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 injuries of a 15-year-old male (the Complainant).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 14, 2024, at 12:03 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 13, 2024, at 4:00 p.m., PRP officers from 11 Division became involved in an auto theft investigation at the intersection of Winston Churchill Boulevard and Thomas Street. There were several youths involved and they all ran away. Three bicycle patrol officers caught one youth [the Complainant], and a conducted energy weapon (CEW) was deployed. The youth fell, and his face struck the ground. As a result, six teeth were knocked out. The youth was transported to Credit Valley Hospital (CVH) and diagnosed with a fractured jaw.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/06/14 at 12:39 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/06/14 at 2:00 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on June 14, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on June 25, 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

The witness officials were interviewed on July 25, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question began on the grounds of a gas station at the northwest corner of Winston Churchill Boulevard and Thomas Street and continued southwards across Thomas Street onto the grounds of a plaza on the southwest corner of the intersection, ending on the west sidewalk of Winston Churchill Boulevard a distance south of Thomas Street, Mississauga.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – The SO

On June 13, 2024, at 3:58:29 p.m.,[2] the trigger was pulled, Bay 1 was deployed, and electricity was discharged for 1.6 seconds. At 3:58:31 p.m., the trigger was pulled again, Bay 2 was deployed, and electricity was discharged for 3.2 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – The SO

On June 13, 2024, starting at about 3:58:15 p.m., the SO was captured in a foot chase with the Complainant. The Complainant was running on the sidewalk parallel to Winston Churchill Boulevard. The SO was approximately forty metres behind. The Complainant cut into the parking lot of a Scotia Bank and went around the building, through the bank drive-through, and back towards Winston Churchill Boulevard.

At about 3:58:44 p.m., the SO had his CEW in his right hand and pointed at the Complainant’s back. The officer was two to four metres back of the Complainant, who was running on the sidewalk.

At about 3:58:48 p.m., the SO was about two metres away when he discharged the CEW into the back of the Complainant, who immediately fell forward onto the concrete sidewalk, landing face first. The CEW probes struck the mid-back and the neck at the hairline.

At about 3:59:03 p.m., the Complainant was handcuffed behind his back. The SO radioed he had one person in custody.

At 3:59:24 p.m., the SO rolled the Complainant onto his side. Blood was visible on the sidewalk and the Complainant’s mouth area. The SO requested paramedics. Additional officers attended and up to eight officers stood by.

The SO advised officers to leave, and they were tasked with scene security.

At 4:15:54 p.m., the SO shut the BWC off.

Video Footage - Pioneer Gas Station

On June 13, 2024, at 3:55 p.m., the footage opened with a view of part of the gas station.

At 3:57 p.m., a van sped into the gas station and stopped. The driver - the Complainant - and two other youths jumped out of the van and ran away. Two fully marked PRP cruisers arrived and stopped behind the van. Officers exited the vehicles and pursued the Complainant and the other two youths until they disappeared.

PRP Communications Recordings

On June 13, 2024, at about 4:00 p.m., a PRP officer called dispatch to report they were at Winston Churchill Boulevard and Thomas Street. The officer reported that they were with three suspects, who had fled. Another officer [now known to be the SO] subsequently reported he had one person in custody. The SO requested paramedics as the male in his custody seemed unconscious. The officer reported they were on the sidewalk near the southbound lane, just south of the intersection of Winston Churchill Boulevard and Thomas Street. The SO reported that the matter would involve the SIU as the Complainant had sustained an injury to his chin and a possible broken jaw. Another officer reported that they had the two other suspects in custody.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the PRP between June 14, 2024, and July 31, 2024:

• General, supplementary and arrest reports;
• Name and contact information of parties involved in incident;
• Communications recordings;
• In-car camera footage;
• BWC footage;
• Photographs, diagrams and reports relating to scene examination;
• CEW deployment data;
• PRP policies relating to the discharge of a CEW;
• Notes - WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between June 13, 2024, and July 9, 2024:

• Video footage from Pioneer Gas Station; and
• The Complainant’s medical records from CVH.

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.

PRP officers were on the lookout for the Complainant in the afternoon of June 13, 2024. He had been reported “missing” by his parents, and was known to be operating his family’s van, which was reported stolen. The van was observed by WO #2, who alerted other officers to his location. While eastbound on Bentley Street behind the van, WO #2 pulled his cruiser in front of the vehicle as two other cruisers surrounded the rear and driver side.

The Complainant was driving the van. With him in the back seat were two males. On seeing the police vehicle stop in front of him, the Complainant was able to maneuver around the cruiser and continue east towards Winston Churchill Boulevard, where he turned right and accelerated southwards.

The cruisers followed behind the van a short distance and watched as it entered and came to a stop on the grounds of a gas station two blocks away at Thomas Street. The three occupants of the van exited and took off running. The officers brought their vehicles to a stop and took up foot pursuit.

The Complainant ran south across Thomas Street and onto the grounds of the plaza on the southwest corner of the intersection. He continued around a bank building in the plaza and onto the west sidewalk of Winston Churchill Boulevard, around which time the probes of a CEW discharge struck him in the back. Moments later, as he continued to run, he was struck again in the back by CEW probes. This time, his body locked-up and he fell to the ground, striking his face. The impact resulted in broken teeth and a fractured jaw.

The SO had deployed the weapon. Arriving where the Complainant had fallen, the officer handcuffed him behind the back.

The Complainant was taken to hospital following his arrest and treated for his injuries.

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 a PRP officer on June 13, 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 information to believe that the Complainant had taken his parents’ van without permission. In the circumstances, the officer was within his rights in moving to take the Complainant into custody for possession of stolen property.

With respect to the force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence falls short of reasonably suggesting it was unlawful. The Complainant had evaded a police blockade, driven dangerously to a nearby gas station where he almost struck a pump, and run from police in a determined effort to escape apprehension. Some force was going to be necessary in order to apprehend the Complainant. Bringing the Complainant to the ground made sense as it would immediately bring his flight to an end while better positioning the officer to manage any continuing resistance. Whether by way of a tackle or, as in this case, the use of a CEW, a grounding is always associated with a risk of injury. That risk, I am satisfied, was not prohibitive in this case, particularly as the Complainant was leading the pair on a chase beside live lanes of traffic, a factor the SO would have been concerned about in wanting to bring the Complainant’s flight to an end as soon as possible.

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

Date: November 5, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit