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 30-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 1, 2024, at 12:36 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 1, 2024, at approximately 4:00 a.m., TPS officers were on general patrol in downtown Toronto when they came upon a physical altercation between two men near the Dog and Bear Pub, 1100 Queen Street West, Toronto. During the arrest of one of the two men a third man – the Complainant – approached and “sucker-punched” the arrested man in the face. The Complainant then fled. An officer attempted to arrest the Complainant and he resisted. A second officer deployed his conducted energy weapon (CEW) causing the Complainant to spin around, fall to the ground, and hit his head on the concrete. The Complainant was transported to St. Joseph’s Hospital, where he was diagnosed with a fractured skull and bleeding in his brain. He was subsequently transferred and admitted to St. Michael’s Hospital.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/07/01 at 1:38 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/01 at 3:13 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

30-year-old male; interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on July 10, 2024.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on July 9, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the roadway and sidewalks of Queen Street West just west of its intersection with Dovercourt Road, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

At the scene of the incident, the SIU forensic investigator collected a swab of a suspected bloodstain and two Taser 7 ejectors (small plastic CEW cartridge components) from the sidewalk outside the Rexall Drugstore at 1093 Queen Street West

Forensic Evidence

The SIU forensic investigator reviewed the CEW deployment data provided by the TPS.

The data from the SO’s CEW, a Taser Model 7, recorded one event with one trigger pull. One cartridge deployment was recorded.

The SIU forensic investigator determined that the SO’s CEW was armed at 4:09:03 a.m., July 1, 2024. Six seconds later the trigger was pulled and the cartridge in Bay 1 was deployed. Electricity was discharged from the weapon for approximately 4.9 seconds. The weapon was disarmed three seconds later and, at 4:09:22 a.m., the safety was engaged.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS In-car Camera (ICC) and Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

The ICC recording from the vehicle occupied by the SO and WO #1 documented them traveling eastbound on Queen Street West at 4:06 a.m., July 1, 2024. As they approached Dovercourt Road, there was an altercation apparent in the westbound traffic lanes in front of the Dog and Bear Pub. Two men in white T-shirts were fighting in the street. The SO was driving, and he activated the vehicle emergency lights.

The SO stopped the vehicle, and he and WO #1 immediately exited and ran towards the combatants. At the time, the Complainant was standing east of the altercation, not involved in the fight. An individual, possibly a security staff member from a nightclub in the area or a friend, appeared to be holding the Complainant back. As the SO and WO #1 worked to apprehend the men who were fighting, the individual holding the Complainant stepped away, and the Complainant approached the area where the officers were apprehending the two men.

The SO’s BWC recording captured the SO exiting the cruiser and immediately apprehending Arrestee #1. WO #1 apprehended Arrestee #2.

WO #1’s BWC recording captured the Complainant walking past the arrests, after which he stood down the street, towards the Dog and Bear Pub.

WO #1’s BWC documented the SO and WO #1 standing with their arrested parties at the driver side of the police vehicle. One of Arrestee #2’s friends approached and was standing close to Arrestee #2. At 4:08:38 a.m., Arrestee #2’s friend started to raise his hands in a defensive gesture, and a fist then passed through the image. Arrestee #2 fell to the ground, and WO #1 immediately ran after the Complainant.

The SO’s BWC was obstructed due to Arrestee #1 standing in front of him, but a person with blonde hair [the Complainant] could be seen moving away from them.

At 4:08:42 a.m., WO #1 grabbed the Complainant in the eastbound lanes of Queen Street West and yelled at him to get down on the ground. They struggled and both fell against a parked car. They then moved to the rear of the parked car and fell onto the sidewalk. WO #1’s BWC fell off him at that point.

The SO moved with Arrestee #1 across the street to where WO #1 and the Complainant were wrestling on the south sidewalk, outside a Rexall Drugstore. The Complainant was struggling to free himself from WO #1’s grasp.

At 4:09:11 a.m., the SO had his CEW in hand and Arrestee #1 called out, cautioning the Complainant he was likely to be subjected to a CEW. As WO #1 and the Complainant were getting to their feet, the SO called out, “WO #1, WO #1, WO #1, leave him, leave him.” The SO then cautioned the Complainant, “I’m gonna fucking light you up.” WO #1 was grabbing onto the Complainant’s jacket at the time and the Complainant broke free. It was unclear whether WO #1 released him, or the Complainant spun himself free of the jacket. Arrestee #1 continued to caution the Complainant he was going to be subjected to a CEW.

At 4:09:15 a.m., the Complainant started to run eastbound along the sidewalk. The Complainant was several metres away from the officers and running away when, at 4:09:16 a.m., the SO deployed his CEW. The Complainant took another two steps and before falling onto the sidewalk, twisting as he fell such that the rear of his head struck the sidewalk. WO #1 approached the Complainant, rolled him onto his stomach and handcuffed his hands behind the back.

At 4:09:53 a.m., the SO radioed there were three people in custody and a CEW had been deployed.

At 4:09:57 a.m., a civilian bystander handed WO #1 his BWC and WO #1 re-attached it to his vest. The Complainant could be seen with blood on the left side of his face and a laceration on the rear of his head.

TPS Officer #1 arrived on scene and ran to the SO and WO #1. TPS Officer #1’s BWC recorded the SO explaining the events. TPS Officer #1 asked the SO, “You tase him?” Someone, possibly Arrestee #1, said, “Yah, he tased him. Look at his fuckin’ head bro. He tased him for no reason.” The SO confirmed he deployed his CEW. He told TPS Officer #1 he had already reported the deployment over the radio.

At 4:10:22 a.m., with additional police officers on scene, the SO told the other officers there were two men in a fist fight and they were able to place both men into custody. He said the Complainant then came out of nowhere and sucker-punched one of the men. TPS Officer #2’s BWC recorded the SO stating, “Full on fist fight with WO #1, and I ended up having to tase him.”

At 4:12:04 a.m., TPS Sergeant’s BWC recorded him asking the SO what they had. The SO told the sergeant WO #1 chased the Complainant and they went behind a vehicle, so the SO lost sight of them. The SO stated he crossed the street and found WO #1 and the Complainant in a “full out fist fight”. He reported, “I tell WO #1 just fucking back off, I got my taser out. They’re still rolling and then I lit him up.” TPS Sergeant asked, “You hit him with the taser?” and the SO responded, “Yah, because I’m still trying to maintain control of my guy while all this is going on.”

At 4:13:18 a.m., the SO asked WO #1 where the Complainant hit him. WO #1 responded it was just pushing and pulling.

At 4:16:28 a.m., the SO was searching Arrestee #1 and asked him what happened. Arrestee #1 responded he had stepped in to help a friend, so his friend did not “get his brains bashed”.

At 4:22:10 a.m., TPS Officer #2 asked WO #1, “[The SO] tase?” WO #1 responded, “Had him on the ground, he kept fighting so he’s (the SO) like let him go. Pop.”

At 4:23:51 a.m., while speaking to TPS Sergeant, WO #1 reported he and the Complainant were fighting for 45 seconds and WO #1 threw the Complainant into cars. He reported the deployment of the CEW resulted in “full lock-up”.

Arrestee #2 was transported to the police station to remain in custody for public intoxication. Arrestee #1 was released unconditionally. The Complainant was transported to hospital and charged with criminal offences.

Rexall Drugstore Video Recording

At 4:08 a.m., July 1, 2024, a police cruiser travelling eastbound on Queen Street West passed by the windows of the pharmacy with the emergency lights active.

At 4:10:09 a.m., someone ran southwest across Queen Street West.

At 4:10:12 a.m., two individuals, believed to be the SO and Arrestee #1, moved southwest across the street.

The apprehension of the Complainant was not captured on the store surveillance system.

TPS Communications Recordings

The TPS communications recordings were reviewed. Although the SO’s BWC recording documented him reporting, at 4:09:53 a.m., he had a third party in custody and a CEW had been deployed, the communications recording only captured his report of a third party in custody.

At 4:13:53 a.m., a sergeant contacted the communications centre and informed them a CEW was deployed, and he was not sure whether they had that information. The dispatcher responded they were not aware of the CEW deployment. The dispatcher asked, “Full deployment?” and the sergeant responded, “Oh yeah.”

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between July 1, 2024, and July 17, 2024:

• Communications recordings;
• ICC recordings;
• BWC recordings;
• General Occurrence Report;
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
• A list of involved police officers;
• Notes - WO #1;
• Notes - WO #2;
• Notes - WO #3;
• Notes - the SO;
• Photographs of the deployed CEW; and
• The deployment data from the Taser Model 7 CEW used by the SO.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained video footage from the Rexall Drugstore at 1093 Queen Street West on July 1, 2024.

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized.

In the early morning of July 1, 2024, the SO was on-duty driving east on Queen Street West approaching Dovercourt Road when he observed persons engaged in fisticuffs in the westbound lanes of the road. He brought the cruiser to a stop and he and his partner, WO #1, exited to deal with the situation. The SO arrested and handcuffed one of the parties – Arrestee #1 – while WO #1 did the same with another – Arrestee #2.

The Complainant was in the vicinity at the time and may or may not have been involved in the physical altercation. Within moments of Arrestee #2’s arrest, as he was standing by the driver’s side of the cruiser, the Complainant approached and punched him in the head.

WO #1 saw what had happened and chased after the Complainant across Queen Street West. He caught him and the two tussled on the roadway for a period before they both ended up on the ground on the south sidewalk of Queen Street West. The Complainant struggled to release himself from the officer’s hold and eventually broke free. He ran eastbound on the sidewalk a short distance before he was felled by a CEW discharge.

The discharge had come from the SO. On seeing his partner chase after the Complainant, he had followed to render assistance, bringing his arrestee – Arrestee #1 – with him. The officer had warned the Complainant of a CEW deployment if he did not desist, and then fired his weapon. WO #1 approached the Complainant on the ground and secured him in handcuffs.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured skull and left ring finger, an epidural hematoma and a sub-dermal hematoma.

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.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on July 1, 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.

The SO had observed the Complainant assault an individual in police custody and was within his rights in seeking to arrest him on that basis.

The use of the CEW was, in my view, a justifiable use of force in aid of the Complainant’s arrest. The Complainant was determined to escape police apprehension and had proven a formidable challenge to WO #1 as he attempted to wrestle him under control. When he managed to free himself from WO #1’s grasp, it was apparent that some further use of force would be necessary to prevent his escape and take him into custody. The use of the CEW made sense in these circumstances as the SO was not free to insert himself into the tussle or chase after the Complainant without a loss of control over Arrestee #1. He could, however, exert some control over the Complainant from a distance with the use of his CEW.

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

Date: October 29, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit