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 the serious injuries of a 36-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 16, 2024, at 12:07 p.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On October 15, 2024, YRP unmarked vehicles attempted to box-in another vehicle in the course of a stolen auto investigation. The suspect vehicle broke containment, and there was contact between police and suspect vehicles resulting in the suspect vehicle going off the road at the intersection of Jane Street and Lloydtown-Aurora Road. No injuries were obvious at the time. On October 16, 2024, at 12:10 a.m., the suspect driver was taken to hospital. At approximately 9:00 a.m., as the suspect was being released back into police custody, officers learned from medical staff of fractures to his vertebrae.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/10/16 at 2:00 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/10/16 at 3:35 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on October 16, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between October 18 and 25, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Officials (WO)

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 unnecessary

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on October 23, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the intersection of Jane Street and Lloydtown-Aurora Road, King.

On October 21, 2024, the SIU forensic investigator and reconstructionist arrived in the area of the incident. The physical evidence indicated a Mazda had stopped in the northbound lanes of Jane Street just south of the intersection with Lloydtown-Aurora Road. The intersection was controlled by the traffic lights.

Expert Evidence

SIU Reconstruction

The SIU reconstructionist reviewed all available data and video to assist in understanding the dynamics of the collision. The following is a summary of the reconstructionist’s findings.

Chevrolet Trailblazer – Operated by the SO

No air bags were deployed in the collision and no collision event was recorded.

GMC Terrain - Operated by WO #2

This vehicle was involved in two collisions. There was minor damage to the right side at the front, near and including the front right wheel. This damage was consistent with a collision with the Mazda as the Mazda entered the intersection after escaping containment. Both vehicles were in motion, driving in about the same direction and at a similar rate of speed. There was also moderate damage to the front left corner of the vehicle, which was consistent with having struck a metal traffic light pole immediately following the collision with the Mazda.

Figure 1 - Damage to the front right side of the GMC Terrain

Figure 2 - Damage to the front left side of the GMC Terrain

No air bags deployed in either collision. There was, however, a non-deployment event recorded by the Airbag Control Module, likely from the collision with the metal pole. Due to the amount of damage the vehicle sustained, the dynamics of the collision with the metal pole, and the relatively low speed involved, it was not surprising that no air bags deployed.

The vehicle’s Crash Data Recorder (CDR) provided pre-collision data, including speed, braking, and accelerator pedal position.

At 12:14:44 a.m. (about four seconds prior to the collision with the Mazda), the CDR data indicated that WO #2’s rate of speed was about 87 km/h. As per the Air Support video, this was also about when the collision occurred between the Mazda and the police vehicle driven by WO #3 as the Mazda escaped the containment attempt. WO #2 was south of the containment with what would have been a view ahead of him of the collision and the containment escape.

At 12:14:45 a.m. (about three seconds before the collision with the Mazda), WO #2 applied the brake. His rate of speed had decreased to 76 km/h. As per the Air Support video, WO #2 was passing the other police vehicles involved in the containment attempt.

At 12:14:46 a.m. (about two seconds before the collision with the Mazda), the brake was off, the engine throttle decreased slightly, and WO #2’s rate of speed decreased to 70 km/h. He had started a sweeping turn to the right in front of the other police vehicles and was about to enter the intersection.

At 12:14:47 a.m. (about one second before the collision with the Mazda), the brake was on, and WO #2’s rate of speed was 60 km/h.

At 12:14:48 a.m. (when the collision with the Mazda occurred), WO #2’s rate of speed had decreased to about 30 km/h.

At 12:14:49 a.m. (about one second after the collision with the Mazda), WO #2 struck the metal pole at about 33 km/h.

The Mazda – Operated by CW #1

There was damage to the right rear side of the vehicle, which might have occurred when the Mazda escaped from the containment.

Figure 3 - Damage to the right rear side of the Mazda

There was collision damage to the left side near the rear wheel, which might have occurred during the collision with the front right side of WO #2’s vehicle as the vehicles entered the intersection. There was collision damage to the front left corner of the Mazda, which might also have occurred during the same collision.

Figure 4 - Damage to the front left side of the Mazda

Figure 5 - Damage to the rear left side of the Mazda

As per the CDR Report, the driver and front seat passenger of the Mazda were seat belted. There was no data for the rear seat passenger. Because of the condition of the Mazda upon examination, it could not be determined if the rear seat passenger was wearing a seatbelt. The front and side air bags had deployed, and a collision event was recorded from this interaction. It could not be determined which impact triggered the air bag deployment.

As per the Air Support video, the collision event which triggered the air bag deployment would not have been the collision when the Mazda escaped from the containment. The air bag deployment event was most likely to have been the collision in the intersection with WO #2’s vehicle.

At 12:14:43 a.m. (about five seconds prior to the collision with WO #2’s vehicle), as per the CDR data, the brakes were on, and the Mazda was stopped. This was consistent with what was seen on the Air Support video. One half-second later, the brakes were off.

At 12:14:44 a.m. (about four seconds prior to the collision), the brakes were off, and they were never re-applied. The engine throttle was at 31 percent. The Mazda had not yet registered a rate of speed. One-half second later, the rate of speed was 33 km/h.

At 12:14:45 a.m. (about three seconds prior to the collision), the engine throttle was at 77 percent, and the rate of speed was 10 km/h. One half-second later, the rate of speed was 12 km/h.

At 12:14:46 a.m. (about two seconds prior to the collision), the engine throttle was at 100 percent, and the rate of speed was 18 km/h. One-half second later, the rate of speed was 23 km/h.

At 12:14:47 a.m. (about one second prior to the collision), the engine throttle was at 85 percent, and the rate of speed was 27 km/h.

At 12:14:48 a.m. (when the collision occurred), the engine throttle was at 37 percent, and the rate of speed was 36 km/h.

Conclusion

The CDR data and the examination of the Mazda and YRP vehicles were consistent with the Air Support video. The physical evidence indicated the Mazda had stopped in the northbound lanes of Jane Street just south of the intersection with Lloydtown-Aurora Road. The SO had stopped his vehicle directly in front of the Mazda. Other YRP officers in vehicles attempted to contain the Mazda. As WO #3’s police vehicle approached the passenger side of the Mazda, the Mazda collided with WO #3’s police vehicle and escaped from the containment. The Mazda headed northeast towards the intersection and accelerated. WO #2 drove quickly northbound on Jane Street to the left of the other police vehicles that had tried to contain the Mazda. He passed the other police vehicles. The Mazda entered the intersection and started to turn right (eastbound on Lloydtown-Aurora Road). WO #2 turned to the right in a sharp and sweeping motion in front of the other police vehicles and collided with the Mazda in the southeast quadrant of the intersection near the curb. The right side of the police vehicle struck the left side of the Mazda. The Mazda veered off the road to the southeast and into some bushes. The police vehicle continued a short distance eastbound, mounted the curb and struck a metal pole about one second later. About eight seconds after the Mazda went into the bushes, the SO drove over the curb towards the Mazda and the front of his vehicle struck the rear of the Mazda.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

YRP Air Support Video

On October 15, 2024, starting at about 11:46:49 p.m., a vehicle [now known to be a Mazda 3 operated by CW #1] was captured travelling westbound on Major MacKenzie Drive. The Mazda turned northbound and into a parking lot where it circled before exiting and travelling southbound on Graham Street.

Starting at about 11:56:19 p.m., the Mazda turned northbound onto Bathurst Street.

On October 16, 2024, starting at about 12:02:56 a.m., the Mazda travelled westbound on King Road and then northbound on Jane Street.

Starting at about 12:10:31 a.m., a vehicle [now known to be operated by the SO] travelled behind the Mazda. The SO passed the Mazda and travelled as the lead vehicle. A vehicle [now known to be a Nissan Rogue operated by WO #1] travelled behind the Mazda. A vehicle [now known to be operated by WO #5] travelled behind WO #1.

Starting at about 12:14:41 a.m., just short of the intersection of Jane Street and Lloydtown-Aurora Road, the SO braked, and the Mazda stopped behind him. WO #5 stopped at the Mazda’s driver’s side, WO #1 stopped immediately behind the Mazda, and WO #3 approached to stop on the Mazda’s passenger side.

Starting at about 12:14:44 a.m., the Mazda turned right (northeast) and squeezed through a gap between the rear passenger side of the SO’s vehicle in front and the driver’s side front corner of WO #3’s vehicle to the passenger side of the Mazda. The Mazda travelled along the right curb of Jane Street and turned eastbound onto Lloydtown-Aurora Road.

Starting at about 12:14:46 a.m., a vehicle [now known to be operated by WO #2] travelled northbound in the southbound lane on Jane Street past the group of vehicles. The trees obscured the view of the southeast corner of Jane Street and Lloydtown-Aurora Road [now known to be where WO #2 struck the Mazda’s driver’s side]. WO #2’s vehicle emerged from the trees as it struck a light post and continued eastbound.

Starting at about 12:15:32 a.m., the police officers converged on a figure [now known to be CW #1] in the tree thicket.

Communications Recordings

On October 16, 2024, starting at about 0000:01 hours into the recording, a police officer reported, “It’s gonna be continuing westbound, stand by…..gonna be making a southbound turn on Thomas Cook.” The vehicle [now known to be a stolen Mazda 3 operated by CW #1] was reported travelling westbound on Valley Vista towards Dufferin Street. A police officer reported the Mazda was involved in an earlier attempted vehicle theft. The uniformed patrol vehicles were directed to stay away from the area and allow the undercover officers to conduct surveillance.

Starting at about 0001:55 hours, a police officer reported the Mazda had turned northbound on Dufferin Street. A police officer subsequently reported the Mazda travelled westbound on Major MacKenzie Drive past McNaughton Street.

Starting at about 0006:20 hours, an officer reported the Mazda travelling southbound onto Graham Street and then eastbound on Church Street.

Starting at about 0101.41 hours, a police officer requested that tow trucks attend a collision at the intersection of Lloydtown-Aurora Road and Jane Street for the Mazda and an unmarked YRP police vehicle.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the YRP between October 17, 2024, and October 31, 2024:

• Policy - Suspect Apprehension Pursuits
• YRP Motor Vehicle Collision Report
• Air Support video
• Notes – WO #3, WO #1, WO #2, WO #4, and WO #5
• General Occurrence Reports
• Communications recordings
• Training records - the SO

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between October 17, 2024, and October 21, 2024:

• Ambulance Call Report – the Complainant – York Emergency Medical Services
• Medical records – the Complainant
• Medical records – CW #1 - Central East Correctional Centre
• Medical records – CW #1 - Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and other police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

In the early morning of October 16, 2024, a team of YRP officers formed to combat auto theft in York Region – Project Auto Guard – converged on a Mazda 3 at the intersection of Jane Street and Lloydtown-Aurora Road, King. In unmarked police vehicles, the officers surrounded the Mazda in the northbound lane of Jane Street as it came to a stop for a red light. The SO was stopped directly ahead of the Mazda, WO #5 was positioned by the Mazda’s driver’s side, WO #1 was directly behind the Mazda, and WO #3 was by the vehicle’s passenger side.

CW #1 was driving the Mazda. The Complainant was in the rear passenger-side seat. CW #2 was in the front passenger seat. They had been followed by the undercover team and a police helicopter for a period of time, suspected of operating a stolen vehicle. When boxed-in by the police vehicles, CW #1 accelerated through a gap between the rear and front of the SO’s and WO #3’s vehicles, respectively. In doing so, he struck WO #3’s vehicle, and was in turn struck by WO #2’s vehicle.

WO #2 had observed the takedown taking shape in front of him and the Mazda attempting to get away as he travelled north on Jane Street. The officer entered onto the southbound lane, maneuvered around the police vehicles, and turned eastward towards the Mazda, striking its driver’s side and pushing it onto a grassy boulevard at the southeast corner of the intersection.

CW #1 and CW #2 exited the Mazda through the front passenger door after the vehicle came to a stop. They were shortly located and arrested by YRP officers.

The Complainant was pulled from the rear passenger-side door of the vehicle by WO #5 and WO #2, taken to the ground and handcuffed.

A hospital following his arrest, the Complainant was diagnosed with fractured vertebrae.

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.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by YRP officers on October 16, 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 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.

By the time of the takedown, the team of officers were apprised of information that the Mazda had the wrong licence plates attached, and that the vehicle had previously been involved in another auto theft. On this record, it would appear the officers, including the SO, were within their rights in surrounding the vehicle to take its occupants into custody for possession of stolen goods.

WO #2 used lawful force when he used his vehicle to strike the Mazda. By that point, it was apparent that the driver of the vehicle – CW #1 – was attempting to get away, and, having struck WO #3’s vehicle in the process, that he was prepared to endanger public safety in doing so. To prevent that risk from materializing and effect the arrest of the Mazda’s occupants, I am satisfied WO #2 acted reasonably by ramming the vehicle. In arriving at that conclusion, I note that the collision occurred at relatively slow speed.

Lastly, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing that excessive force was used to extricate the Complainant from the Mazda and handcuff him. It is alleged that the Complainant was pulled from the rear seat and then subjected to ten to fifteen minutes’ worth of strikes from police officers to his ribs and left kidney, including with the use of batons and firearms. This account, however, is contested by the evidence of the two police officers interviewed by the SIU who physically engaged the Complainant - WO #5 and WO #2. In what amounts to reasonably necessary force, they say that the Complainant was forcibly pulled from the Mazda after he refused to exit of his own accord, and that he was met with a series of four or five punches when he resisted on the ground before he was handcuffed behind the back. The assertion that the Complainant was the victim of a protracted beating is also belied by the video footage from the helicopter, which undercut key parts of this description of events. In the circumstances, in the absence of some reason to prefer the more incriminating evidence over that of the officers’, and evidence to suspect it is less than reliable, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the Complainant was at the receiving end of unjustified force.

For the foregoing reasons, while it remains unclear when precisely the Complainant’s injuries were incurred, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: February 13, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit