SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-TCI-355
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
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 28-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU[1]
On August 25, 2024, at 8:37 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.
On August 24, 2024, at approximately 6:00 p.m., a paid-duty officer was near the Rogers Centre when he observed a male motorcyclist doing “wheelies” on Front Street. The officer attempted to stop the rider. He was unsuccessful and the cyclist drove off. A description of the motorcyclist and his helmet was broadcast. Later in the evening, police officers at Yonge-Dundas Square saw someone they believed to be the suspect motorcyclist on foot. He carried the described helmet. Police officers attempted to place the man under investigative detention. The man ran away. Police officers engaged in a foot pursuit and called for assistance. Twelve police officers responded. The man [now known to be the Complainant] was caught and arrested. After his arrest, he complained of a sore wrist and ankle, and was transported to Mount Sinai Hospital (MSH). On August 25, 2024, at approximately 6:00 a.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured wrist and a possible fractured ankle. After further investigation, it was determined the Complainant was not the same motorcyclist from the Rogers Centre.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2024/08/26 at 9:30 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/08/26 at 10:14 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
28-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on August 27, 2024.
Civilian Witness (CW)
CW Interviewed
The civilian witness was interviewed on August 27, 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 November 4, 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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
The witness officials were interviewed between September 11, 2024, and October 19, 2024.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired on and around the southeast corner of the Yonge Street and Dundas Square intersection. The closest approximate address was 279 Yonge Street.
Physical Evidence
On September 3, 2024, a SIU forensic investigator attended the TPS Forensic Unit. Photographs were taken of a motorcycle and two motorcycle helmets.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage
On August 24, 2024, starting at about 11:20:09 p.m., SO #1 and SO #2 approached a man [the Complainant] and a woman [the CW] on a sidewalk outside a Shoppers Drug Mart [279 Yonge Street]. The police officers stood in front of the Complainant. SO #1 held a cell phone. The Complainant held a motorcycle helmet and a bottle of water. He stood near some motorcycles parked on the side of the road. The CW also held a motorcycle helmet. The Complainant leaned over to look at SO #1’s phone. SO #1 pulled his phone away from the Complainant.
Starting at about 11:20:23 p.m., SO #1 pointed towards the Complainant’s helmet. SO #1 and SO #2 moved to either side of the Complainant. The Complainant held his right hand up and backed away.
Starting at about 11:20:31 p.m., SO #2 grabbed the Complainant’s upper arm. The Complainant backed away into a motorcycle, which fell over. SO #1 grabbed for the Complainant’s left side.
Starting at about 11:20:39 p.m., SO #2 held a handful of the Complainant’s T-shirt and pulled. The Complainant bent over forwards. A backpack worn by the Complainant came off his shoulders. A police officer told the Complainant to drop his helmet. The Complainant spun around as the police officers continued to grab at him. He bent over again and the T-shirt he wore was pulled off by SO #2.
Starting at about 11:20:52 p.m., the Complainant turned around and ran eastbound along Dundas Square. SO #2 chased him. The Complainant ran northeast across Dundas Square towards a parking garage [20 Dundas Square]. SO #1 broadcast on his radio. He said he was in a foot pursuit with “possibly the guy who hit the officer earlier”.
Starting at about 11:21:04 p.m., the Complainant jumped over a low wall. SO #2 ran past the location where the Complainant had jumped. SO #2 ran to the corner of Victoria Street and Dundas Street. SO #1 ran northbound on Victoria Street and met SO #2. SO #1 held an extended baton. SO #2 broadcast that the Complainant had “ducked into the parking garage”. They walked towards the entrance of the parking garage.
Starting at about 11:21:44 p.m., SO #2 and SO #1 reached the entrance of the parking garage. The Complainant drove a motorcycle out from in between parked vehicles on the north side of Dundas Square. The motorcycle drove westbound on Dundas Square. SO #1 and SO #2 ran after the motorcycle. The motorcycle was stopped at the intersection of Dundas Square and Yonge Street.
At 11:22:11 p.m., SO #1 struck the Complainant in the left leg with his baton. The CW stood nearby and urged SO #1 to stop. SO #1 stood in front of the motorcycle and held the back of the Complainant neck. SO #2 arrived and grabbed the Complainant by the back of his waistband. SO #2 pulled him to the left until the motorcycle toppled over as the Complainant straddled it. The Complainant landed on his left side. SO #1 said, “Get down,” as the Complainant was already on the ground.
Starting at about 11:22:16 p.m., SO #1 held his baton down across the right side of the Complainant’s neck and appeared to pin him in place. The Complainant’s right hand was underneath the chin area of the helmet. SO #2 used both of his hands to grab the Complainant’s right wrist. SO #2 told the Complainant to “give me your hand”. The Complainant removed the helmet from his head.
Starting at about 11:22:34 p.m., the Complainant reached up and grabbed SO #1’s left hand. He pulled at SO #1’s hand until the baton came off his neck. SO #1 knelt on the right side of the Complainant’s face. SO #1 let go of the baton and used his hands to control the Complainant’s upper body and right hand. The baton became solely held by the Complainant’s left hand. SO #2 grabbed the baton with his right hand as his left-hand pinned the Complainant’s knees. SO #2 and the Complainant pulled at the baton between them. SO #2 grabbed the baton with both of his hands and pulled. The Complainant did not let go. SO #2 used his right hand to strike the Complainant’s left wrist once. SO #2 stood up and pulled at the baton. The Complainant rolled onto his back and kicked upwards at SO #2. SO #2 gained sole control of the baton. SO #1 said, “Stop struggling.” He said, “Keep struggling and I’ll punch you again.” SO #2 returned to the ground and used his hand and the baton across the Complainant’s ankles to pin his legs. The Complainant kicked his feet off of his motorcycle and spun around on the ground. SO #2 let go of the Complainant.
Starting at about 11:23:25 p.m., the Complainant stood up. SO #1 stood up and used his arms to control the Complainant’s head. The Complainant was hunched over with his head near SO #1’s abdomen. The Complainant marched forwards and pushed SO #1 backwards into the windows of Shoppers Drug Mart. SO #2 pulled at the Complainant’s waistband and continued to hold the baton. There was a thud and then the Complainant cried out in pain. SO #2 broadcast his location on the radio. He sounded out of breath. He requested assistance.
Starting at about 11:24:10 p.m., WO #5 arrived. He approached the Complainant from behind and said, “Get on the ground.” WO #1 arrived.
Starting at about 11:24:22 p.m., SO #2’s BWC became dislodged from his chest. It landed on the ground with the camera pointed to the sky. Police officers struggled with the Complainant on the edge of the camera frame. The Complainant was taken to the ground by police officers. He landed on his right side. He continued to struggle and ended up on his left side. WO #5 directed the Complainant to get on his stomach. The Complainant’s left arm was curled up under his head as he laid on his left side. His right arm was down by his right side. Police officers struggled to control both arms.
Starting at about 11:24:34 p.m., SO #1 appeared to have stepped away from the struggle. WO #3 and WO #2 arrived. WO #2 lowered himself to the ground and took control of the Complainant’s right hand.
Starting at about 11:24:43 p.m., SO #2 picked up his BWC and re-affixed it to his chest.
Starting at about 11:24:48 p.m., WO #6 and Officer #1 arrived. WO #6 attempted to control the Complainant’s right arm.
Starting at about 11:24:58 p.m., WO #1 applied leg restraints to the Complainant.
Starting at about 11:25:02 p.m., WO #6 delivered four kicks to the Complainant’s lower back. Members of the crowd called out and said, “Stop hitting him.” WO #2 handcuffed the Complainant’s right hand and pulled on the handcuffs to bring the hand behind the Complainant’s back. WO #3 struggled with the Complainant’s left arm.
Starting at about 11:25:37 p.m., WO #3 delivered two elbow strikes to the Complainant’s upper back. WO #1 used a baton to pry the Complainant’s left arm out from underneath him. His left hand was handcuffed behind his back.
Starting at about 11:26:07 p.m., the handcuffs were secured on the Complainant. The police officers moved away from the Complainant. He was in a prone position. WO #1 put away the baton.
Starting at about 11:26:44 p.m., the Complainant cried out in pain and said, “Ahhh my fucking arm broke.”
Starting at about 11:27:59 p.m., the Complainant was carried by four police officers to a police vehicle. He was in leg restraints as he was carried. He was placed inside the police vehicle.
Starting at about 11:28:53 p.m., an unidentified police officer said the Complainant had injuries and bled from the face.
Starting at about 11:29:52 p.m., SO #1 spoke with WO #2. SO #1 said, “Saw the picture of the guy on the motorcycle, sees him walking through here…(indiscernible)…so we just tried to put him in investigative detention…and he put up a fight and he took off…he comes on his bike, picks up his girlfriend so then I just started whacking the shit out of him, well, I just gave him a couple of strikes with my baton.”
Starting at about 11:30:06 p.m., WO #6 and Officer #1 transported the Complainant away from the scene in their police vehicle.
Starting at about 11:30:42 p.m., SO #1 said, “That guy put up a hell of a fight,” to SO #2. SO #2 agreed and spoke about how the Complainant had got control of SO #1’s baton. SO #1 said, “That’s why I punched him in the face.”
In-car Camera (ICC) Footage
On August 24, 2024, at 11:29:02 p.m., the Complainant was captured lying in a supine position in the back seat of a police vehicle [now known to be operated by Officer #1 and WO #6]. His hands were behind his back, and he breathed at a fast rate.
At 11:36:21 p.m., the police vehicle stopped in a sally port [now known to be at TPS 52 Division]. The Complainant asked if the handcuffs could be loosened. WO #6 opened the rear passenger door and spoke with the Complainant. The Complainant said he could not feel his legs. He said he had been punched in the head “like ten times” and thrown against a wall. He complained about his right hand. WO #6 manipulated the legs restraints, and the Complainant exhibited a verbal pain response and asked WO #6 not to do that. Officer #1 helped the Complainant to sit upright in the rear seat.
At 11:39:27 p.m., the Complainant said his hands were “fucked from before”. He complained about the right handcuff.
At 11:41:36 p.m., WO #6 adjusted the Complainant’s handcuffs. He exhibited a verbal pain response when she manipulated his wrist. WO #6 noticed the handcuffs were not double-locked. The Complainant said, “I think you broke my wrist.” WO #6 replied, “I don’t think so.” the Complainant said, “They were fractured from before…(indiscernible).” WO #6 said since the handcuffs were not double-locked then they had probably become tighter on him. The Complainant was escorted away from the police vehicle.
TPS Communications Recordings
On August 24, 2024, at 11:21:01 p.m., a paid-duty police officer [SO #2] broadcast he was involved in a foot pursuit near Yonge Street and Dundas Square with "possibly the...the guy who hit the officer earlier". Additional police officers were dispatched to the area.
At 11:21:27 p.m., SO #2 said the person they chased [the Complainant] had ducked into a parking garage.
At 11:21:46 p.m., SO #2 said the Complainant was on his motorcycle.
At 11:23:18 p.m., a male police officer reported he had arrived at the parking garage and blocked it off.
At 11:23:32 p.m., SO #2 said he was at Shoppers Drug Mart [279 Yonge Street].
At 11:23:46 p.m., SO #2 repeated his location again and requested a police vehicle.
At 11:26:10 p.m., a female police officer advised the Complainant was in custody.
On August 25, 2024, at 12:06:52 a.m., a police officer advised the Complainant would be transported to MSH.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from TPS between August 27, 2024, and September 10, 2024:
- General Occurrence Report;
- Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
- BWC footage;
- ICC footage;
- Communications recordings;
- Use of Force Policy;
- News release;
- Notes – WO #1;
- Notes – WO #2;
- Notes – WO #3;
- Notes – WO #6;
- Notes – WO #5;
- Notes – WO #4;
- Use of Force Training Records – SO #1; and
- Use of Force Training Records – SO #2.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between August 28, 2024, and September 17, 2024:
- Cell phone videos from the Complainant;
- Cell phone video screen recorded from 6ixBuzz social media;
- Cell phone video from Witness #1;
- Video footage from 1 Dundas Street East;
- Video footage from 279 Yonge Street;
- The Complainant’s medical records from MSH; and
- The Complainant’s medical records from a medical clinic.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, a civilian eyewitness (the CW), SO #1 and other police officers who participated in the events in question, and video footage that captured the incident in part, 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 24, 2024, SO #1 and SO #2 were working a paid-duty patrolling the area around Yonge-Dundas Square in Toronto when they noticed a male – the Complainant – carrying a motorcycle helmet. The helmet was similar in description to reports broadcast earlier that day of the helmet worn by a motorcyclist that was said to have struck and injured a police officer. The officers suspected the Complainant was that motorcyclist and approached him to investigate.
The Complainant was standing with the CW on the south side of Dundas Square, just east of Yonge Street, when they were confronted by the officers. The Complainant denied that he was the person they were looking for and moved back from the officers as they closed in on him. There ensued a brief wrestling match as SO #1 and SO #2 took hold of the Complainant, and he struggled to free himself. The Complainant was able to do just that and ran away from the officers eastward on Dundas Square.
SO #1 and SO #2 split up and chased after the Complainant on foot, the latter northeast across the square. They reconvened a short distance away in the area of Dundas Square and Victoria Street, from which location they observed the Complainant operating a motorcycle westbound on Dundas Square towards Yonge Street.
The Complainant had returned to his motorcycle and was travelling to the intersection of Dundas Square and Yonge Street, presumably, to rejoin the CW and retrieve his helmet, which he had dropped in the struggle with the officers. He was stopped at the intersection when SO #1 arrived and began to wrestle with him again. In the course of that struggle, SO #1 used his baton to strike in the direction of the Complainant’s left arm and leg. SO #2 arrived within seconds and assisted in forcing the Complainant off his motorcycle onto the ground, the vehicle toppling on top of the Complainant’s left leg in the process. Using his baton against the left side of the Complainant’s neck, SO #1 attempted to keep him pinned to the ground. The Complainant refused to release his arms to be handcuffed and took possession of SO #1’s baton. SO #2 wrestled with the Complainant for control of the baton and won it back as SO #1 delivered punches to the Complainant’s head area. With both officers continuing to grapple with him, the Complainant rose to his feet. His arms wrapped around SO #1, and the officer with a hold of the Complainant around the head and upper body, the two moved southward and collided with a storefront window. The officers kept the Complainant pinned to the window while SO #2 radioed for help.
Additional officers arrived on scene and forced the Complainant to the ground. The Complainant continued to struggle as the officers attempted to wrestle his arms behind the back. Following a couple of knee strikes to the upper back by WO #3, four kicks to the back by WO #6, and the use of a baton to pry the Complainant’s left arm out from under his torso, the Complainant was handcuffed.
At hospital following his arrest, the Complainant was diagnosed with a right occult scaphoid fracture.
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 August 24, 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.
Very quickly into SO #1 and SO #2’s initial engagement with the Complainant, I am satisfied that the Complainant was being detained for investigation of the earlier incident involving an officer being struck by a motorcyclist. Such detentions are only lawful where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the detainee is implicated in a crime: R. v. Mann, [2004] 3 SCR 59. The Complainant denied that he was the motorcyclist the officers were looking for. It was also some hours after the incident in question and some distance from that scene. On the other hand, the helmet the Complainant was holding had very unique identifiers and bore a striking resemblance to the helmet worn by the suspect motorcyclist. On this record, while perhaps thin, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the subject officials were without a reasonable suspicion that the Complainant was their suspect. Thereafter, it follows that the officers had grounds to take the Complainant into custody for resisting peace officers in the execution of their duties when he attempted to escape.
I am further satisfied that the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing that the force used by the officers, including SO #1 and SO #2, against the Complainant was excessive. The initial physical confrontation from which the Complainant broke free consisted of a fairly even grappling match that does not give rise to any concerns. The force used by the subject officials after catching the Complainant a second time was also reasonable. The Complainant was determined to get away and it was imperative in the interests of everyone’s safety, including a group of bystanders massing in the area, that he be removed from his motorcycle as soon as possible. The use of baton strikes by SO #1 made sense in the circumstances, particularly as the Complainant had managed to break free of a hand-to-hand engagement moments prior. Once on the ground, SO #1 and SO #2 clearly had the advantage over the Complainant, and yet he was able to rise to his feet despite the punches struck by SO #1. It was only with the arrival of additional officers that the Complainant was again grounded. Still, he struggled vigorously against the officers refusing to release his left arm so it could be handcuffed, prompting WO #3 and WO #6 to deliver knee strikes and kicks, respectively, to the Complainant’s back. Only after those strikes was the Complainant’s left arm controlled and secured. Given their numbers, it is likely that the officers would have eventually been able to wrestle control of the arm without the strikes. That said, the Complainant had proven a formidable challenge and the officers had been at it for a while. They were entitled to bring the matter to an end sooner rather than later. On this record, the kicks and knee strikes amounted to a proportionate escalation in the use of force.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: December 18, 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.