SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OCI-426
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 23-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU[1]
On October 6, 2024, at 11:34 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.
On October 6, 2024, at 2:34 a.m., PRP officers with the Strategic Targeted Enforcement Program (STEP) were at a business near Torbram Road and Drew Road. The officers were conducting an investigation, and located the Complainant in possession of a firearm. The Complainant was placed under arrest and a struggle ensued in which he attempted to disarm one of the officers. Eventually, the Complainant was handcuffed. While being walked to a police vehicle, however, he broke free and attempted to run away. Officers gave chase and tackled him to the ground. The Complainant complained of pain to his right hand. He was taken to the Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH), where X-rays did not confirm any injury. The Complainant was transported to PRP 12 Division, where he was to be held pending a bail hearing. At approximately 11:45 a.m., just prior to his bail hearing, the BCH called the PRP and advised that the Complainant had in fact suffered a broken bone in his right hand. Officers returned the Complainant to the BCH, where his right hand was set in a plaster cast.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2024/10/07 at 8:52 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/10/08 at 10:00 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
23-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on October 8, 2024.
Civilian Witness (CW)
CW Interviewed
The civilian witness was interviewed on October 18, 2024.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The subject official was interviewed on October 23, 2024.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The witness officials were interviewed between October 10, 2024, and October 11, 2024.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired outside in front of a business located near Torbram Road and Drew Road, Mississauga.
Forensic Evidence
Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) Deployment Data – WO #1
At 2:31:56.844 a.m.,[2] October 6, 2024, the trigger was pulled and Bay 1 cartridge was deployed. Electricity from this cartridge was discharged for 4.967 seconds.
CEW Deployment Data – the SO
At 2:31:35.410 a.m., October 6, 2024, the trigger was pulled and Bay 1 cartridge was deployed. Electricity from this cartridge was discharged for 3.509 seconds.
At 2:31:39.217 a.m., the trigger was pulled and Bay 2 cartridge was deployed. Electricity from this cartridge was discharged for 4.964 seconds.
At 2:31:45.011 a.m., the right Arc button was pressed with both cartridges previously deployed for a period of 4.944 seconds.
At 2:31:46.076 a.m., the right Arc button was pressed with no recorded duration.
At 2:31:57.951 a.m., the right Arc button was pressed for a duration of 4.938 seconds.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]
Video Recording – Cell Phone
The video was recorded in the front parking lot of a business near Torbram Road and Drew Road. The Complainant was captured seated on the ground against an unmarked PRP vehicle. His shoes were removed, and he was handcuffed with his hands behind his back. WO #1 stood with his back to the camera over the Complainant. The Complainant repeatedly asked to have his handcuffs loosened as he could not feel his hands.
In-car Camera (ICC) Video Footage – Officer #1 and Officer #2
On October 6, 2024, between 3:12:00 a.m. and 3:26:00 a.m., the Complainant was in the rear compartment of Officer #1’s police vehicle, handcuffed with his hands behind his back. The Complainant questioned why his property was not transferred with him. Officer #1 explained to the Complainant several times that he did not have the answers to his questions as he was just assisting with transport. The Complainant continued to ask about his property. Officer #1 refused to have any further conversation with him and directed the Complainant to have a conversation with the police officers who had arrested him.
At 8:45:00 a.m., the Complainant was placed in the rear compartment of Officer #2’s police vehicle. He was handcuffed to the front of his body, and he wore a long sleeve sweater. They left the BCH.
Between 8:55:00 a.m. and 9:09:00 a.m., the Complainant’s property was picked up at 21 Division and the Complainant was driven to William Davis Court House.
Between 10:00:00 a.m. and 10:17:00 a.m., the Complainant was placed back into Officer #2’s police vehicle and transported back to the BCH.
Between 10:43:00 a.m. and 11:02:00 a.m., the Complainant was returned to William Davis Court House. He now had a cast on his right arm and hand.
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – Officer #1 and Officer #2
On October 6, 2024, at 2:58 a.m., Officer #1 was at a business near Torbram Road and Drew Road. The Complainant stood in front of a police vehicle, handcuffed with his hands behind his back. Five uniform officers stood in the immediate area. The Complainant complained he could not feel his hand and refused to identify himself. Another police officer arrived. The handcuffs were removed, and another set were placed on the Complainant. He said he felt better, and he wanted to speak to his lawyer.
At 3:03:00 a.m., Officer #1 took custody of the Complainant. He continuously asked for his property, and said police had removed a large sum of money from his pocket. The Complainant refused to get into the back of the police vehicle without his property.
Between 3:06:36 a.m. and 3:07:47 a.m., the Complainant was picked up by his shoulders and legs, put headfirst into the back seat and pulled across the seat from the opposite side. The Complainant yelled, “Assault,” and, “I want my property,” as the rear doors were closed.
Video Footage –Torbram Road
On October 6, 2024, at 2:22:00 a.m., an unmarked GMC SUV slowly patrolled the front parking lot of the business. It paused near the entrance and then turned around at the south end of the parking lot. It returned to park in front of a white vehicle at the north end of the parking lot.
At 2:30:19 a.m., a man wearing a hoodie with a surgical mask [now known to be the Complainant] exited the business with a male [now known to be the CW] and walked north along the front of the building.
Between 2:30:48 a.m. and 2:31:07 a.m., the GMC stopped in front of the business. WO #2 exited the front passenger door and the SO from the rear passenger door. WO #2 approached the Complainant from the front and the SO approached from their rear. The SO cautioned another man away and talked to the CW. WO #2 handled the satchel slung across the Complainant’s body, pat-searched his sweater pocket, and appeared to unzip the satchel. The SO stepped in and placed his left hand on the Complainant. The Complainant pulled away from WO #2 and turned to flee. As he turned, the SO grabbed hold of his right hand, and the Complainant fell back. He grabbed the chest area of the SO’s uniform and pulled him to the ground.
At 2:31:17 a.m., a vehicle backed into the driver’s side of the GMC. WO #1 exited the GMC and spoke with the driver of the vehicle.
At 2:31:52 a.m., WO #2 tried to take control of the Complainant, holding him down by placing his right knee on the Complainant’s left hip and both hands on his left shoulder. The SO regained his footing and, with the Complainant hunched over between himself and WO #2, delivered two right knee strikes to the Complainant’s facial area. They grappled against the hood of a sedan as the SO drew his CEW. WO #1 saw the struggle and approached from the passenger side of the sedan, drawing his CEW. Objects fell to the ground, which appeared to be a wallet, surgical mask, and a firearm that slid underneath the sedan.
At 2:32:00 a.m., the Complainant broke free from the SO and WO #2, and sprinted east through the parking lot. WO #1 discharged his CEW from a distance of approximately one metre into the Complainant’s back. The Complainant ran in front of the GMC and stumbled to the pavement with his right shoulder striking first. He appeared to brace his fall with his right arm, and then attempted to regain his feet. WO #2 and the SO chased the Complainant. The SO deployed his CEW, which achieved Neuromuscular Incapacitation (NMI). The Complainant was rolled onto his stomach as the SO positioned a knee in the shoulder area and WO #2 placed a knee to the upper leg area. WO #1 stood near where the firearm had fallen. WO #2 retrieved handcuffs from WO #1 while the SO controlled the Complainant’s arms behind his back. The Complainant was handcuffed behind his back.
Between 2:34:30 a.m. and 2:35:15 a.m., the SO rolled the Complainant onto his back and did a brief pat-down search. The SO used the back of the Complainant’s sweater to raise him to his feet, and brought him to the front of the unmarked GMC. He performed a search of the Complainant while WO #1 held a flashlight.
At 2:35:51 a.m., WO #1 moved away, and the Complainant fled east towards Torbram Road. He crossed a grassy boulevard into the second southbound lane of Torbram Road before he stumbled and rolled onto the pavement. The SO reached the Complainant as he attempted to regain his footing. He used his own body weight to crash into the Complainant’s back and knock him to the pavement.
At 2:35:59 a.m., the SO delivered two quick right-handed strikes to the facial area of the Complainant. He straddled the Complainant and pinned him down as WO #1 arrived.
At 2:36:23 a.m., the SO lifted the Complainant to his feet and escorted him to the hood on the driver’s side of the GMC.
At 2:37:26 a.m., the SO used body leverage and his right leg to take the Complainant to the ground. The SO kept him pinned to the ground with both his arms. He moved the Complainant into a seated position with his back against the front grill of the GMC.
At 2:58:33 a.m., a PRP vehicle arrived.
At 3:03:12 a.m., the Complainant was escorted to the PRP vehicle, but resisted being placed in the rear seat. The police officers lifted his legs and placed him headfirst into the rear compartment.
At 3:10:37 the PRP vehicle departed with the Complainant.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the PRP between October 8, 2024, and October 16, 2024:
- Person Details Report – the Complainant;
- Incident Details Report;
- Incident History;
- Occurrence Report;
- Policies - Criminal Investigation and Specialized Enforcement Bureau;
- BWC footage;
- CEW deployment data – WO #1 and the SO;
- Officer Involvement List;
- The SO Training Summary;
- Notes - WO #2, WO #1 and the SO; and
- Communications recordings.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between October 8, 2024, and October 11, 2024:
- Cellphone video from a civilian;
- The Complainant’s medical records from William Osler Health System; and
- Video footage – Torbram Road.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, the SO, and other police and civilian witnesses, as well as video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.
In the early morning of October 6, 2024, the PRP Strategic Targeted Enforcement Program were doing proactive patrol in a police vehicle at a business near Torbram Road and Drew Road in Mississauga. During the course of their patrol two men were seen near the entrance to the business: one wearing a track suit [now known to be the CW], and the other, a hooded sweater with the hood up, a medical mask, and a satchel across his body [now known to be the Complainant]. The SO observed the CW and the Complainant to be hypervigilant and displaying characteristics of an armed person. Based on their clothing, the manner in which they held their satchels close to their bodies at the ready, and the way they scanned their surroundings, the SO suspected that they were in possession of firearms. The officer devised a plan in which the SO would approach the CW and WO #2 would approach the Complainant, and both would be arrested for possession of a firearm.
The SO and WO #2 exited the police vehicle. The SO approached the CW, informed him he was under arrest for possession of a firearm, and grabbed his satchel. The SO did not feel anything that made him believe there was a firearm. WO #2 approached the Complainant, identified himself, asked for identification and what was in his satchel, did a pat search of his pockets, and handled the satchel slung across the Complainant’s body. He felt an object consistent with a firearm. The Complainant insisted he had nothing on him, pushed WO #2’s hand off the satchel, moved away and succeeded in removing the satchel from his body before turning to flee. As he turned, the SO grabbed hold of his right hand, and the Complainant fell back. In the process, the Complainant grabbed the chest area of the SO’s uniform and pulled him to the ground. WO #2 tried to take control of the Complainant, holding him down by placing his right knee on the Complainant’s left hip and both hands on his left shoulder. The SO regained his footing and, with the Complainant hunched over between himself and WO #2, delivered two right knee strikes to the Complainant’s facial area. The Complainant continued to struggle as they grappled against the hood of a sedan. During the struggle, objects fell to the ground, including a firearm that slid underneath the sedan. WO #1 took control of the firearm, which was identified as a Glock 27 with the magazine half out.
The Complainant broke free from the SO and WO #2, and sprinted east through the parking lot. WO #1 discharged his CEW into the Complainant’s back and leg. The probes connected but dislodged as he fled. The Complainant ran in front of the police vehicle and stumbled to the pavement. WO #2 and the SO chased the Complainant. The SO deployed his CEW once. It was not successful, so he deployed it a second time, which achieved NMI. The Complainant fell to his right side on the parking lot asphalt and was rolled onto his stomach. The SO positioned a knee in the shoulder area and WO #2 placed a knee to the upper leg area. The Complainant had his hands under him. The SO informed the Complainant he was under arrest and needed to give him his hands. The Complainant would not give up his hands. The SO, fearful the Complainant would reach for a weapon, used the CEW in drive-stun mode on the Complainant’s upper back. The Complainant released his arms and was handcuffed behind his back.
The SO brought the Complainant to his feet and escorted him to the front of the police vehicle. Suddenly, the Complainant fled east towards Torbram Road, still handcuffed behind his back. He crossed the parking lot into the second southbound lane of Torbram Road before he stumbled and rolled onto the pavement. The SO reached the Complainant as he attempted to regain his footing. He used his own body weight to crash into the Complainant’s back and knock him to the pavement. The SO delivered two quick right-handed strikes to the facial area of the Complainant. He straddled the Complainant and pinned him down as WO #1 arrived to assist.
The Complainant was escorted back to the parking lot of the business. He refused to identify himself. He complained he could not feel his hand, and his handcuffs were removed and replaced with another set. The Complainant continued to refuse to identify himself, and questioned officers as to the whereabouts of his property. The Complainant would not get into the police vehicle without his property. After multiple attempts over a span of approximately ten minutes of trying to get the Complainant to identify himself and enter the police vehicle, the Complainant was put into the back seat compartment.
The Complainant was transported to the hospital following his arrest and diagnosed with a fractured right wrist.
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 PRP officers on October 6, 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.
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 and WO #2 were acting in the execution of their duties throughout the series of events culminating in the arrest of the Complainant. As a result of their patrol and observations, they formed reasonable suspicion that the Complainant was in possession of a firearm, providing the officers with lawful grounds to detain the Complainant for investigation, and engage in a protective pat-down search for officer and public safety: R. v. Mann, [2004] 3 SCR 59. Thereafter, having felt what seemed like a firearm in the Complainant’s satchel, and with information about the firearm that had fallen to the ground, the officers were within their rights in seeking to arrest the Complainant for unlawful possession of a firearm.
Further, I am satisfied that the force used by the SO, WO #2 and WO #1 in aid of the Complainant’s detention and arrest was justifiable. It constituted lawful force and was no more than what was reasonable and necessary in the circumstances. The Complainant had demonstrated he was intent on escaping apprehension and had proven a formidable challenge to the SO and WO #2 when they tried to wrestle him under control, managing to free himself on a couple of occasions.
When the Complainant refused to submit peacefully to arrest, the officers were entitled to resort to reasonable force to effect their purpose. The use of two knee strikes would not appear disproportionate in the circumstances, particularly as the Complainant was able to flee after the last of these blows. The use of the CEW, an escalation in the quantum of force, seems equally commensurate with the circumstances of the moment - made necessary by the extent of the Complainant’s fight and the need to arrest him as soon as possible, lest he be in possession of any further weapons. The first three CEW discharges occurred as the Complainant fled from police and appeared intended to prevent the Complainant from escaping police custody. The final CEW discharge, when the Complainant was on the ground, appeared intended to facilitate the handcuffing process. The two quick right-handed strikes when trying to gain control of the Complainant in the middle of Torbram Road, after he had fled for the second time, would not appear disproportionate. It was clear at this time that the Complainant was not about to surrender peacefully, and both parties were at risk in the middle of a roadway.
The injury sustained by the Complainant could have resulted from his fall after being tasered by the SO, or his fall on Torbram Road while fleeing arrest. In whichever circumstance, there are no grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than within the limits of the criminal law.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges on this case. The file is closed.
Date: February 3, 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 times are derived from the internal clocks of the weapons, and are not necessarily synchronous between weapons and with actual time. [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.