SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-TCI-260

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 61-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 17, 2024, at 9:03 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 17, 2024, at approximately 3:20 p.m., two TPS bicycle patrol officers stopped a motor vehicle for a traffic violation at the intersection of King Street West and Bay Street. They issued a Provincial Offence Notice ticket to the driver of the vehicle [now known to be the Complainant]. While driving away, the Complainant attempted to run the police officers off the road while they were on their bicycles. The police officers stopped the vehicle, forcefully removed the Complainant, and arrested him. The Complainant complained of pain to his torso. He was transported to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH) by Toronto Emergency Medical Services (EMS), where X-rays revealed the Complainant had sustained three fractured ribs on his right side.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/06/17 at 10:16 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/06/18 at 7:19 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

61-year-old male; interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on June 18, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between July 17, 2024, and August 12, 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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #1 was interviewed on July 11, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the intersection of King Street West and Bay Street, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On June 17, 2024, starting at about 3:01 p.m., the video opened with a view of southbound Bay Street as the SO rode a TPS bicycle. A silver Lexus was captured in the right curb lane of Bay Street at its intersection with King Street West. The SO stopped his bicycle in the right curb lane behind the Lexus. The Lexus did not have a turn signal on and was stopped in the crosswalk area. A man - CW #2 - stood at the passenger side of the Lexus and interacted with the driver – the Complainant. CW #2 used his right hand to motion towards the south side of King Street. The SO rode his bicycle to the driver’s side window of the Lexus, and said, “Hi, sir, can I have you pull over here, please,” and pointed westbound. The Complainant held his cell phone in his hands. The SO rode his bicycle to the front of the Lexus and pointed westbound. The SO then rode his bicycle next to the Lexus and said, “Against the curb, don’t you run me over, get against the curb, turn your car. Buddy, stop, stop.” The Complainant stopped the Lexus. The SO approached the driver’s window and said, “You’re on camera being recorded, the reason for the stop, you’re on your cell phone after [CW #2] told you that you couldn’t turn. You reached to grab your phone off the mount, and then you started using your phone.”

Starting at about 3:03 p.m., the Complainant said, “I’m picking my wife right here,” and the SO said, “You can’t be on your phone, and you can’t turn here.” The Complainant picked up his cell phone, and the SO asked for the Complainant’s licence. The Complainant said, “You’ll get it in a minute,” and answered the phone. The SO told the Complainant he would give him another ticket for failing to surrender his documents. The Complainant said, “Officer, you don’t have to be like that.” About a minute later, the Complainant handed the SO his driver’s licence. The SO said, “You have two driver’s licences in there, so I’ll take the other one please, and I’ll turn that back to the Ministry of Transportation, or you can keep it and I’ll just give you a ticket for having two licences.”

Starting at about 3:05 p.m., the Complainant handed the SO a piece of paper. The SO said, “I don’t know why you’re looking at me like that, I’ve asked for more than this, you picked up your phone and you made a conversation, tried to make a phone call when I asked for your documents.” A woman - the Complainant’s wife - approached the passenger side of the Lexus. The Complainant waved at her and opened the passenger door. The Complainant said, “You want to see the licence?” The SO said, “Well, I’ve asked for your ownership.” The Complainant’s wife sat in the passenger seat as the Complainant shuffled through cards and papers. The SO walked to the front of the Lexus and said, “Okay, so fail to surrender documents then, I’m not playing these games with you any longer, sir.” The SO moved his bicycle and stopped it in front of the Lexus in the right curb lane. The SO stood in the right curb lane facing east towards the Lexus, which was stopped facing west. The SO announced over his radio that he had a traffic stop. The Complainant held something out the driver’s window and said, “Here you go, sir.” The SO said, “Naw, you had your chance.” The SO asked the dispatcher to query the licence plate and the Complainant. The Lexus was found to be registered to the Complainant’s wife and the Complainant had no alerts on file.

Starting at about 3:07 p.m., WO #1 was captured on his bicycle travelling westbound around the rear of the Lexus towards the SO. CW #2 stood behind the Lexus in the right passing lane at the intersection. The SO approached the driver’s window of the Lexus with tickets in his hands. The SO began to explain the tickets. The Complainant waved his hands quickly, and the SO said, “Okay, I’m going to write you a couple more, alright, if you want to play this attitude, I’m going to write you all the ones that you deserve.” The SO continued, “You’re not allowed to be in that lane, the question I asked you when I told you to give me your documents, you said, ‘Ya, you’ll get them in a minute,’ and you tried to make a couple phone calls. If you want to listen, if you want to act like a grown-up, you can act your age.” The Complainant said, “I just respect for you, I done respect you officer, from the get-go, I gave you respect.” The SO walked away to the front of the Lexus. The SO told the Complainant that he gave him no respect. The Complainant said the SO was racist. The SO walked to his bicycle and wrote another ticket.

Starting at about 3:12 p.m., the SO spoke in a low voice, “I’m not going to be called a racist and this has nothing to do with race, this guy needs an attitude correction, if that comes at a monetary value, so be it.” The SO attended the Complainant’s window and provided the Complainant with the ticket for being on his cell phone. The SO handed the Complainant another ticket for not providing the permit for his vehicle. As the Complainant reached for the ticket, he put up his middle finger. The SO said, “I don’t care if you give me the finger, it doesn’t hurt my feelings.” The Complainant said, “You racist, go ahead.” The SO handed the Complainant a ticket for failing to comply with the direction of an officer. The Complainant waved his right-hand fingers back and forth as the SO explained the response options for the tickets. The Complainant turned his stereo up. The SO apologized to the Complainant’s wife for the Complainant’s behaviour and likened him to a child. The Complainant waved his fingers back and forth. The SO handed the Complainant the insurance papers, and the Complainant used his right hand to snatch the documents from the SO. The SO handed the Complainant his driver’s licence, and the Complainant snatched it from the SO’s hand.

Starting at about 3:16 p.m., the SO stepped back and told the Complainant to perform a U-turn. The Complainant shouted, “Fuck off.” The Complainant started his vehicle, reversed, and said, “Suck your brother.” The Lexus’ wheels turned to the left. The SO stood in the westbound passing lane, raised his left hand, and said, “Hold on, hold on.”

Starting at about 3:17:06 p.m., the Lexus moved forward to perform the U-turn. The SO said, “Hey, hey.” The Lexus moved into the westbound passing lane, and the SO’s shadow showed his right hand up over his head. The Lexus turned further into the U-turn as the SO’s right hand came off the hood. The Lexus moved across into the eastbound passing lane and the SO shouted, “Stop.” The Complainant’s wife shouted the Complainant’s name. The SO put both his hands on the Lexus as it turned eastbound. The tires squealed.

The rear of a Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) streetcar entered the right camera frame. The streetcar was stopped in the westbound passing lane. The Lexus continued its U-turn and proceeded to the eastbound curb lane of King Street West. The SO’s watch landed in the left streetcar track. The SO said, “Motherfucker,” picked up his watch, and approached the driver’s window of the Lexus, stopped in the eastbound curb lane of King Street West at Bay Street. The SO said, “Get out,” and the Complainant said, “What’d I do?” The SO said, “You’re under arrest,” and he used his left hand to try to open the door. The SO used his right hand to grab the Complainant’s seatbelt and directed him to, “Get out.” The SO grabbed the Complainant’s shirt with his left hand and switched to his right hand as he said, “You’re under arrest.” The Complainant repeated, “For what?” The SO grabbed the Complainant’s left forearm and the Complainant pulled from the grip. The SO said he would “Tase” the Complainant. The Complainant’s wife repeated, “Just go, just go.” The SO held the Complainant by his hair and pulled his head to the window.

WO #1 was in view, his left arm resting on the windshield. WO #1 then put his left hand inside the driver’s side window. The SO used his right hand to hold the Complainant’s hair, and his left hand pulled a bracelet from the Complainant’s left wrist as he tried to pull his arm. WO #1 said, “Unlocked.” The SO said, “I gonna hit you, get out, get out.” WO #1 used his right hand to open the driver’s door handle. The SO told the Complainant to get out of his vehicle. The SO transferred his grip on the Complainant’s hair as WO #1 opened the door and the Complainant shouted, “Tape it.” The SO said, “I’m going to tase you, get out of your car.” The SO used his left hand to strike the Complainant with a closed fist in the abdomen. The Complainant said, “Uh, fuck. Tase me.” The SO grabbed the Complainant’s left ankle and pulled. WO #1 reached into the Lexus through the open driver’s door and took the Complainant’s shirt and right hand while the SO held the Complainant’s left hand and hair. The Complainant said, “It’s not necessary, I didn’t do nothing.” The SO said, “You tried to run me over.” The Complainant said to his wife, “

Tell them my issues.” The SO removed his oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray and said, “I’m going to pepper spray you, Miss, cover your eyes.” The Complainant then stood up and exited from the Lexus. The Complainant was pushed against the back wheel area of the Lexus. He moved his arms around as the SO and WO #1 tried to put the Complainant’s hands behind his back. WO #1 removed his handcuffs from his vest and the Complainant twisted and turned.

Starting at about 3:19 p.m., CW #2 entered the left camera frame and helped WO #1 hold the Complainant’s left arm behind his back. The Complainant’s left wrist was handcuffed. The Complainant twisted and pulled his right arm from the SO. The SO used his right hand to punch the Complainant in the right flank rib area and told the Complainant to give up his hand. The Complainant shouted, “Ah, fuck,” five times. The Complainant’s hands were handcuffed behind his back. The SO led the Complainant southbound to the sidewalk. WO #1 held the Complainant’s left forearm and CW #2 held the Complainant’s biceps with both hands. The SO held the Complainant’s shirt and his right wrist, and directed him to sit on a concrete bench.

The SO broadcast he had one person in custody, and the person had tried to run him over. The dispatcher asked over the radio, “Just to confirm, no injuries?” The Complainant shouted, “Yes! Yes, officer, my ribs!” The SO broadcast, “No, all in order.” The Complainant shouted for his wife and said, “My ribs, my ribs.” The SO informed the Complainant he was under arrest for assault with a weapon. The SO read the Complainant his rights to counsel. The Complainant continued to repeat, “My ribs.” The SO informed the Complainant he was also under arrest for resisting arrest. The Complainant shouted, “My ribs, you broke my ribs. You broke my ribs.”

Starting at about 3:22 p.m., CW #1 walked towards the SO and said, “He rammed you, it’s recorded, take note of it.” The SO turned to face southbound. Two uniformed police officers - WO #3 and WO #2 - had arrived and stood to the Complainant’s right. The SO directed the Complainant’s wife to park her vehicle just south of King Street West on Bay Street behind a fully marked TPS police vehicle, and the SO and WO #1 escorted the Complainant to the police vehicle. The Complainant was placed in the rear seat of the police vehicle. An ambulance parked in front of the police vehicle. The Complainant was assisted to the ambulance by the paramedics.

TTC Streetcar Footage - Front Camera

Starting at about 3:28 p.m., June 24, 2024, a silver Lexus came into view in front of the streetcar. The Lexus travelled quickly and made a U-turn to go eastbound on King Street West at the west side of the intersection of Bay Street. The Lexus stopped in the crosswalk. In the distance could be seen a person in the intersection wearing a fluorescent yellow top [now known to be CW #2]. A police officer wearing a bicycle helmet - the SO - came into view from the left side of the screen and from the same direction the Lexus had come from. The SO bent down to pick something up [now known to be his watch].

At 3:28:43 p.m., the SO quickly walked to the driver’s side of the Lexus, and tried unsuccessfully to open the driver’s door. He then reached into the car with his left hand and pulled on something. The SO struggled with the person in the driver’s seat of the Lexus - the Complainant.

At 3:28:56 p.m., a bicycle police officer - WO #1 - arrived on scene cycling eastbound on King Street West. He dismounted and approached the SO to assist. The SO continued to struggle with the Complainant, who was inside the Lexus. WO #1 stood on the SO’s left side and CW #2 stood off to the left of the screen.

At 3:29:16 p.m., the SO was able to open the driver’s door. He reached in and tried to pull the Complainant out but was unsuccessful. The SO delivered a punch with his left fist into the Lexus. The SO then bent down and appeared to pull something from closer to the floor in the Lexus. WO #1 reached into the Lexus. Both police officers continued to struggle to pull the Complainant out of the car.

At 3:30:02 p.m., WO #1 seemed to take over the struggle with the Complainant and the SO reached with his left hand for something on his belt [now known to be OC spray]. The SO held OC spray in his left hand and pointed the container into the driver’s area.

At 3:30:11 p.m., the Complainant started to come out of the Lexus. He was pulled out of the car and the SO held the Complainant’s right hand with his right hand and the back of the Complainant neck with his left hand.

At 3:30:25 p.m., the Complainant continued to struggle with the police officers, who tried to handcuff him behind his back. At the same time, a woman - the Complainant’s wife - exited the front passenger side of the Lexus. CW #2 stood close to the back of the police officers.

At 3:30:30 p.m., CW #2 approached the back of the Complainant between the two police officers and assisted them in controlling the Complainant. The Complainant’s wife stood at the rear of the Lexus and looked on. The Complainant pulled his right arm away from the SO, who then delivered a punch to the Complainant right side. A pair of sunglasses fell onto the ground. The Complainant’s wife stood very close to the struggle at the back of the Lexus. The Complainant was leaned over the rear trunk. The Complainant continued to struggle, and WO #1 moved closer to the SO. The SO delivered a second strike with his right hand to the Complainant right side.

At 3:31 p.m., the Complainant was handcuffed. The SO led the Complainant off screen to the right and south side of King Street.

TPS Communications Recordings

On June 17, 2024, 3:06 p.m., the SO advised dispatch he was conducting a traffic stop at King Street West and Bay Street.

At 3:20 p.m., the SO advised that he had one man in custody. The man had tried to run him over. WO #1 advised he was on scene, the man was in handcuffs, and there were no injuries.

At 3:48 p.m., WO #3 advised the Complainant was transported to SMH by EMS.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between June 17, 2024, and August 16, 2024:

  • Arrest Policy;
  • Incident Response Policy;
  • BWC footage;
  • In-car camera system footage;
  • Booking video;
  • Communications recordings;
  • Civilian Witness List;
  • Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
  • General Occurrence Report;
  • Notes - WO #1;
  • Notes - WO #2;
  • Notes - WO #3; and
  • Use of Force Training - the SO.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between June 20, 2024, and July 20, 2024:

  • Ambulance Call Report from Toronto EMS; and
  • TTC streetcar video.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police witnesses, 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 afternoon of June 17, 2024, the Complainant, while operating a Lexus southbound on Bay Street, came to the attention of the SO. At the King Street West intersection, the Complainant had signaled an intention to turn right. Vehicles were prohibited from turning right at that location. Also, in violation of traffic laws, the Complainant was seen on his mobile phone as the officer approached to speak to him.

The SO directed the Complainant to turn right and come to a stop by the north curb of King Street West just west of Bay Street. The Complainant did so. The SO asked for the Complainant’s papers, and the Complainant was slow in providing them. The tenor of their conversation deteriorated, each feeling disrespected by the other. The Complainant called the SO a racist. The officer took umbrage at the comment and threatened to write the Complainant additional tickets because of his attitude. When the SO had finished giving the Complainant his tickets, he directed him to make a U-turn on King Street West.

An irate Complainant accelerated into his U-turn, coming perilously close to running the SO over. The officer shouted at the Complainant to stop. The Complainant brought his vehicle to a stop by the south curb of the eastbound lanes of King Street West, just west of Bay Street. The SO approached the driver’s door, told the Complainant he was under arrest, and ordered him out of the vehicle. The Complainant refused to exit and asked what he had done.

There followed a struggle at the door in which the SO, joined by WO #1 arriving on scene on his bicycle, tried to physically remove the Complainant, and the Complainant resisted. The officers were eventually able to open the driver’s door and the Complainant exited the vehicle after the SO threatened to use his pepper spray. Once outside, the Complainant was taken to the rear of the vehicle. He struggled as the officers attempted to handcuff him behind the back. CW #2 intervened to assist the officers. The SO punched the Complainant twice to the right ribs, after which the handcuffs were applied.

The Complainant was taken to the station and then to hospital where he was diagnosed with three fractured right-sided ribs.

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 17, 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 that the SO was within his rights in seeking to arrest the Complainant following the U-turn he had executed on King Street West. Whether or not the Complainant intended to run the officer down, that is how it appeared to the SO. That is also how it was interpreted by two civilian eyewitnesses. In the circumstances, the Complainant was subject to arrest for assault with a weapon and dangerous driving.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s arrest was legally justified. The Complainant struggled against the SO’s and WO #1’s efforts to remove him from the vehicle, even after the SO had delivered a single punch to the abdomen. It was only after the SO’s threatened the use of pepper spray did the Complainant exit the vehicle. Once outside, however, he continued to physically resist the officers’ attempts to handcuff him behind the back. The Complainant had proven a formidable challenge to that point, and the officers were entitled to escalate their force to bring his resistance to an end, particularly as they were engaged on a live roadway with the risk of passing traffic. Two punches to the torso would not appear a disproportionate use of force on this record.

For the foregoing reasons, while I acknowledge that the Complainant’s injuries are attributable to the SO’s punches, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.

Date: October 11, 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.