SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-TCI-247
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 31-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU[1]
On June 11, 2024, a 10:23 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury.
According to the TPS, on June 11, 2024, at approximately 8:51 a.m., the TPS received a complaint from the bail program about a no-show client – the Complainant – for whom there was a Form 2 warrant in effect. The male had been arrested in March 2024 at a residence in the area of Finch Avenue West and Keele Street, Toronto, charged with weapons offences, and released. The release conditions included a term prohibiting the male’s attendance at this address – Residence #1 – unless escorted by police, and then only to get his possessions. At 11:33 a.m., the TPS attended Residence #1, and confirmed the male’s identity. Because of the release violations and the Form 2, the male was arrested. A struggle took place in which the male grabbed an officer’s arm and was grounded. At 11:44 a.m., Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called as the male’s nose was bleeding. At 12:30 p.m., the male was transported to the Etobicoke General Hospital (EGH). At 7:32 p.m., TPS confirmed the male had a hairline non-displaced fracture of the nasal bone.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2024/06/12 at 8:30 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/06/12 at 10:32 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
31-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on June 12, 2024.
Civilian Witness (CW)
CW Interviewed
The civilian witness was interviewed on June 29, 2024.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
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
The witness officials were interviewed on June 19, 2024.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in and around an upper floor room of Residence #1, a house in the area of Finch Avenue West and Keele Street, Toronto.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The SO
On June 11, 2024, at 11:23 a.m., the SO and WO #3 were captured speaking to the landlord [now known to be the CW] outside Residence #1. The CW entered the house, and the police officers followed the CW inside.
At 11:24 a.m., the CW walked with the police officers upstairs to the Complainant’s door. The CW knocked on the Complainant’s door and said, “Hi, it’s [the CW].” The Complainant opened the door and exchanged greetings with the CW, after which the CW left.
At 11:24:42 a.m., the SO said, “[The Complainant’s first name], how are you? Come out here. I want to talk to you.” The Complainant stepped into the hallway and said, “Ya?”
At 11:24:55 a.m., the SO grabbed the Complainant’s left wrist with his left hand and started to turn the Complainant towards the wall. The Complainant bent his left arm at the elbow and put his right hand against the wall. The SO said, “Don’t flex.” The Complainant asked, “What reason? You need to provide a reason.” The SO said there was a Mental Health Act (MHA) apprehension order for him, and he had to go to the hospital. He asked if the Complainant understood. The Complainant said, “No. Why? You did not provide an accurate reason. This is private property.” The Complainant started to physically resist. He tensed his left arm, pulled it up into his chest, and tried to back away. The SO said, “Stop resisting.” The Complainant spun around and then went backwards to the ground.
At 11:25:20 a.m., the Complainant was on his back with his face up and his hands free. The SO knelt on the floor to the left of the Complainant and put his hands over the Complainant’s face as he squirmed. The SO said, “When I say, you stop resisting.” The Complainant reached upwards to the SO’s torso and grabbed the SO’s wrist. The SO repeated to the Complainant to stop resisting. The SO asked the dispatcher for additional police officers to respond. The SO was on top of the Complainant. The SO used his body weight to pin the Complainant’s arms to his chest as the Complainant struggled. The Complainant asked the SO what he was doing. The SO said to the Complainant, “You have conditions not to be here.” The SO was on top of the Complainant and used his body weight to hold the Complainant down as the Complainant squirmed. The SO repeatedly asked the Complainant to stop resisting. He told him he did not want to hurt him. He told the Complainant, “Let go of my wrist.” At 11:26:07 a.m., the SO thrust his hand downward at the Complainant. The SO again told the Complainant to stop resisting. The Complainant said he had not done anything and was on private property.
At 11:26:20 a.m., the SO repeated his request for additional police officers to assist. He told WO #3 to request more police officers. He told the Complainant to calm down.
At 11:26:45 a.m., WO #3 asked the dispatcher for more police officers to assist. He said, “We have the male on the ground right now. We’re holding him in place.” He added, “He’s not in handcuffs, but we have him on the ground in control.” The SO told the Complainant to stop resisting and stop clenching. The Complainant said, “You need to get off my body.” The SO said, “Alright, you need to put your hands behind your back.” The Complainant questioned the police officer’s authority. The SO explained their authority under the MHA and told the Complainant he was breaching his condition of release.
At 11:27:32 a.m., the Complainant was captured on his back holding the SO’s right wrist with his right hand. The SO told him to let go of his arm.
At 11:27:36 a.m., the SO put his hands near the Complainant’s neck.
At 11:27:39 a.m., the SO punched towards the Complainant’s face and said, “You need to let go of my arm. Do you understand me?” The Complainant continued to struggle.
At 11:27:45 a.m., the SO told the Complainant to let go of his arm. The SO delivered two strikes with the fleshy side of his closed right hand, striking the Complainant’s face.
At 11:27:51 a.m., the SO said, “Are you ready to calm down? Stop resisting.” The SO delivered a third strike to the Complainant’s face and said, “Didn’t I tell you to stop resisting? Put your hand behind your back.”
At 11:27:56 a.m., the SO delivered another strike towards the Complainant’s face. The SO said, “Do you want more?”
At 11:28:06 a.m., the SO told WO #3 to request an ambulance. He said the Complainant was conscious, breathing and had facial injuries. The SO asked the Complainant to stop resisting and to put his arms behind his back.
At 11:28:50 a.m., the Complainant pushed his body upwards and tried to get up. The SO said, “I said stop.”
At 11:28:53 a.m., the Complainant’s bloodied face was visible.
At 11:28:59 a.m., the Complainant rolled onto his stomach. His hands were not handcuffed. The Complainant pushed his body up off the floor and the SO pushed him down. The SO straddled the Complainant’s torso with his knees and put his forearm on the side of his head, pinning his head to the carpet. The Complainant squirmed and struggled, and questioned the police officers’ authority to arrest him.
At 11:30:45 a.m., the SO lifted his body weight off the Complainant and the Complainant attempted to get up saying, “I’ll cooperate. I’ll cooperate.”
At 11:31:12 a.m., WO #2 arrived in the Complainant’s room. WO #2 told the Complainant to stop resisting and appeared to punch the right side of the Complainant’s body about three times.
At 11:32 a.m., other police officers arrived. The police officers handcuffed the Complainant. The Complainant was tense and tried to keep his right arm under his body. The SO kept his right hand on the back of the Complainant’s head and held it against the floor.
At 11:33 a.m., a police officer said the Complainant was handcuffed. The SO stood up. There were four police officers on their knees around the Complainant: WO #4 was on the left of the Complainant, WO #2 was on the right side of his upper body, WO #1 was on the right side of his mid-section, and WO #3 was on his feet. A police officer advised the dispatcher that the Complainant was handcuffed.
At 11:34 a.m., the SO walked downstairs.
At 11:35 a.m., the Complainant was walked outside and leaned against the SO and WO #3’s police vehicle. The SO retrieved paperwork from his police vehicle.
BWC Footage - WO #2
On June 11, 2024, at 11:30:31 a.m., WO #2 arrived at Residence #1, entered the house, and ran upstairs to the Complainant’s room.
At 11:31:47 a.m., the Complainant’s left wrist was handcuffed. The SO was captured holding the Complainant to the floor. The police officers tried to roll the Complainant to expose his right wrist. WO #2 asked him to stop resisting. WO #2 delivered three punches to the Complainant’s torso.
Police Communications Recordings
On June 11, 2024, at 8:45:10 a.m., an employee from the Toronto Bail Program (TBP) called the TPS indicating there was an apprehension order under the MHA for the Complainant. The Complainant was to report to the caller that morning, and the caller asked that police be present at the office to execute the apprehension order at 10:00 a.m. The caller provided the location of the office and confirmed the order was for the Complainant. The caller did not know the Complainant to be violent or possess weapons, and he did not usually drink or do drugs. The operator confirmed that police officers would attend the caller’s office at 10:00 a.m.
At 9:50:40 a.m., the dispatcher broadcast the call information over the police radio.
At 9:55:39 a.m., the dispatcher assigned the call to the SO. The dispatcher conveyed the information about the Complainant provided by the TBP and added there was a caution flag for violence. The Complainant had been accused of assault with a weapon, uttering threats and possession of a weapon. The Complainant was under conditions not to be in contact with a particular individual and not to be within a hundred metres of where that individual was known to be. He was also prohibited from being within a hundred metres of a specified address – Residence #1.
At 10:49:17 a.m., the SO advised on the police radio that the Complainant had not shown up for his appointment with the TBP. The police officers were going to Residence #1.
At 11:25:35 a.m., the SO requested additional police officers at Residence #1. The police officer sounded out of breath and the dispatcher asked him to repeat his transmission. WO #1 said the SO was asking for more units.
At 11:26:26 a.m., the dispatcher was advised that the Complainant was on the ground being held in place, but he was not handcuffed. The dispatcher asked if there were any injuries.
At 11:28:12 a.m., the SO requested EMS. The dispatcher called EMS and asked the police officers to confirm the injuries. The Complainant was reported as being conscious and breathing with facial injuries.
At 11:29:24 a.m., additional police officers began to arrive.
At 11:31:29 a.m., WO #2 advised he was on scene and the Complainant was being handcuffed.
At 11:33:15 a.m., WO #2 said all was in order and the Complainant was in handcuffs.
At 11:34:29 a.m., a police officer asked for an update on EMS and said the Complainant was bleeding from the face.
At 11:44:08 a.m., EMS arrived on scene.
At 11:57:14 a.m., WO #2 said he was going to EGH in the ambulance.
At 12:31:34 p.m., police officers arrived at EGH.
At 7:42:07 p.m., WO #2 said the police officers were at the hospital and heading back to the police station shortly.
At 7:49:36 p.m., the Complainant was in a police vehicle on his way to TPS 31 Division.
At 8:08:38 p.m., the police officers arrived at TPS 31 Division.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between June 14, 2024, and July 25, 2024:
- Arrest Policy;
- Incident Response Policy;
- Civilian Statement - the CW;
- TPS records for the Complainant;
- Event Report;
- Release Order (Form 11) – the Complainant;
- Notes - WO #2;
- Notes - WO #1;
- Notes - WO #4;
- Notes - WO #3;
- General Occurrence Report;
- In-car camera recordings – the SO and WO #3’s police vehicle;
- BWC recordings – WO #2, the SO, WO #3, WO #4 and WO #1;
- Communications recordings; and
- Scene photos.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from EGH on July 25, 2024.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police officers who took part in his arrest, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.
In the morning of June 11, 2024, the SO and his partner, WO #3, attended at a residence in the area of Finch Avenue West and Keele Street, Toronto. They were there to apprehend the Complainant further to a warrant that had been issued under the Mental Health Act. The Complainant was also at the premises in violation of a term of his release in relation to criminal charges earlier in the year.
The Complainant was in an upstairs room of the address. He answered the door and stepped out of the room at the request of the officers. Once outside the room, the SO took hold of the Complainant and told him he was under arrest. The Complainant objected to his apprehension. He questioned the officers’ authority and refused to surrender his arms.
There ensued a struggle in the course of which the Complainant was struck multiple times in the head by the SO. With the arrival of additional officers, including WO #2, who punched the Complainant’s torso three times, the Complainant’s arms were controlled behind his back and handcuffed.
The Complainant was transported to hospital following his arrest and diagnosed with a 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 June 11, 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 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 officers who participated in the Complainant’s arrest, including the SO, were within their rights in doing so. A warrant was in effect authorizing his apprehension. Moreover, he was found violating a term of his release in connection with charges he faced from earlier in the year.
With respect to the force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence does not reasonably suggest it was anything other than lawful. From the beginning of their physical engagement, the Complainant questioned the officers’ authority, tensed his body, and refused to surrender his arms. The Complainant’s resistance persisted and escalated as the struggle continued on the floor where he grabbed at the SO. The SO repeatedly directed the Complainant to stop resisting and explained the reasons for his arrest. As the struggle continued, the SO punched the Complainant in the head about a half-dozen times. Some of these strikes appeared as reactions to the Complainant grabbing the officer. The others seemed designed to subdue the Complainant’s fight. It is noteworthy that the SO and WO #3 were unable to handcuff the Complainant on their own. It was only after the arrival of additional officers, and several more punches by WO #2, that the Complainant was taken into custody. On this record, it would appear the force used by the SO was proportionate to the Complainant’s resistance.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.
Date: October 10, 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 findings of fact 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.