SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-TCI-393
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 35-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU[1]
On September 18, 2024, at 1:02 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.
According to the TPS, on September 17, 2024, TPS officers responded to an address in the area of King Street West and Portland Street, Toronto, on information that two men, having arrived in a stolen white Range Rover vehicle, were in the underground parking garage attempting to steal a black Range Rover. TPS officers arrived on scene and blocked the entry/exit ramp with their cruisers to prevent escape. Shortly thereafter, a black Range Rover approached and rammed two cruisers before fleeing the area. A white Range Rover, driven by the Complainant, approached next and rammed the cruisers but was unable to escape. The Complainant ran as officers chased him and was eventually arrested. Emergency Medical Services responded and transported the Complainant to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH) where he was diagnosed with a nasal bone fracture.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2024/09/18 at 7:18 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/09/18 at 7:29 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
35-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on October 2, 2024.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The subject official was interviewed on November 19, 2024.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on October 30, 2024.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question began in and around the exit and entrance ramps of the underground parking of a building situated near King Street West and Portland Street, continued west on Stewart Street and across Bathurst Street, and concluded on the west sidewalk of Bathurst Street a distance north of Stewart Street, Toronto.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]
TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage
On September 17, 2024, starting at 10:07 p.m., the SO was captured in the driver’s seat of a cruiser, stopped at the top of the entrance ramp to an underground parking. To his left was Officer #1’s stopped cruiser that was blocking the exit ramp. A white Range Rover driven by the Complainant was stopped at the bottom of the ramp. The Complainant drove up the ramp towards the SO, as the SO drove forward. The SO’s cruiser lurched backwards, the result of a collision. The SO and WO #2 exited their cruiser and chased the Complainant as he ran from the parking garage.
The Complainant crossed Portland Street onto Stewart Street as the SO yelled for him to get on the ground.
At 10:08 p.m., WO #2 fell and the SO passed him, continuing to pursue the Complainant. The SO reached Bathurst Street and turned north as the Complainant ran northwest across Bathurst Street. The SO yelled to the Complainant to get on the ground as the Complainant reached the west sidewalk of Bathurst Street. The Complainant slowed to a walk northbound on the sidewalk of Bathurst Street as he approached King Street West.
When the SO physically contacted the Complainant, the video was obscured and did not capture how the Complainant and the SO fell to the ground. The SO mounted the Complainant’s back, told him he was under arrest and started the handcuffing process.
WO #1 positioned his right foot on the sidewalk, just above the Complainant’s head, and put his left knee on his shoulders while he assisted with handcuffing. The Complainant remained prone as he was searched and told he was under arrest for possession of stolen property.
TPS In-car Camera (ICC) Footage
On September 17, 2024, at 10:06 p.m., the SO and WO #2’s cruiser was stopped at the ramp entrance to the underground parking.
At 10:07 p.m., a white Range Rover driven by the Complainant travelled up the ramp and collided head-on with the front of the cruiser. The Complainant abandoned the vehicle, and ran up the ramp and out of the garage. A black Range Rover travelled up the other side of the ramp and struck Officer #1’s stopped cruiser.
TPS Communications Recordings – 911
On September 17, 2024, at 10:03 p.m., a security guard called TPS communications and reported a vehicle theft in progress. A white Range Rover had entered the parking garage and the vehicle being stolen was a black Range Rover. Both vehicles were stuck in the underground parking garage waiting for the doors to open.
The garage doors were opening and TPS officers were on scene.
TPS Communications Recordings – Radio
On September 17, 2024, at 10:04 p.m., TPS officers were dispatched to an address near King Street West and Portland Street for a theft of a vehicle in progress. A black Range Rover was circling on the P2 level of the garage, and the entrance/exit doors were closed. A white Range Rover [driven by the Complainant] was connected to the incident.
At 10:06 p.m., the SO and WO #2 were on scene. Officer #1 had the exit ramp blocked with his cruiser.
At 10:07 p.m., TPS cruisers were being rammed and the Complainant was running westbound with WO #2 giving chase.
At 10:10 p.m., the Complainant was in custody and an ambulance was requested.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between September 20, 2024, and October 31, 2024:
- Names and roles of involved TPS police officers;
- Civilian Witness List;
- General Occurrence Report;
- Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
- Communications recordings;
- BWC footage;
- ICC footage;
- Video footage;
- Notes - WO #1, the SO and WO #2; and
- Policy - Arrest and Incident Response.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from SMH on November 5, 2024.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the SO and the Complainant, as well as video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario.
In the evening of September 17, 2024, the Complainant was operating a white Range Rover in the underground parking of a building situated near King Street West and Portland Street. He had reached the bottom of the exit ramp, intending to drive away, when his path was blocked by a police cruiser at the top of the ramp. Unknown to the Complainant at the time, police had been called to the underground parking in connection with the theft of a motor vehicle – a black Range Rover – reported to be in progress. The Complainant accelerated forward, maneuvered onto the adjacent entrance ramp and struck another police cruiser head-on. He exited the vehicle after the collision and fled from the scene on foot.
The SO was the driver of the cruiser that had collided with the white Range Rover. He and another officer had stopped their cruisers blocking the exit and entrance ramps to the underground parking following the 911 call from building security staff. That call had indicated that a white Range Rover was connected to the theft of the black Ranger Rover. As the Complainant travelled in his direction, the SO drove forward before the collision. He and his partner, WO #2, chased after the Complainant as he ran west on Stewart Street and across Bathurst Street before making his way north on the west sidewalk of Bathurst Street. The SO caught up to the Complainant and tackled him to the ground from behind.
With the assistance of other officers, the SO handcuffed the Complainant.
The Complainant was taken to hospital after 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 on September 17, 2024, by TPS officers. 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.
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.
I am satisfied that the SO was engaged in the lawful execution of his duties when he arrived at the building near King Street West and Portland Street, and blocked the entrance ramp, and thereafter as he chased the Complainant intending to arrest him. Given what he knew of an ongoing vehicle theft involving a white and black Range Rover, and the collision between his cruiser and the white Range Rover, there were grounds to arrest the Complainant for dangerous driving and being in possession of a stolen vehicle.
I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO was legally justified. The SO drove his cruiser forward a short distance towards the white Range Rover in what might have been an effort to prevent the vehicle from picking up speed as it closed the distance on him. That, in my view, would appear a reasonable tactic. At any rate, it is clear on the evidence that the Complainant chose to bulldoze his way through the police blockade by ramming the SO’s cruiser, and that he is responsible for the collision. The tackle that preceded the Complainant’s arrest was also reasonable. In an act that endangered the officers trying to arrest him and imperiled public safety, the Complainant had intentionally collided with a police vehicle. In the circumstances, there was cause to believe that he would not be taken into custody without resisting arrest. That belief would only have been buttressed by his flight from police on foot after the collision. On this record, it made sense to take the Complainant down as soon as possible. Once on the ground, the officers would be in a better position to manage any resistance by the Complainant. There is a version of events proffered in the evidence that the Complainant raised his hands in the fashion of a surrender just before he was tackled, and that, once on the ground, an officer repeatedly bounced his head off the ground using his foot. The video footage of the arrest did not capture any such conduct.
In the end, while I accept that the Complainant’s nose was broken at some point during his engagement with police, likely the result of the takedown, there is no reason to believe the injury is attributable to any unlawful conduct on the part of the SO. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.
Date: January 16, 2025
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.