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 33-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 28, 2024, at 3:51 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 28, 2024, at 12:07 p.m., a male reported that his schizophrenic son, the Complainant, was threatening suicide at their home located in the area of Finch Avenue West and Yonge Street, Toronto. TPS responded and a struggle ensued when officers attempted to apprehend the Complainant under the Mental Health Act (MHA). Once the Complainant was apprehended, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) attended, sedated the Complainant, and transported him to North York General Hospital (NYGH), where he was diagnosed with a fractured nasal bone.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/06/28 at 4:23 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/06/28 at 4:31 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on June 29, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on July 13, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired by the ground-level door of a residence in the area of Finch Avenue West and Yonge Street, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage –WO and SO

On June 28, 2024, at 12:22 p.m., the WO and the SO rang the doorbell of a residence in the area of Finch Avenue West and Yonge Street. The Complainant opened the door wearing pants and a hooded sweatshirt with the hood up. The WO asked the Complainant if he had cut himself, to which the Complainant replied, “No.” The WO asked him to come outside. The Complainant replied, “No,” and stepped back into the unit. The WO grabbed the front of the Complainant’s sweatshirt near his chest area. The Complainant hit the WO’s arm and appeared to swing his right arm towards the WO; however, the video did not capture where his hand landed.

The SO moved behind the Complainant and grabbed him, both falling backwards onto the floor inside the unit. The WO also fell inside on his back facing the front door. He stood up, stepped outside, and requested assistance over the radio.

At about 12:22 p.m., the WO returned inside to the kitchen area where the SO was on top of the Complainant, still struggling to gain control of him. The Complainant was on his back, actively resisting. The WO yelled, “Fuck guy stay still, don’t fucking move.” The WO was then seen to deliver about four strikes to the lower abdomen of the Complainant with the butt end of his baton. The Complainant continued to resist and said, “I will stab you next time watch me.” Paramedics were then seen entering with four other officers who assisted in controlling the Complainant.

At 12:25 p.m., the WO told the Complainant he was under arrest for ‘assault police’.

At 12:27 p.m., the sedated Complainant was placed on a stretcher with a bloodstained face and taken to the ambulance by paramedics.

At 12:30 p.m., two officers located a knife in the washroom with possible blood on it and seized it.

TPS Communication Recordings & Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

On June 28, 2024, at 12:08:42 p.m., dispatch requested that the SO attend a residence in the area of Finch Avenue West and Yonge Street for an attempted suicide.

A male civilian was said to have attended 32 Division to report his son, the Complainant, had cuts on his neck and was suicidal.

At 12:09 p.m., dispatch requested an ambulance attend and advised the attending officers to use caution as it was unknown what the Complainant had used to cut himself.

At 12:12 p.m., the SO and the WO acknowledged they were attending the call.

Dispatch requested that the Emergency Task Force (ETF) listen to the radio channel in relation to an attempted suicide.

At 12:13 p.m., ETF confirmed they were on the channel. Dispatch informed the WO and the SO that the Complainant had cautions on file for violence and firearms.

At 12:15 p.m., dispatch inquired what weapons the Complainant had used. The Complainant’s father advised a knife was used, and that his son had been diagnosed with depression and schizophrenia. Dispatch updated the WO and the SO.

At 12:20 p.m., the SO and the WO advised they were at the residence and EMS was also on scene.

At 12:21 p.m., the SO clarified that the Complainant had tried to kill himself by cutting his neck.

At 12:22 p.m., the WO said, “Get another car here, get another car here.” The dispatcher directed additional units to attend. The WO said, “He’s fighting me, we’re in the kitchen.”

At 12:24 p.m., officers reported that all was in order.

At 12:27 p.m., it was reported the Complainant was sedated by paramedics and on the stretcher.

At 12:30 p.m., the Complainant was being transported to NYGH with officers on board with EMS.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from TPS between July 2, 2024, and July 30, 2024:

• Names and roles of all involved police officers;
• TPS Occurrence Report;
• CAD Report;
• Communications recordings;
• BWC footage;
• A list of previous interactions related to the Complainant;
• TPS Policy - Emotionally Disturbed Persons; and
• Notes of the WO and the SO.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between July 15, 2024, and August 6, 2024:

• Incident report from Toronto EMS; and
• The Complainant’s medical records from NYGH.

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

In the afternoon of June 28, 2024, the SO and the WO were dispatched to a residence in the area of Finch Avenue West and Yonge Street to check on the Complainant’s well-being. The Complainant’s father had earlier attended the police station to report that his son had cuts to the neck and was suicidal. EMS paramedics were also in attendance.

The Complainant opened the door and spoke to the officers briefly before attempting to close it. The WO reached in and grabbed the front of his sweatshirt to pull him outside. The Complainant reacted by swatting at the officer’s hands and punching him several times in the head.

On seeing the skirmish at the door, the SO took hold of the Complainant and forced him to the floor inside the residence. The Complainant continued to resist, flailing his legs and punching in the SO’s direction. Using the butt end of his baton, the WO struck him several times in the abdomen. The SO delivered a single elbow strike to the face.

The Complainant was eventually subdued and handcuffed behind the back. He was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a broken nose.

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 17, Mental Health Act - Action by Police Officer

17 Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on June 28, 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.

I am satisfied that the officers had grounds to apprehend the Complainant pursuant to section 17 of the Mental Health Act. Given what they knew of the Complainant’s mental health, the evidence of suicidal ideation from his father, and the cuts they observed to his neck, the officers were within their rights in concluding the Complainant was mentally disordered and at risk of harming himself.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the officers was no more than what was reasonable. When the Complainant struck the WO several times after the officer moved to effect what was a lawful apprehension, the SO was within his rights in resorting to a measure of force to bring the assault to an end. The takedown was a proportionate tactic in the circumstances as it would quickly deter the assault while placing the officers in position to better manage any continuing resistance on the part of the Complainant. Indeed, the Complainant continued to struggle against the officers’ efforts and was met with several baton strikes by the WO and an elbow strike by the SO. The strikes were delivered in the context of a heated physical battle and legitimate concern on the part of the officers that the Complainant might be in possession of a knife. On this record, they do not appear excessive given the exigencies of the moment.

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

Date: October 23, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit