SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-TCI-313

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 31-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 21, 2024, at 5:23 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 21, 2024, at 8:34 a.m., TPS received a 911 call from Civilian Witness (CW) #1 reporting the Complainant in the rear yard of her home in the area of St. Clair Avenue West and Jane Street, Toronto. The Complainant was on release conditions to not be at the residence. CW #1 reported CW #2 went outside to tell the Complainant to leave the property and a struggled ensued. The Complainant took a pair of garden shears and assaulted CW #2. When the Complainant learned TPS had been called, he fled the area on foot. A short time later, TPS officers located the Complainant at 2571 St. Clair Avenue West and advised him he was under arrest. He cooperated initially, but started to resist as the handcuffs were being secured. The Complainant was transported by TPS officers to St. Joseph’s Health Centre (SJHC) and diagnosed with a right radial fracture.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/07/21 at 5:33 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/21 at 7:44 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

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 July 21, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between July 21 and 31, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on August 15, 2024.

Witness Official / Officials (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on July 24, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a home in the area of St. Clair Avenue West and Jane Street, Toronto, and outside the front door of the Tim Hortons at 2571 St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage - Tim Hortons

The time-stamp on the footage was one hour behind actual time.

At 8:16:15 a.m. [9:16:15 a.m.], a marked police vehicle arrived at the Tim Hortons. The Complainant was captured sitting on the ground near another man. The Complainant looked in the direction of the police vehicle, stood up, and then sat back down. Two police officers [the WO and the SO] exited the police vehicle and approached the two men. The WO turned to speak with the Complainant. The two police officers walked away from the Complainant and spoke among themselves while they looked at the Complainant.

At 8:17:44 a.m. [9:17:44 a.m.], the Complainant stood up and walked away from the police officers. The WO and the SO walked towards the Complainant. The WO motioned to the Complainant. The police officers faced him and put gloves on. The SO was on the Complainant’s right side and the WO was on the left side. The WO searched the front pocket of the Complainant’s shirt. The WO took control of the Complainant’s left forearm. The SO used his right hand to take control of the Complainant’s right forearm. The SO placed his left arm around the Complainant’s upper back and turned him towards the camera. The SO brought the Complainant’s right arm behind his back and, as he did, the Complainant’s upper body lurched forward as if he was in pain. The SO brought both of the Complainant’s hands together behind his back. Again, the Complainant appeared to exhibit a pain response.

At 8:19:21 a.m. [9:19:21 a.m.], the Complainant was successfully secured in handcuffs with his hands behind the back. He was compliant throughout the application of the handcuffs. He was escorted to the police vehicle.

At 8:36:23 a.m. [9:36:23 a.m.], an ambulance arrived.

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

On July 21, 2024, at 8:47:37 a.m., the WO and the SO arrived at a residence. CW #1 sat on the front porch and said the Complainant had left. CW #1 believed the Complainant had spent the night on her front porch. She said she went out for a walk with her dog at approximately 7:30 a.m. When she returned, the Complainant was attacking CW #2. She provided a physical description of the Complainant to the police officers.

CW #2 said the Complainant had struck him. CW #2 showed the police officers a gardening tool they struggled over. The Complainant had also thrown an object at CW #2’s head. Their altercation occurred at approximately 8:30 a.m.

At 9:17:18 a.m., the WO and the SO spoke with a man [the Complainant] outside a building [Tim Hortons at 2571 St. Clair Avenue West]. The man sat on a curb. The WO and the SO walked away from the man and spoke among themselves. The Complainant stood up and walked away. The WO and the SO walked towards the Complainant.

At 9:17:49 a.m., the BWC audio track kicked-in. The WO asked the Complainant for identification. The SO said, “That’s him.” The WO and the SO addressed the Complainant by first name. The Complainant denied that was his name. He identified himself by a different name. The WO said he would pat-down the Complainant. The WO approached him and grabbed his left forearm. The WO searched the front pocket of the hooded shirt.

At 9:18:25 a.m., the SO used both hands and grabbed the Complainant’s right forearm. The SO told him not to fight and to turn around. As the Complainant turned while the SO held the forearm, there was a verbal pain response from the Complainant. The WO applied a handcuff to the Complainant’s left wrist. The WO walked behind the Complainant and brought the left arm behind the back. The SO brought the right arm behind the back. There was another verbal pain response from the Complainant. The SO used his left hand to hold the Complainant’s right hand and his right hand to pull the Complainant’s shirt sleeve up his arm. The SO grasped the forearm with his right hand. The Complainant leaned forward and there was another verbal pain response from him. The other handcuff was secured with the Complainant’s hands behind his back. The SO checked to ensure the handcuffs were secure. There was another verbal pain response from the Complainant.

At 9:18:58 a.m., the WO adjusted the handcuffs. The Complainant asked for “medics”. The WO asked the Complainant, “What did you take?” The Complainant said he had not taken anything. The WO asked why paramedic services were required if the Complainant had not taken anything. The Complainant alleged a police officer had injured his arm. As the WO adjusted the left handcuff, there was a loud verbal pain response from the Complainant. The Complainant again requested an ambulance. The WO advised the Complainant he was under arrest for assault with a weapon. The Complainant was escorted to the police vehicle and searched.

At 9:22:45 a.m., the WO again asked the Complainant why he needed an ambulance. The WO said the Complainant was shaking. The Complainant said, “You guys hurt my, my, my wrist it might have broken when you arrested me.” The Complainant continued to deny the name provided by the officers was his.

At 9:37:44 a.m., paramedic services arrived.

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage – The WO and The SO’s Cruiser

At 9:24:16 a.m., the Complainant was placed in the rear prisoner compartment of a police vehicle. He requested paramedic services attend for his injured wrist. The WO said an ambulance was on the way.

At 9:30:33 a.m., the Complainant was cautioned for failure to comply with a release order. He was not supposed to be anywhere CW #1 was known to reside.

At 9:38:08 a.m., the Complainant was removed from the police vehicle to be assessed by paramedics.

At 12:39:15 p.m., the Complainant was transported from SJHC to TPS 12 Division. His right forearm was in a cast.

TPS Booking Video

On July 21, 2024, at 2:06:19 p.m., the Complainant was escorted to the booking desk by the WO and the SO.

At 2:10:15 p.m., the Complainant was asked about his injury. His right forearm was in a cast. The WO said the injury occurred prior to the police interaction. The Complainant corrected him and said, “I got this injury because I was arrested with a lot of force.” The WO said the application of the handcuffs was done compliantly.

TPS Communications Recordings

At 8:29:56 a.m., July 21, 2024, TPS received a 911 call from CW #1. She advised the Complainant was not to attend at her residence. She said the Complainant had stayed the night on her porch. While she took her dog for a walk, the Complainant screamed and attacked CW #2. CW #2 sustained bruising to his head. He did not require an ambulance. CW #1 said she would like the Complainant charged. He was a crystal methamphetamine user. He had left the residence. CW #1 provided a physical description of the Complainant.

At 8:34:58 a.m., the WO and the SO were dispatched to attend the residence.

At 9:04:41 a.m., the WO advised the Complainant was arrestable for assault with a weapon. The weapon was a gardening tool. The Complainant was last seen walking towards St. Clair Avenue.

At 9:19:26 a.m., the SO advised they had located the Complainant at the Tim Hortons on St. Clair Avenue and he was in custody.

At 9:25:32 a.m., the WO requested an ambulance attend their location because the Complainant had a minor cut and might have used methamphetamine.

At 9:36:55 a.m., paramedics arrived.

At 9:45:33 a.m., the Complainant was transported to SJHC.

At 5:53:31 p.m., TPS 12 Division asked the TPS communications centre to have an ambulance attend because there was a man [the Complainant], who was dizzy and suffering from anxiety.

At 6:23:23 p.m., the Complainant was transported to SJHC.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from TPS between July 22, 2024, and August 7, 2024:

  • General Occurrence Report;
  • Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
  • BWC footage;
  • ICCS footage;
  • Communications recordings;
  • Notes – the WO;
  • Notes – the SO; and
  • Use of Force Policy.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between July 21, 2024, and July 22, 2024:

  • Photograph of the Complainant received from ; and
  • Video footage from Tim Hortons at 2571 St. Clair Avenue West.

Incident Narrative

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

In the morning of July 21, 2024, the SO and his partner, the WO, were dispatched to a home in the area of St. Clair Avenue West and Jane Street, Toronto. In violation of a condition of his release, CW #1 had called police to report the Complainant’s presence at the address. She also indicated that the Complainant and CW #2 had been involved in an altercation.

The officers arrived at the address to find that the Complainant had departed. They spoke to CW #1 and CW #2, came to believe that the Complainant had committed an assault on CW #2, and left to look for him.

At about 9:15 a.m., the officers located the Complainant outside the front door of the Tim Hortons at 2571 St. Clair Avenue West. Despite the Complainant’s denials, the officers confirmed he was the person they were looking for and moved in to place him under arrest. The WO took hold of the Complainant’s left arm and the SO, his right. As the Complainant’s arms were maneuvered behind his back and handcuffed, he gestured in pain on several occasions.

The Complainant was transported to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with a fractured right wrist.

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 diagnosed with a serious injury following his arrest by TPS officers on July 21, 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 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.

Having interviewed CW #1 and CW #2 regarding his presence at their address and the fight the Complainant had had with CW #2, the SO was within his rights in deciding to take the Complainant into custody for assault and a violation of a term of a release order.

It is also apparent that neither the SO nor the WO used excessive force in the course of arresting the Complainant. In fact, as the video footage of the event makes clear, no force was used other than what was necessary to take hold of his arms and bring them around the back. By all outward appearances, the handcuffing was without incident. Any suggestion that the injury was the result of too much force having been brought to bear when he was handcuffed is belied by the video footage coupled with evidence indicating the Complainant was actually injured in the altercation with CW #2.

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

Date: November 15, 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.