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 a serious injury sustained by a 43-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On August 24, 2024, at 4:06 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On August 24, 2024, a flatbed truck was stolen in Peel and later used to load stolen jet skis. The owner of the vehicle tracked it to 23 Division in Toronto and called the police at 7:28 a.m. Police officers responded to the scene and saw suspects leaving in a Cadillac sports utility vehicle (SUV). At around 8:14 a.m., police officers tried to stop the SUV in the area of Worcester Road and Carlingview Drive in Toronto. The SUV was pinned and two of the three occupants were arrested. One of the occupants was taken to Etobicoke General Hospital because he was not feeling well. At 1:33 p.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with an acute displaced nasal fracture.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/08/24 at 4:06 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/08/24 at 4:36 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

43-year-old male; interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on August 24, 2024.

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The CW was interviewed on August 24, 2024.

Subject Official

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

Witness Official

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on September 4, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on Worcester Road, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Custody Video – Booking Hall

At 2:51:55 p.m., August 24, 2024, WO #2 escorted the Complainant to the booking hall. The Complainant was handcuffed with his hands behind the back.

At 2:52:05 p.m., the SO and WO #2 stood with the Complainant in the booking hall as he was paraded before the booking hall sergeant. The Complainant was said to have been arrested for conspiracy to commit an indictable offence, theft over $5000 and possession of property obtained by crime. The booking hall sergeant said the Complainant was involved in a motor vehicle collision.

At 2:54:50 p.m., the Complainant disclosed that he had consumed an illicit substance between 7:30 and 8:00 a.m.

At 2:57:43 p.m., the SO and WO #2 removed the Complainant’s handcuffs to conduct a frisk search.

At 3:00:37 p.m., the SO noted that an illicit drug was found in the Complainant’s property.

At 3:03:06 p.m., the booking hall sergeant ordered a strip search of the Complainant. A strip search was conducted and, at 4:24:58 p.m., the SO and WO #2 advised the strip search had negative results. The Complainant was lodged in a cell.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – The SO

On August 24, 2024, at 8:16:09 a.m., the Complainant was face down on the asphalt on Worcester Road with his hands handcuffed behind his back. At 8:16:23 a.m., the Complainant rolled onto his left side revealing a large laceration on his chin. At 8:16:36 a.m., the SO and WO #1 assisted the Complainant to his feet. At 8:17:51 a.m., the SO performed a frisk search of the Complainant. At 8:18:13 a.m., the front left side of the SO’s police vehicle was captured in contact with the passenger door of the Cadillac. At 8:20:15 a.m., the Complainant was in the backseat of the SO’s police vehicle. There was dried blood on his chin. At 8:20:46 a.m., the SO advised the Complainant he was under arrest for theft over and property obtained by crime.

BWC Footage – WO #1

At 8:16:09 a.m., the Complainant’s face was down on the asphalt with his hands behind the back. The SO was over his back and appeared to deliver one punch to the Complainant’s lower back. The airbags in the Cadillac were deployed. There was no blood observed on the white airbags. At 8:17:32 a.m., the rear driver side quarter panel of the Cadillac was captured with significant damage. At 8:20:15 a.m., WO #1 drove his vehicle to the northeast corner of 50 Worcester Road, got out of his vehicle and chased individuals that fled the scene. At 8:20:36 a.m., WO #1 entered tall grass and located the CW. The CW ran away into the parking lot. At 8:22:05 a.m., WO #1 handcuffed the CW’s hands behind his back.

BWC Footage – WO #4

At 8:38:12 a.m., WO #4 exited his vehicle at a motor vehicle collision scene. He examined the front of the SO’s police vehicle and the passenger doors of the Cadillac. The Complainant was in the back of the SO’s police vehicle. At 8:45:19 a.m., the SO told WO #4 what happened. The owner of the flatbed had called the police to report individuals unloading items from the vehicle. The Complainant drove the Cadillac on Worcester Road as the SO followed in his police vehicle. The SO’s police vehicle collided with the Complainant’s Cadillac three times. The first contact was with the rear bumper and the Complainant’s vehicle spun around. The SO’s police vehicle then contacted the rear driver side quarter panel, after which the SO’s police vehicle circled and contacted the passenger side doors.

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – The SO’s Cruiser

At 8:14:22 a.m., August 24, 2024, the SO drove his police vehicle northbound on Worcester Road. A marked TPS SUV [now known to be driver by WO #1] travelled ahead of him. Neither police vehicle had its emergency equipment activated. At 8:14:37 a.m., a Cadillac SUV travelled westbound through a parking lot on Worcester Road and the TPS SUV turned into the driveway. At 8:14:42 a.m., the Complainant drove the Cadillac around WO #1’s police vehicle and onto Worcester Road directly in front of the SO’s police vehicle. The SO bumped the back end of the Cadillac with the front of his cruiser as it travelled northbound on Worcester Road. The Cadillac brake lights were activated as the vehicle approached a dead-end. The Cadillac turned to the left and the ICC recording ended.

At 8:24:26 a.m., the footage resumed with the Complainant sitting in the back of the SO’s police vehicle handcuffed behind the back. The Complainant had a laceration on the left side of his chin with dried blood. At 8:43:38 a.m., WO #4 asked the Complainant if he was okay, and he said he was. At 9:12:09 a.m., the Complainant moaned and put his head down. At 9:16 a.m., a police officer told the Complainant an ambulance was on the way. At 9:16:38 a.m., the SO asked the Complainant if he used drugs and the Complainant said he had used drugs earlier in the morning. At 9:20:17 a.m., the SO advised dispatch that the Complainant complained of chest pain and continued to moan. At 9:23:48 a.m., the Complainant moaned loudly and the SO asked dispatch to rush the ambulance. At 9:30:28 a.m., the paramedics arrived with a stretcher outside the police vehicle. At 9:30:58 a.m., police officers helped the Complainant get out of the police vehicle and onto the stretcher.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between August 24, 2024, and August 29, 2024:

• ICC footage – the SO, WO #1, WO #2 and one other officer;
• BWC footage – the SO, WO #1, WO #2, WO #4 and three other officers;
• Booking video;
• TPS scene and property photographs;
• Communications recordings;
• Notes of witness officials;
• General Occurrence Report;
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
• List of Involved Officers;
• Entity List;
• TPS contacts with the Complainant;
• TPS Policies – Arrest Procedure and Incident Response (Use of Force/De-Escalation); and
• TPS Injury / Illness report – the Complainant.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and one of the arresting officers (WO #1), and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the morning of August 24, 2024, TPS received a call from a citizen reporting the theft of his flatbed truck. The citizen had tracked his truck to the parking lot on Worcester Road, Toronto, where he observed watercrafts being offloaded from the vehicle. He also reported an SUV in proximity to the truck, which was possibly involved in its theft.

In separate cruisers, the SO and WO #1 arrived on scene. As WO #1 turned onto the parking lot from Worcester Road, the SUV travelled west in his direction, passed the cruiser and turned northbound onto the roadway. The SO followed the SUV and bumped its rear with the front of his cruiser. The SUV continued northward.

A short distance away, as the roadway ended in a cul-de-sac, the SO struck the SUV again. The SUV spun and the SO struck it again, this time on the passenger side. The vehicles came to a stop. WO #1 arrived at about this time and positioned his cruiser with its front end in contact with the SUV’s front end.

The SO and WO #1 took hold of the SUV driver – the Complainant – and forced him to the ground. The Complainant was handcuffed and taken into custody.

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

Section 320.13, Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm

320.13 (1) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public.

(2) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public and, as a result, causes bodily harm to another person.

The Complainant was seriously injured at or around the time of his arrest by TPS officers on August 24, 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 injury.

One of the offences that arises for consideration is dangerous driving causing bodily harm contrary to section 320.13(2) of the Criminal Code. As an offence of penal negligence, a simple want of care will not suffice to give rise to liability. Rather, the offence is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have observed in the circumstances. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was a want of care in the manner in which the SO operated his vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s injury. In my view, there was not.

The SO was engaged in the execution of his lawful duties when he pursued the SUV to stop it. Given what he knew of what was happening around the stolen truck, and the SUV’s apparent connection to those events, the officer had cause to believe that the SUV driver – the Complainant – was implicated in illegal activity.

With respect to the SO’s driving, the evidence does not reasonably establish that the officer failed to comport himself with due care and attention to public safety. The use of a cruiser to intentionally strike another vehicle is always a risky proposition, but, in the circumstances of this case, it was a calculated one. The locale was an industrial one with no traffic on the road and the involved vehicles were travelling at relatively modest speeds at the time. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law when he struck the SUV.

The force used by the SO and WO #1 after the collision is also subject to legitimate scrutiny under section 25(1) of the Criminal Code. Under the section, 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.

For the reasons previously stated, I am satisfied that the Complainant was subject to arrest in relation to the apparent theft of the truck and watercrafts.

I am also satisfied that the evidence falls short of any reasonable suggestion that the police used excessive force in arresting the Complainant. It is alleged that the Complainant was forcefully grounded by the officers by the side of the SUV despite his having raised his hands in surrender as they approached. It is further alleged that the Complainant was subsequently kicked about 12 times before he was handcuffed and lifted to his feet. If true, this account amounts to an unlawful assault by the officers. That said, this evidence is not entirely reliable. For example, in evidence contested by another witness, the source of the allegation tried to distance himself from the illicit activity occurring in the parking lot. The allegation is also contested by WO #1. According to the officer, the Complainant was grounded in a controlled fashion and no strikes of any kind were delivered by the officers. As for the available video footage of the incident, only one punch was captured, delivered by the SO as he was handcuffing the Complainant. The grounding described by WO #1 and the single punch would not appear a disproportionate use of force given the Complainant’s apparent flight from police and what the officers would reasonably have expected by way of his continued resistance to arrest once his SUV was stopped. In the final analysis, as there is no reason to believe that the more incriminating rendition of events is any likelier to be closer to the truth than WO #1’s evidence, and some reason to doubt it, the evidence in its totality is insufficiently cogent to warrant being put to the test by a court.

For the foregoing reasons, whether the Complainant’s injury was incurred in the collision with the SO’s cruiser or during his arrest outside the SUV, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: December 20, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit