Director's Report Details

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.

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.

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 19-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 3, 2024, at 11:14 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 1, 2024, at 10:40 a.m., the Civilian Witness (CW) contacted the TPS regarding her 19-year-old daughter, the Complainant, who was aggressive and assaultive, and a passenger in their vehicle. It was believed the Complainant had consumed alcohol and was intoxicated. Upon locating the CW’s vehicle, TPS officers initiated a traffic stop. The Complainant attempted to jump out of the car as it was in motion. She fled on foot and was chased by the Subject Official (SO) and the Witness Official (WO). The Complainant was eventually caught and taken to the ground, and her hands handcuffed behind her back. She was apprehended under the Mental Health Act (MHA) and transported to the Scarborough Health Network - Birchmount Hospital (SHNBH), where the emergency room doctor abandoned the apprehension order after the Complainant requested a voluntary MHA apprehension. She remained at the hospital overnight. No criminal charges were initiated. On June 3, 2024, the CW reported that her daughter had been diagnosed with a fractured right foot because of the interaction with the SO and the WO.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/06/04 at 6:00 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/06/04 at 9:16 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

19-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on June 14, 2024.

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on June 14, 2024.

Subject Official

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Official

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on June 20, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the area of the north curb of Benjamin Boulevard across from 179 Benjamin Boulevard, Toronto.

Benjamin Boulevard ran [essentially] west from Midland Avenue, and was exclusively populated by bungalow-style homes designed for single family occupancy. The road was paved, and wide enough to accommodate one lane of traffic in each direction. The roadway was separated from the homes by a curb, wide grass boulevards, and concrete sidewalk.

The below Google Maps image, with north oriented to the top of the page, showed Benjamin Boulevard’s relationship with Midland Avenue, and 179 Benjamin Boulevard numbered at the southwest corner of the intersection.

Figure 1 - Google Earth aerial view of the scene of the arrest

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Police Communications Recordings – 911

On June 1, 2024, at 10:40 a.m., the CW called 911 and asked for an ambulance. Her daughter [the Complainant] was not taking her medication, had consumed alcohol, and was aggressive. They were in a car and had pulled over. The Complainant repeatedly screamed in the background.

The call-taker kept the CW on the line while police responded.

At about 10:44 a.m., it was apparent the Complainant knew officers were on the way. She said she would kill the police and, “Make a run for it.”

A siren was audible in the background of the recording and officers [the SO and the WO] arrived. The Complainant yelled, “Fuck off!” The CW told the call-taker the police officers were there and, “They have her on the ground.”

Police Communications Recordings – Radio

On June 1, 2024, at 10:41 a.m., the SO and the WO were dispatched to a “hot shot” for “unknown trouble” at Midland Avenue and Benjamin Boulevard. The dispatcher told them she had limited information but the caller [the CW] was in her car with her daughter [the Complainant], who was aggressive.

At 10:42 a.m., the dispatcher relayed she heard the Complainant scream she would “kill her mother and scream rape,” and threaten to kick first responders. The dispatcher asked if additional officers were available to assist, repeated the original information to those that responded, and said an ambulance was being dispatched.

At 10:43 a.m., the dispatcher relayed the Complainant was “actively hitting” her mother, clarified the car police were looking for was stopped on Benjamin Boulevard, and relayed the CW’s and the Complainant’s names to the police officers.

At 10:44 a.m., the dispatcher indicated that the Complainant said she was going to kick officers in the head, and she suffered from an “intellectual disability”.

At 10:45 a.m., the dispatcher broadcast that the Complainant was trying to run. Within seconds [either the SO or the WO] broadcast that the Complainant was in custody.

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – TPS Cruiser

The 33-minute recording began June 1, 2024, at 10:42 a.m., as the cruiser was travelling. Its emergency lights and siren were activated. The police radio provided details of a radio call.

At about 10:44 a.m., the dispatcher noted that [the Complainant] said she was going to kick officers in the head. A male voice[3] inside the cruiser said, “Oh, let’s go man.”

At 10:45 a.m., the cruiser pulled in behind the CW’s vehicle, which was stopped on Benjamin Boulevard, just west of Midland Avenue. The car was parked with its right wheels against a curb beside a grass boulevard. The WO got out and walked towards the CW’s car, ahead of the SO. The driver’s door of the CW’s vehicle opened. The CW started to get out. The WO approached the passenger side of her car as the SO walked towards the driver side. As the WO reached the CW’s vehicle, the front passenger side door abruptly swung open. The WO stepped back. The SO changed direction and walked towards the passenger side. He stood to the WO’s left. The Complainant got out and stood on the grass boulevard. Her door remained wide open. The CW got back into the driver side of her car. The Complainant thrust her arms down to her sides, faced the two police officers and screamed, “Fuck off,” and, “Ahhhhaahh!” She turned counterclockwise, closed the passenger door, and ran a few steps across the grass boulevard towards the sidewalk. The SO and the WO ran after her. The SO was slightly ahead of the WO.

At 10:45:51 a.m. [about five seconds after the Complainant stepped out of the car], she was tackled from behind by the SO. They landed on the sidewalk with the Complainant lying prone and the SO on top of her no more than approximately five metres the CW’s vehicle.

The WO and the SO struggled with the Complainant on the sidewalk. Still prone on the ground, she screamed loudly.

At 10:46:19 a.m., one of the officers made a police radio broadcast that the Complainant was in custody and everything was in order. They immediately paid attention to the Complainant’s right foot. She yelled it was hurt. They rolled her to her side and then brought her to a seated position on the sidewalk.

At 10:48 a.m., other officers arrived, and an ambulance was requested. A few officers stood around the Complainant, who remained seated on the sidewalk.

An ambulance arrived at about 10:54 a.m. As it arrived the cruiser was moved, and the interaction was no longer in view of the ICC.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The SO

On June 1, 2024, at 10:45:10 a.m., the SO brought his cruiser to a stop behind the CW’s vehicle. He exited and approached the CW’s vehicle. The WO was a few steps ahead of him. As the WO got closer to the vehicle, the front passenger door opened.

At 10:45:17 a.m., a woman [the Complainant] stepped out. The WO said, “Hello there.” The Complainant stepped aggressively towards the WO, thrust her arms to her sides and screamed, “Fuck you.” Both officers said, “Hey. Hey.” The SO raised his hands, palms open in front of him, in a calming motion. About two seconds after exiting the vehicle, the Complainant turned counterclockwise, and ran across a grass boulevard. The SO followed directly behind her. About two seconds after the Complainant began running, the SO appeared to wrap his arms around her torso as the video ended at 10:45:25 a.m.

Another recording started at 10:45:25 a.m. The camera re-activated capturing the Complainant lying on her right side on the sidewalk. The SO was above her legs, low to the ground. The WO was to her left side. The WO had hold of the Complainant’s left wrist. When the audio activated, the Complainant was screaming.

Both officers grasped the Complainant’s left arm, and a handcuff was fastened to that wrist. The Complainant was told to turn over. The WO moved to her right-hand side, and the officers rolled her onto her stomach. The WO moved the Complainant’s right wrist behind her back and, at 10:45:57 a.m., the handcuffs were secured together.

The Complainant screamed her ankle was twisted. The officers rolled her to her left side, then brought her to a seated position as they asked her about her ankle. Her sandal had come off her right foot and lay on the grass.

The officers tried to talk to the Complainant, but she continually screamed her ankle hurt. The officers offered and attempted to administer first-aid, but the Complainant refused. She screamed she wanted her dog brought to her and that she could not go to the hospital.

At 10:54 a.m., an ambulance arrived.

At 10:55 a.m., an officer spoke with the SO about the Complainant and what the CW said happened in her vehicle.

At about 11:00 a.m., as the Complainant was loaded into an ambulance. The SO told paramedics the Complainant had tried to run from them, “So, we just kinda tackled her.”

The SO and the WO discussed how the Complainant had exited her mother’s vehicle.

The SO made a radio broadcast that the WO was going to ride to hospital in the back of the ambulance and he would follow. He spoke to a patrol sergeant by telephone and said he and the WO were at the passenger side of the CW’s vehicle when the Complainant ran from them. He said he tackled her, they put her in handcuffs, and she complained her ankle hurt. At the request of the patrol sergeant, the SO spoke to one of the paramedics about the Complainant’s ankle. The paramedic accepted the SO’s suggestion it might be sprained and said she would be assessed at the hospital.

At 11:10 a.m., the SO apologized to the CW for what happened. The CW said, “No, no, no, you had to because she was very aggressive with me.” She repeated what had happened in her car and told him a bit of the Complainant’s history. She showed him her left forearm and pointed out where her daughter had bitten her. The video stopped at 11:15 a.m., as the SO got into the police vehicle.

BWC Footage - The WO

The WO’s BWC recording was identical to the SO’s but from slightly different angles. After the vehicle stopped behind the CW’s parked vehicle, the WO exited and walked to the passenger side of the CW’s car. The Complainant opened the passenger door, stepped out, immediately turned to face the WO and appeared to scream.

The SO walked past the WO to slightly ahead of him and to his left. The Complainant turned counterclockwise and ran. The SO ran after her, a few steps ahead of the WO. At the edge of the grass boulevard, just before the sidewalk, the SO tackled the Complainant from behind. They both fell forward onto the sidewalk. The WO was a few steps behind and had not yet made physical contact with the pair. The Complainant’s right sandal came off as she and the SO landed. The Complainant screamed. One of the officers said, “You’re under arrest.” The Complainant screamed her ankle was twisted and hurt. The WO produced his handcuffs, gave them to the SO, and the Complainant’s hands were handcuffed behind her back.

At 11:01 a.m., the WO entered the back of the ambulance in which the Complainant was being attended to by a paramedic. The paramedic said the Complainant had been drinking.

At 11:16 a.m., the paramedic said they were about to leave for the hospital and the recording ended.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between June 11, 2024, and June 25, 2024:

• Notes – the WO;
• BWC recordings – the WO and the SO;
• ICC recording;
• Communications recordings;
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report; and
• Use of force requalification records – the SO.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on June 26, 2024:

• The Complainant’s medical records from SHNBH.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and a police eyewitness, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the morning of June 1, 2024, the SO and his partner, the WO, on patrol in a marked cruiser, were dispatched to Benjamin Boulevard. A vehicle had pulled over on the road, its driver – the CW – having contacted police to report her daughter – the Complainant. The Complainant, in the front passenger seat, had allegedly assaulted the CW.

The officers arrived on scene, parked behind the CW’s vehicle and exited. As they approached the vehicle, the Complainant exited the front passenger door. She screamed at the officers before turning clockwise to run away.

The officers had briefly attempted to calm the Complainant before her flight. The SO quickly caught the Complainant and forced her to the ground from behind. Once on the ground, the officers handcuffed the Complainant without further incident.

The Complainant complained of pain in her right foot and paramedics were called. She was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured right foot.

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.

On June 1, 2024, the Complainant was seriously injured in the course of her arrest by TPS officers. 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.

Based on the information the officers had received of the 911 call, I am satisfied that they were within their rights in seeking to arrest the Complainant for assault.

I am further satisfied that the SO did not exceed the remit of justified force prescribed by section 25. When the Complainant attempted to escape apprehension by running away, the officers were entitled to resort to a measure of force to bring her flight to an end. A tackle made sense, in the circumstances, particularly as it would position the officers to better deal with any resistance by the Complainant on the ground. That concern was a real one given the nature of the call involving reported violence on the part of the Complainant.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was incurred in the takedown, there are no reasonable grounds to believe it is attributable to any 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: September 27, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit