SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OCI-368
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 21-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU[1]
On September 4, 2024, at approximately 2:15 p.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.
On September 4, 2024, at approximately 8:50 a.m., YRP officers attended an address near Jane Street and Highway 7, Vaughan, to shut down an illegal cannabis dispensary. Vaughan city staff were in attendance to place large concrete blocks in front of access points to the premise to stop people from entering the dispensary. A search of the premise located two individuals inside. When officers attempted to arrest one of them, the man – the Complainant - moved away from the officers and towards a hammer and knife. He was taken to Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital (CVH) and diagnosed with a fractured right maxillary.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 09/04/2024 at 3:15 p.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 09/04/2024 at 5:11 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
21-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on September 4, 2024.
Civilian Witness
CW Not interviewed; unable to locate
Subject Official
SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
The subject official was interviewed on October 11, 2024.
Witness Officials
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 not necessary
The witness officials were interviewed on September 26, 2024.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired inside a cannabis dispensary operating near Jane Street and Highway 7, Vaughan.
Physical Evidence
Upon entering the premise, there was a large open area for customers. There was a customer service counter, next to which was a door that provided access to the employee areas of the premise.
Behind the customer service counter was a very narrow hallway that had shelving units on each side. An employee lounge with a couch was beyond that narrow hallway.
A hammer was located on a counter in the employee lounge area. A knife was found wedged between a shelf and a shelving unit in the narrow hallway behind the customer service counter.
Figure 1 - Hammer located on scene
Figure 2 - Knife located on scene
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]
The SIU received a series of scene photographs taken by officers during their attendance at the cannabis dispensary. The photographs documented the dispensary at the time of the officers’ attendance, and after the City of Vaughan workers placed large concrete blocks in front of the doors and windows of the premise.
The notices the YRP officers posted on the windows of the dispensary on September 3, 2024, included a caution that the interior of the dispensary was under video-recorded surveillance. On November 26, 2024, the YRP advised that the surveillance equipment found inside the premise on September 3, 2024, had been removed during the execution of the closure warrant that day. There was no surveillance equipment inside the premise on September 4, 2024.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
The SIU obtained the following records from the YRP between September 5, 2024, and September 12, 2024:
- History of YRP attending the scene;
- Occurrence Report;
- List of involved officers;
- Scene photographs;
- Photographs of concrete blocks placed outside the cannabis dispensary by City of Vaughan workers;
- Photographs of weapons recovered during arrest;
- Notes – WO #1;
- Notes – WO #4;
- Notes – WO #2;
- Notes – WO #3;
- Detention Report;
- Booking Report; and
- Cell logs.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from CVH on September 6, 2024.
Incident Narrative
Th evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, the SO and other police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario.
In the morning of September 4, 2024, YRP officers travelled to an address near Jane Street and Highway 7, Vaughan (the site of an illegal cannabis dispensary), to find the door propped open and lights on inside. The officers, including the SO, planned to enter the store to arrest anyone found inside. Police had been there the night before to execute a search warrant on the premises. They had left the business after turning off the lights and posting notices on both entryways that entry was prohibited and would constitute the offence of ‘break and enter’ under the Criminal Code.
The Complainant was inside the dispensary behind the front counter in the employee area. With him in the store was a woman – the CW. Two of the officers confronted the CW in a back room and took her into custody without incident. The other two officers – the SO and WO #2 – arrested the Complainant following an altercation.
The Complainant was transported to hospital after his arrest, and diagnosed with a fracture of the anterior wall of the right maxillary sinus and 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 YRP officers on September 4, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The SO was identified as 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 Complainant was present inside an illegal cannabis dispensary in contravention of written notices prohibiting entry. In the circumstances, I am satisfied he was subject to arrest for ‘break and enter’.
I am also satisfied that the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing that the force used to take the Complainant into custody was unlawful. It is alleged that the Complainant raised his hands but was nevertheless struck in the face and grounded by one of the officers – the SO. On the floor and not resisting, according to this account, the Complainant was repeatedly struck in the ribs and elsewhere by the SO before he and another officer handcuffed him behind the back. This evidence portrays excessive and unlawful force. On the other hand, the SO provided a different account of the encounter. He says that the Complainant immediately fled from the front counter on entry by the police into a small room. The SO confronted him in the room and delivered a single punch to the face as the Complainant lunged in his direction. The two fell to the floor where the Complainant refused to release his right arm and was met with a strike to the right side. WO #2 says he joined in the interaction between the SO and the Complainant on the floor. According to the officer, the Complainant resisted the officers’ efforts to control his arms, prompting the SO to punch his right upper arm area once or twice during the struggle. There were no strikes of any kind after the Complainant was handcuffed. The conduct revealed by this body of evidence - a single punch struck in defence of an attack, followed by several more strikes on the floor to overcome the Complainant’s resistance and secure him in custody - would not seem a disproportionate or unreasonable use of force. As there is no reason to believe that the more incriminating rendition of events is any likelier to be closer to the truth than the evidence proffered by the police, I am unable to reasonably conclude than the totality of the evidence is sufficiently 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 31, 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 facts 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.