SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OCI-335

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 25-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On August 8, 2024, at 8:49 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

In the evening of August 7, 2024, PRP plainclothes officers were conducting surveillance in the area of 2150 Steeles Avenue East, Brampton, on a known stolen motor vehicle when, at 10:10 p.m., the Complainant was observed to enter the vehicle. Police officers blocked-in the stolen vehicle with unmarked police vehicles and attempted to arrest the Complainant. The Complainant resisted arrest, and a conducted energy weapon (CEW) was deployed. The Complainant fell forward onto the ground and appeared to sustain an injury to his nose. He was transported to the Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH) and, at 6:34 a.m., was diagnosed with a partially displaced nasal bone fracture.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/08/08 at 9:18 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/08/08 at 11:30 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on August 8, 2024.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject official was interviewed on August 21, 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

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #7 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between August 12, 2024, and September 23, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a Jeep Wrangler located in a parking lot east of the plaza situated at 2150 Steeles Avenue East, Brampton.

Physical Evidence

On August 8, 2024, at 12:14 p.m., a SIU forensic investigator arrived at an industrial plaza, located on the east side of 2150 Steeles Avenue East, Brampton. A Jeep Wrangler was parked in the access area for the truck loading bays. The Jeep was blocked-in by several unmarked PRP police vehicles. The group of vehicles had been cordoned off with police barrier tape and a marked police vehicle was at the location for security purposes.

Figure 1 – Google Maps aerial view of the scene

Figure 1 – Google Maps aerial view of the scene

An initial survey of the location was documented with digital images. No front plate appeared to be attached to the Jeep. The front passenger door glass was broken, and scuffs were visible to the front left bumper and right front fender flare.

In front of the Jeep was unmarked Police Vehicle #1. Police Vehicle #1 had damage to the front grille and bumper area, which corresponded to the scuff marks on the bumper of the Jeep. To the right front of the Jeep was unmarked Police Vehicle #2. Police Vehicle #2 had a small bend across the top of the front licence plate. To the right side of the Jeep was unmarked Police Vehicle #3. An area of scuffing to the paint and denting to the bodywork were visible at the left front corner near the signal array. In addition, there was a cracked area to the lower left windshield in front of the driver seat. Areas of scuffing on the right fender flare of the Jeep appeared to match the area of damage on Police Vehicle #3. Located to the rear left of the Jeep was unmarked Police Vehicle #4. Minor damage was observed at the front right wheel well, to the rear, where the underbody panel joined the well. A section of plastic was hanging down. To the left side of the Jeep was unmarked Police Vehicle #5. There was a small area of scuffing to the lower plastic edge of the right front corner of the bumper. Behind the Jeep was unmarked Police Vehicle #6. There was a small, bent area along the front edge of the hood to the left of centre.

Outside the front passenger door of the Jeep, a CEW cartridge was found on the ground. A second cartridge was located inside the Jeep, on the floor just inside the same door, partially beneath the front passenger seat. Wire from a CEW deployment was lying across the front seats. A quantity of bagged and loose items was strewn across the front area of the vehicle interior. The centre console storage bin was open. A small lighter device designed to resemble a pistol was on the driver seat. Hanging down outside the driver’s door were CEW probes attached to the wires inside. Additional CEW wires and probes were outside the driver’s door, on the ground beneath the Jeep.

Further groupings of CEW wires and probes were located outside the left side of the Jeep, and behind the rear hatch, also on the ground. A total of eleven probes and an assortment of wires were collected from within and around the vehicle. Each deployment of a CEW involves two probes being released. This meant six individual deployments appeared to have occurred at the location. The recovered cartridges were for the AXON Taser-7 CEW, used by PRP. The CEW items were documented and collected from the scene and secured in storage to be held as evidence if required. At 2:20 p.m., the incident scene was released to PRP.

Figure 2 – CEW cartridge found on the ground near the front passenger door of

Figure 2 – CEW cartridge found on the ground near the front passenger door of

the Jeep

Figure 3 – CEW wires on the ground

Figure 3 – CEW wires on the ground

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – WO #5

At 10:09:21 p.m.,[2] August 7, 2024, the trigger was pulled, and electricity discharged for 4.96 seconds.

At 10:09:52 p.m., the trigger was pulled, and electricity discharged for 4.97 seconds.

CEW Deployment Data - WO #2

At 10:09:38 p.m., August 7, 2024, the trigger was pulled, and electricity was discharged for 2.57 seconds.

At 10:09:41 p.m., the trigger was pulled, and electricity was discharged for 4.93 seconds.

At 10:09:52 p.m., the left arc was deployed, and electricity was discharged for 4.933 seconds.

At 10:10:04 p.m., the left arc was deployed, and electricity was discharged for 4.937 seconds.

CEW Deployment Data - SO #2

At 10:08:48 p.m., August 7, 2024, the trigger was pulled, and electricity was discharged for 1.215 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Video Footage - Kwality Sweets

The time-stamp on the video was ahead by 60 minutes. Audio was included but was contaminated by the loud operation of tractor trailers. The camera was motion-activated.

On July 18, 2024, at 10:03 p.m., a Jeep slowly travelled north from the direction of Steeles Avenue East. It travelled approximately 60 metres northbound and stopped near a blue shipping container and lamp post. Its brake lights remained on.

At 10:05 p.m., a figure - the Complainant - stood near the open driver’s door and leaned into the Jeep. The Jeep’s headlights and taillights were on. The Complainant moved to the rear of the Jeep and opened the rear door.

At 10:08 p.m., an unmarked vehicle operated by SO #2 sped towards the Jeep from the south. It stopped alongside the Jeep’s driver door, which prompted the Complainant to quickly re-enter the Jeep. SO #2’s vehicle was immediately followed by a van operated by WO #6, who stopped directly behind the Jeep. The siren and emergency lights were activated on the van before it stopped.

At 10:08:51 p.m., an unmarked police vehicle operated by WO #7 appeared from the north end of the lot and stopped directly in front of the Jeep. Simultaneously, an unmarked police vehicle operated by WO #3 entered from the south and parked a car’s-width from the passenger side of the Jeep. He was immediately followed by an unmarked police vehicle operated by WO #4, who stopped near the front passenger corner of the Jeep. Due to distance and quality of the camera, no video or audio details were discernible except for figures who appeared to move around the Jeep.

At 10:09:04 p.m., an unmarked police vehicle operated by WO #5 arrived from the north. Simultaneously, an unmarked SUV operated by WO #2 entered from the south with sirens and overhead lights activated. WO #2 stopped to the south of the group of vehicles and ran to the passenger side of the Jeep. WO #5 moved past the rear of the Jeep to the passenger side. Multiple voices yelled commands that were indistinct due to ambient noise. Figures actively moved around the Jeep, but a visual of the Complainant was blocked by vehicles.

At 10:24:25 p.m., a marked Ford Explorer arrived and, at 10:25:59 p.m., two marked Dodge Chargers arrived.

At 10:27:38 p.m., another marked PRP Charger arrived.

The Complainant was escorted by a uniformed police officer to the first Dodge Charger to arrive. He was searched by the rear passenger door and placed inside the rear of the vehicle.

At 10:57:38 p.m., an unknown plainclothes police officer stood near the open rear passenger door of the vehicle where the Complainant was secured.

At 11:12 p.m., paramedics arrived and blocked a view of the PRP vehicle where the Complainant was secured.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – WO #2

The footage commenced at 10:08 p.m. as WO #2 drove onto a parking lot with his emergency lights activated. WO #2 stopped his police vehicle behind a group of unmarked police vehicles and ran past an unmarked police vehicle on his left side as he approached the passenger side of a Jeep. Numerous police officers shouted, “Open the door,” repeatedly. WO #2 punched the front passenger side window with his left fist and removed the glass. A man - the Complainant - sat in the driver’s seat and looked at WO #2. WO #2 drew his CEW and shouted, “You’re going to get Tasered.” WO #2 deployed his CEW.

A plainclothes officer - WO #5 - stood to WO #2’s left side. WO #5 deployed his CEW twice. The Complainant screamed but did not unlock his door. The police officers again shouted at the Complainant to open his door and WO #2 deployed his CEW again. Eventually, the Complainant opened the driver’s door, and he was pulled out from the driver’s side. WO #2 jumped on top of the front hood of the Jeep, and he looked over to the driver’s side of the Jeep. For a split second, a struggle could be seen on the ground beside the Jeep, but nobody could be identified. WO #2 then faced south, jumped off the Jeep, and walked to the back of his vehicle where he looked at his hand, which appeared to be bleeding.

WO #2 approached a group of plainclothes police officers and asked them if they were okay. He then approached the Complainant, who lay on the ground on his right side, his hands handcuffed behind his back, and asked if he was injured. The Complainant, who had obvious bruising on his forehead, said, “Yes.” WO #2 told the Complainant he was under arrest for possession of stolen property.

Police Communications Recordings

At 10:10 p.m., WO #2 broadcast that one person was in custody. He asked for the attendance of a sergeant as the stolen vehicle had tried to ram its way out. They also required an ambulance for CEW prong removal.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the PRP between August 9, 2024, and August 30, 2024:

  • BWC footage;
  • Communications recordings
  • In-car camera footage;
  • Incident Details Report;
  • Incident History;
  • Notes – WO #6;
  • Notes – WO #3;
  • Notes – WO #4;
  • Notes – WO #2;
  • Notes – WO #1;
  • Notes – WO #7;
  • Notes – WO #5;
  • Occurrence Report;
  • Person Details Report – the Complainant;
  • Communications recordings;
  • Policy - Criminal Investigations;
  • Policy - Incident Response;
  • CEW deployment data; and
  • Vehicle List.

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following record from the London Police Service on August 13, 2024:

  • London Police Service - Stolen Car Report.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between August 8, 2024, and September 16, 2024:

  • Ambulance Call Report from Peel Emergency Medical Services;
  • Video footage from Kwality Sweets; and
  • The Complainant’s medical records from BCH.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and SO #1, and several police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, SO #2 chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of August 7, 2024, the Complainant drove a stolen vehicle – a Jeep Wrangler – onto the parking lot east of the plaza at 2150 Steeles Avenue East, Brampton. Unknown to him at the time, his vehicle had been tracked to the location by a team of undercover officers in unmarked police vehicles. The Complainant exited the vehicle and was standing near the open driver’s door when the unmarked police vehicles converged on his location. The Complainant immediately re-entered the vehicle, placed it in drive, and accelerated forward.

WO #7 was among the team of officers who maneuvered their vehicles to box-in the Jeep. He came to a stop nose-to-nose with the Jeep and felt the impact as it crashed into his cruiser. WO #6 brought his vehicle to a stop immediately behind the Jeep. SO #2 positioned his vehicle by the Jeep’s driver’s side.

With their vehicles in place, officers emerged and surrounded the Jeep. SO #2 was out of his vehicle by the driver’s side of the Jeep ordering the Complainant repeatedly to stop the car and get out. The Complainant ignored those directions and continued to try to break free of the blockade. WO #2 approached the front passenger door of the Jeep, punched out the window and deployed his CEW at the Complainant. WO #5 approached the passenger side of the Jeep and was to the left of WO #2 when he also fired his CEW. Shortly thereafter, the driver’s door was opened, and the Complainant was yanked out by WO #2 and SO #1. He was forced onto the ground in a prone position and handcuffed behind the back.

The Complainant was transported to hospital following his arrest and diagnosed with a broken nose.

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 PRP officers on August 7, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming SO #1 and SO #2 subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official 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.

The Complainant was in possession of a stolen vehicle and was subject to arrest on that basis.

With respect to the force brought to bear by the officers against the Complainant, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing that any of it was unlawful. The use of the CEWs, some of which, it appears, had no neuromuscular incapacitation effect, was a reasonable tactic. The Complainant had been trying to escape the blockade, causing serious damage to the police vehicle in front of the Jeep and placing everyone’s life in danger, and it was imperative that he be immobilized as quickly as possible. The CEW discharges carried a reasonable chance of doing precisely that. For the same reasons, the Complainant’s forcible removal from the Jeep once the driver’s door opened, and his subsequent takedown, made sense. His attempt at escape using the Jeep had given the officers cause to be concerned that he would resist arrest once outside. Placing him in a prone position on the ground would assist the officers in better managing that resistance. With respect to what happened once outside the Jeep, there is an account in the evidence that suggests the Complainant’s nose was broken when an unidentified officer punched him three or four times. In contrast, the officers interviewed by the SIU did not see anyone punch the Complainant. In light of this conflict in the evidence, and the lack of identification, the evidence of excessive force regarding this aspect of the incident is insufficiently cogent to warrant being put to the test by a court.

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

Date: December 6, 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 times are derived from the internal clocks of the weapons, and are not necessarily synchronous between weapons and with actual time. [Back to text]
  • 3) 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.