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 injury of a 23-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 22, 2024, at 3:24 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) advised the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the PRP, on October 21, 2024, at around 5:30 p.m., two PRP officers were in an unmarked police cruiser when they attempted a vehicle stop. The vehicle fled from the officers but no pursuit was initiated. The officers located the same vehicle on Cancross Court and initiated another traffic stop. The vehicle collided with the cruiser and the driver, the Complainant, ran. The officers chased and caught the Complainant, and deployed a conducted energy weapon (CEW), resulting in him falling to the ground and striking his face. He was arrested, searched, and found to be in possession of a loaded handgun. The Complainant was taken to the Mississauga Hospital (MH) and diagnosed with a fractured mandible.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/10/22 at 3:51 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/10/22 at 5:40 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

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 30, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on November 27, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the driveway entrance of the parking lot at 5705 Cancross Court, Mississauga.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

On October 22, 2024, starting at about 5:40 a.m., SIU examined the scene. In the driveway of 5705 Cancross Court was a PRP unmarked black Dodge Charger, oriented in an easterly direction, with collision damage to the driver-side corner. A white Mercedes sedan, also with collision damage to the driver-side front corner, was resting against the PRP vehicle oriented in a northwest direction.

Figure 1 - Collision damage to the Mercedes

A CEW Model Taser 7, with one live cartridge, was collected by the SIU.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data - The WO

On October 21, 2024, at 5:39:21 p.m., the device was armed.

Starting at 5:39:22 p.m., the trigger was pulled, and the Bay 1 cartridge deployed with an electrical discharge duration of 5.057 seconds.

Starting at 5:54:46 p.m., the device was rendered safe.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

On October 21, 2024, starting at 5:33 p.m., the SO and the WO, in the parking lot of a Shell gas station, followed a Mercedes sedan driven [by the Complainant] onto Matheson Boulevard. The officers initiated a traffic stop on Whittle Road. The Complainant slowed and pulled to the side of the road briefly before continuing. He made a left turn on Watline Avenue, accelerated quickly, drove into the oncoming lane and passed slower moving traffic.

Starting at 5:37:30 p.m., the SO pulled to the side of the road and stopped.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On October 21, 2024, starting at 5:39 p.m., the SO drove onto the driveway entrance of 5705 Cancross Court and collided with a Mercedes sedan [the Complainant]. The SO ran to the open front passenger door of the Mercedes as the Complainant was getting out and running away. The WO approached from the back and both officers chased the Complainant. After a few strides, the SO and the WO grabbed the Complainant and told him to get on the ground as he struggled and pulled away. The WO deployed a CEW, temporarily incapacitating the Complainant, who fell forward into a decorative rock bed. The SO knelt on the Complainant’s back, and pulled his right hand from underneath him and placed it behind his back. He removed his handcuffs, and the Complainant pulled his right arm away. The WO warned him he would deploy the CEW again if he did not comply. The WO was on the Complainant’s legs and told him he was under arrest for “dangerous operation” and “flight from police”. The SO pulled the Complainant’s right arm behind his back and secured the handcuffs. The Complainant was assisted to a standing position, walked to the cruiser, and placed up against it.

Starting at 5:41 p.m., the SO held the Complainant’s arm and told him he was under arrest for “dangerous operation” and “flight from police”. The Complainant turned into the SO and pulled away. The SO forced him against the cruiser and told him to stay there. The Complainant pushed off the cruiser as the SO struggled to retain control and told him to stop trying to run.

Starting at 5:41:29 p.m., the SO grounded the Complainant.

Starting at 5:42 p.m., the Complainant was assisted to a standing position, walked to the cruiser, and searched. He twisted his body and pulled away, and was told to stop resisting.

Starting at 5:44 p.m., the Complainant continued struggling and maneuvered away from the cruiser as the SO and the WO resisted his efforts. The Complainant was bent over at the waist and forced to the ground. The WO held the Complainant while the SO searched him.

Starting at 5:47 p.m., the Complainant tried to get up as the officers held him down.

Starting at 5:49 p.m., the Complainant was pushed against a cruiser while the SO searched him.

Starting at 5:51:41 p.m., the SO located a firearm under the Complainant’s left pant leg at his ankle. The SO removed the magazine and secured the firearm finding one live round in the chamber.

Communications Recordings

Starting at 5:42:43 p.m., a police officer advised PRP dispatch that there was a departmental motor vehicle collision with no injuries at Matheson Boulevard and Cancross Court. The Complainant was in custody.

A firearm was found on the Complainant and cleared with one round in the chamber. The Complainant was injured. He attempted to escape and was grounded, his face hitting the ground.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the PRP between October 22, 2024, and December 4, 2024:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Occurrence Details Report / Incident Details Report
• Incident History
• Communications recordings
• BWC footage
• ICC footage
• CEW deployment data - the WO’s CEW
• Notes - the SO and the WO
• PRP Directives: Criminal Investigations / Incident Response

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from MH on November 25, 2024.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and a police eyewitness, as well as video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of October 21, 2024, the Complainant was operating a Mercedes sedan in the area of Hurontario Street and Matheson Boulevard, Mississauga. He drove away from officers in an unmarked cruiser. Eventually finding himself on a dead-end street – Cancross Court – the Complainant turned into the driveway of a business, circled back, and was exiting the driveway when the Mercedes collided with another vehicle.

The SO, with the WO as his passenger, had been operating the other vehicle. He had spotted the Mercedes and tried to pull it over on Whittle Road north of Matheson Boulevard for what he believed to be window tinting in contravention of the Highway Traffic Act. It appeared the Mercedes was preparing to stop before it accelerated away, travelling west on Watline Avenue. The SO brought his cruiser to a stop for a period, after which he continued at moderate speeds in the last known direction of the Mercedes. He had spotted it travelling south on Avebury Road, followed it as the road became Cancross Court, and turned towards the driveway entrance as the Mercedes was exiting.

Immediately after the collision, the Complainant exited the Mercedes through the front passenger door and ran. He had only taken a few strides when he was grabbed by the SO. The Complainant struggled to free himself from the SO’s hold and was tasered from behind by the WO. His body locked-up and he fell front first into a bed of rocks. The Complainant was handcuffed behind the back, lifted to his feet and escorted to the cruiser, against which he was placed to be searched.

At the unmarked cruiser, the Complainant attempted to move away from the SO. The officer reacted by tripping the Complainant to the ground. The Complainant was again stood up and the search resumed.

At the hospital following his arrest, the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured left mandible.

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.

Section 320.13, Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation

320.13 (1) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public.

Section 320.17, Criminal Code - Flight from Peace Officer

320.17 Everyone commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel while being pursued by a peace officer and who fails, without reasonable excuse, to stop the motor vehicle or vessel as soon as is reasonable in the circumstances.

Section 73(3), Highway Traffic Act - Equipment Obstructing View

73 (3) No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle on which the surface of the windshield or of any window to the direct left or right of the driver’s seat has been coated with any coloured spray or other coloured or reflective material that substantially obscures the interior of the motor vehicle when viewed from outside the motor vehicle.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by PRP officers on October 21, 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.

The SO was within his rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody. He had observed the Mercedes with a level of window tinting that he believed was in violation of section 73(3) of the Highway Traffic Act, and was entitled to stop the vehicle on that basis. Thereafter, when the Complainant failed to stop for police and then collided with the cruiser, he was arguably subject to arrest for flight from police and dangerous driving contrary to sections and 320.17 and 320.13(1) of the Criminal Code, respectively.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO was lawful. At issue are the first two groundings. The first was the cumulative result of the SO grappling with the Complainant as his partner, the WO, fired his CEW. The Complainant was trying to get away and putting up a vigorous effort to free himself. It would appear that taking the Complainant down, including with the use of a CEW after a period of struggle on his feet, was a legitimate tactic in the circumstances as it would position the officers to better manage the Complainant’s resistance. The second takedown also seemed a reasonable option. The Complainant, now handcuffed and having repeatedly been told to stop resisting, had moved himself away from the cruiser in what the SO would have reasonably interpreted as a continued effort to flee the scene. In light of the Complainant’s protracted resistance to that point, and the fact that the SO was alone at the time (the WO having momentarily stepped away), I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officer acted precipitously in forcing the Complainant to the ground.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, most likely the result of the second of the two takedowns, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than within the limits of the criminal law. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: February 14, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit