SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-TCI-409

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 16-year-old male (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On September 25, 2024, at 2:07 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to a young person, the Complainant.

According to the TPS, the TPS had received a complaint from the Complainant’s mother, who reported her son had sustained a fractured wrist requiring surgery, including the insertion of two pins. TPS confirmed that the TPS drug squad had arrested the Complainant following a foot pursuit on August 22, 2024, at 4:05 p.m., near an Esso gas station on Morningside Avenue in Scarborough. Subject Official (SO) #1 and SO #2 made the arrest. An injury report subsequently submitted by Witness Official (WO) #4 indicated that the Complainant had suffered a sprained right hand and small finger.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/09/26 at 10:02 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/09/26 at 10:20 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on October 2, 2024.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Not interviewed[2]

Subject Officials

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on January 15, 2025.

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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

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 on December 18, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the grounds of the Esso gas station situated at the southeast corner of Sheppard Avenue East and Morningside Avenue, and the parking lot of the plaza situated immediately south of the gas station.

Physical Evidence

On the southeast corner of the intersection of Morningside Avenue and Sheppard Avenue East, at 1149 Morningside Avenue, was an Esso/Circle K gas station and convenience store. Along the south perimeter of the gas station property was a wooden fence, separating the gas station from the Chand Morningside Plaza.

The Complainant was arrested in the Chand Morningside Plaza property. Individuals in the Esso gas station lot would not have had a view of the plaza property, due to the wooden fence.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

The SIU received video of the Complainant’s time in TPS custody.

The body-worn camera (BWC) recordings of WO #3 and WO #4 revealed the Complainant made no complaint of injury at the time the officers took custody of him.

During his booking into custody, the Complainant complained his throat was dry and the acting staff sergeant, Officer #1, informed him they would provide him water. When Officer #1 asked about injuries, the Complainant commented, “I busted up my finger.” When asked how the injury occurred, the Complainant’s response was difficult to hear. Officer #1 responded, “Oh, so your finger got sprained during your arrest?”

The communications recordings were also reviewed. The recordings confirmed the TPS drug squad requested a vehicle to transport two arrest parties. WO #2 also queried a SUV and learned the queried licence plate belonged to a stolen vehicle.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between November 25, 2024, and January 13, 2025:

  • Communications recordings;
  • Injury Report for the Complainant;
  • General Occurrence Report;
  • Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
  • A list of involved officers;
  • Video footage - sally port and booking area of TPS 42 Division;
  • BWC footage – WO #4;
  • BWC footage – WO #3;
  • Notes – WO #1;
  • Notes – WO #5;
  • Notes – WO #2;
  • Notes – WO #6;
  • Notes – WO #4;
  • Notes – WO #3; and
  • Notes – SO #2.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from Scarborough Health Network on November 27, 2024.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with the Complainant and SO #2, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, SO #1 did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of August 22, 2024, the Complainant was seated in the rear passenger seat of a SUV that pulled into the Esso gas station at Sheppard Avenue East and Morningside Avenue. The driver – the CW – brought the SUV to a stop on the east side of the gas station grounds, exited, and entered the front passenger seat of a nearby vehicle. Shortly thereafter, undercover police officers began to approach the SUV, at which time the Complainant exited the vehicle and began to run.

Unknown to the CW and the Complainant, they were the targets of a drug sting. The CW had entered an unmarked police vehicle and, presumably, embarked on a drug transaction, at which time the team of undercover officers gathered at the gas station were given the signal to arrest the parties. The CW was taken into custody without incident.

The Complainant fled south onto the grounds of a plaza parking lot. SO #2 chased the Complainant on foot but fell and was overtaken by SO #1, also on foot. SO #1 caught up to the Complainant and placed a hand on one of his shoulders. The Complainant tumbled forward onto his outstretched hands, suffering a fracture of the right hand in the process. He was handcuffed on the ground without further incident.

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 on August 22, 2024, in the course of his arrest by TPS officers. 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.

I am satisfied there were grounds to detain the Complainant for investigation of his involvement in a drug offence. The Complainant had arrived at the gas station in the company of the CW, who proceeded to reportedly engage in a drug transaction with an undercover police officer. His immediate flight from police would have added to the officers’ reasonable suspicion that he was implicated in a drug offence.

I am also satisfied that only reasonable force was brought to bear by the police in the Complainant’s arrest. When the Complainant fled from the police, it became inevitable that a physical intervention of some force would be necessary to bring his flight to an end. A tackle was at the low end of the options available to the police and, in my view, reasonable in the circumstances.

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

Date: January 23, 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 CW was not present at the location of the Complainant’s arrest. [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.