrest. TPS officers arrived on scene and attempted to arrest the male. He resisted and was grounded. The arrest was captured by police in-car camera (ICC). The male complained of a sore left wrist and was taken to the Scarborough Grace Hospital (SGH), where he was examined by a hospital physician. On May 5, 2024, at 3:25 a.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured wrist.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2024/05/06 at 8:24 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/05/06 at 8:48 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
43-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on May 23, 2024.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
Witness Official (WO)
WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The witness official was interviewed on May 21, 2024.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired on the parking lot in and around the area of the Friendship Restaurant, 2912 Sheppard Avenue East, Toronto.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]
ICC Footage - SO’s Cruiser
The ICC footage from the SO’s vehicle provided the front camera view from the driver’s perspective.
On May 4, 2024, starting at about 8:27:50 p.m., as the SO arrived in the CIBC parking lot on the west side of the Friendship Restaurant, the Complainant was observed in an altercation with an unknown female. The Complainant appeared to swing at the female with his left hand. She pushed him and he stumbled backward to the ground. The SO stopped his cruiser just past the altercation. Yelling could be heard in the background. A female was heard to say, “Go the fuck away.”
BWC Footage - SO
On May 4, 2024, starting at about 8:27:58 p.m., as the SO exited his cruiser, his BWC captured the Complainant on the ground. A large garbage container had been knocked over when he stumbled backward. The Complainant transferred his weight to his right hand as he tried to stand. He was holding a sweater in his left hand as he unsteadily leaned on the garbage container to regain his balance. The Complainant yelled at a female and stepped towards her. The SO approached the Complainant from behind. He wrapped his right arm around the Complainant’s chest and his left hand around the Complainant’s left bicep, and took him back to the ground. The SO let go of the Complainant’s left bicep and used his left hand to brace himself on the sidewalk. The officer rolled the Complainant onto his chest, leaned over his back, and pulled his right hand out from underneath him and put it behind his back. The WO arrived and assisted by kneeling on the Complainant’s right hip. He held the right hand behind his back as the SO pulled the Complainant’s left arm from above his head and behind his back. The SO told him he was under arrest for impaired driving. Both hands were then handcuffed behind the Complainant’s back.
TPS – 42 Division – Booking Hall Footage
On May 5, 2024, at 12:37:28 a.m., the SO stood at the booking desk showing a special constable his BWC recording of the Complainant’s grounding and arrest. The SO said, “It doesn’t catch the fight, but he’s fighting with this girl, and they are punching and punching and then he fell right here.” The SO continued, pointing to the screen showing him taking the Complainant to the ground, “That’s the left hand, that’s not hard enough of a fall.”
TPS Communications Recordings and Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report
On May 4, 2024, at 7:55 p.m., TPS received a call from a person at an apartment building located in the area of Victoria Park Avenue and Sheppard Avenue East, Scarborough. The caller reported an unknown male [the Complainant] screaming and yelling about being owed money while trying to break down the door.
At 8:09 p.m., TPS received a call from another person at the same address for an unknown, heavily intoxicated man [the Complainant], 30 years of age, wearing a camouflage top and black pants, who had driven to the apartment building.
At 8:15 p.m., TPS received a third call regarding an intoxicated male [the Complainant] laying on a sidewalk. He drove a vehicle to the location and had hit another vehicle when he pulled into the parking lot.
At 8:30 p.m., the WO advised dispatch the male was under arrest by the Friendship Restaurant, and everyone was okay. The officer requested additional units.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between May 6, 2024, and June 11, 2024:
- Names of all involved TPS officers;
- TPS Occurrence and Arrest Reports;
- Police communications recordings;
- BWC and ICC footage;
- CAD Report;
- A list of previous interactions related to the Complainant;
- Notebook entries - the WO;
- Video footage of the TPS cell area where the Complainant was lodged; and
- Video footage of the Complainant in an elevator and hallway of an apartment building in the area of Victoria Park Avenue and Sheppard Avenue East, Scarborough.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on June 11, 2024:
- The Complainant’s medical records from SHN.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.
In the evening of May 4, 2024, the SO was alerted to a call for service involving an intoxicated male operating a vehicle. The officer attended the location of the call and learned from a witness that the male was extremely drunk and had left the address on foot.
The male was the Complainant. He had left the scene and walked to the parking lot in front of the Friendship Restaurant at 2912 Sheppard Avenue East. There, he became involved in a physical altercation with a woman.
The SO arrived at the parking lot at the tail end of the altercation. The Complainant had taken a swing in the direction of the woman, and she had reacted by pushing him backward. The Complainant stumbled to the ground. The officer exited his cruiser a short distance away and moved towards the Complainant as he lifted himself to his feet. The Complainant took a step in the direction of the woman, and the SO wrapped his arms around him and took him to the ground. The WO arrived on scene at this time and assisted the SO in handcuffing the Complainant behind the back.
The Complainant was taken to the station and then to hospital for treatment of a laceration above his right eye. The Complainant was returned to the station and then taken to hospital again when he complained of pain. On this occasion, he was diagnosed with a possibly fractured left wrist.
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.
Section 320.14 (1)(a), Criminal Code -Operation While Impaired
320.14 (1) Everyone commits an offence who
(a) operates a conveyance while the person’s ability to operate it is impaired to any degree by alcohol or a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a drug;
Section 31(1), Criminal Code - Arrest for Breach of Peace
31 (1) Every peace officer who witnesses a breach of the peace and every one who lawfully assists the peace officer is justified in arresting any person whom he finds committing the breach of the peace or who, on reasonable grounds, he believes is about to join in or renew the breach of the peace.
Analysis and Director’s Decision
On May 5, 2024, the Complainant was diagnosed with a serious injury while in the custody of the TPS. 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 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.
The SO had spoken to witnesses about the Complainant’s driving while intoxicated and had subsequently come upon an altercation involving him and a woman. On this record, I am satisfied the officer had grounds to arrest the Complainant for impaired driving and breach of the peace pursuant to sections 320.14(1)(a) and 31(1) of the Criminal Code, respectively.
I am also satisfied that the SO used only justified force in aid of the Complainant’s arrest. The officer had observed the Complainant in a physical altercation with a woman and could reasonably expect to encounter some combativeness as he moved in to effect an arrest. There was also a need to immediately deter any further aggression by the Complainant. The Complainant had risen to his feet and was moving towards the woman when the officer intervened. A takedown seems a reasonable tactic in the circumstances as it would prevent a renewal of hostilities between the parties while placing the officer in a better position to manage any possible resistance by the Complainant.
It remains unclear when precisely the Complainant’s wrist was fractured. It seems as likely to have occurred when he stumbled backward as when he was forced to the ground by the SO. Be that as it may, there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that it is attributable to any unlawful conduct on the part of the officer. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: August 23, 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.