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 November 11, 2024, at 12:39 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of an injury to a man refusing to identify himself [now known to be the Complainant].

According to the PRP, on November 10, 2024, at 7:55 p.m., PRP police officers located a stolen vehicle, carjacked earlier in the evening, abandoned. The Complainant returned to the vehicle, and the police officers attempted to arrest him. The Complainant resisted arrest, and a conducted energy weapon (CEW) was deployed. Once under control, blood was observed in the Complainant’s ear, and he was taken to the Etobicoke General Hospital (EGH). He was diagnosed with a brain bleed, and admitted.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/11/11 at 7:15 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/11/11 at 11:05 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on November 20, 2024.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on November 14, 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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness official was interviewed on November 16, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the parking lot of 175 Toryork Drive, Toronto, in and around Unit F46.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – The SO

On November 10, 2024, at 7:58:33 p.m., the trigger was pulled, the cartridge in Bay 1 was deployed, and electricity was discharged for .687 seconds.

At 7:58:34 p.m., the trigger was pulled, the cartridge in Bay 2 was deployed, and electricity was discharged for 4.951 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Dashcam Video – Vehicle Monitoring Service

The video was recorded on November 10, 2024, was one minute in length and started at 7:58:41 p.m.

The footage captured a parking lot of a business park [now known to be at the south end of 175 Toryork Drive, facing north]. The business park had single story buildings on both the east and west side of the parking area. It was dark and there was artificial lighting from some of the units in the business park.

At ten seconds into the video, at 7:58:51 p.m., a set of headlights was seen to approach from the north entrance of the business park [now known to be an unmarked PRP vehicle]. At the same time, a SUV [now known to be a Honda, driven by an unknown person] travelled northbound in the business park. There were several vehicles parked in front of different units in the business park. Halfway up the business park on the west side [now known to be in front of unit F46] was a Mercedes [now known to be a stolen vehicle].

At 17 seconds, the unmarked PRP vehicle passed the front of the stolen Mercedes and started to back into a parking spot on the east side of the business park. The Honda partially blocked the view of the PRP unmarked police vehicle.

At 30 seconds, the taillights activated at the rear of the Honda and a person [now known to be the Complainant] walked towards the Mercedes. The Complainant approached the driver’s door of the Mercedes as the unmarked PRP police vehicle drove out of a parking spot on the east side of the business park and stopped in front of the Mercedes. The lights of the Mercedes illuminated momentarily and then, at 41 seconds into the video, the Complainant was seen to run northbound in the direction of the Honda. The Complainant ran to the passenger side of the Honda, which had started to drive away northbound.

At 51 seconds, the Complainant tried to enter a passenger door of the Honda, and a police officer wearing a visible police vest [now known to be the SO] pointed a CEW at the Complainant. The Complainant was able to open a door of the Honda, and the SO deployed his CEW at 55 seconds into the video. The Complainant locked-up and fell as the Honda sped away. WO #1 dropped his weight onto the Complainant, seemingly dropping his right forearm into the upper body.

Video Footage - Units 16 and 17 – Southward Facing Camera

These units were located on the east side of the business park at 175 Toryork Drive. This was north of the location where the stolen Mercedes was parked on the west side of the business park.

The southward camera video recording was 20 minutes in length and started at 7:40 p.m., November 10, 2024.

At 7:43 p.m., a sedan [now known to be an unmarked PRP vehicle] entered the screen from the right (north) and continued south, off the left side of the screen, at a slow rate.

At 7:44 p.m., a SUV [now known to be a Honda Pilot driven by an unknown person] entered the screen from the left and travelled northbound. The Honda was followed by someone [now known to be the SO] running and carrying a flashlight. The SO was followed behind by a second person running [now known to be WO #1].

Video Footage - Units 16 and 17 - Northward Facing Camera

The northward camera video recording was 20 minutes in length and started at 7:40 p.m., November 10, 2024.

At 7:43 p.m., a sedan [now known to be an unmarked PRP vehicle] entered the screen from the right (north) and continued south, off the left side of the screen, at a slow rate.

At 7:44 p.m., a SUV [now known to be a Honda Pilot] entered the screen from the left side of the screen (south). A man [now known to be the Complainant] ran north at the front passenger door and tried to open it as the Honda continued to travel. The Honda stopped and the Complainant was able to open the front passenger door; however, he could not get into the Honda. The SO followed behind the Complainant. The Complainant had his back to the camera and was about to enter the front passenger area of the Honda when the SO, his back to the camera, deployed his CEW. The Honda moved forward as the Complainant suffered neuromuscular incapacitation and, at 7:44:43 p.m., fell forward. The front of his body and his head appeared to strike the roadway.

WO #1 was the first police officer to reach the Complainant, on the Complainant’s right side. The SO was off to WO #1’s right side. The SO approached the Complainant’s left side and both officers struggled with the Complainant on the roadway.

At 7:46:24 p.m., the police officers handcuffed the Complainant behind the back.

Communications Recordings

On November 10, 2024, at 5:10 p.m., the PRP received a telephone call from a man reporting that, about five minutes prior, his father had been robbed in his garage in Mississauga. His father’s keys, cellular telephone and car were stolen. The suspects had a knife. The vehicle was a Mercedes, and it had tracking capabilities. His father was shaken but not injured.

At 7:17 p.m., PRP received information from the CW (vehicle monitoring service) that the vehicle had been located at 175 Toryork Drive, Toronto.

At 8:01 p.m., WO #1 advised they had one person in custody and an ambulance was required as a CEW had been deployed.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the PRP between November 10, 2024, and November 18, 2024:

• Communications recordings
• Dashcam video from vehicle monitoring service
• Incident Details Report
• Incident History Report
• Notes – WO #1 and WO #2
• Occurrence Reports
• Officer List
• Person Details Report – the Complainant
• CEW deployment data
• Policies - Criminal Investigations / Incident Response

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between November 20, 2024, and December 4, 2024:

• Ambulance Call Report from Toronto Paramedic Services
• Video footage from Units 16 and 17, 175 Toryork Drive
• The Complainant’s medical records from EGH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, and a police and non-police witness, and 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 or the release of his notes.

In the evening of November 10, 2024, the SO, in the company of his partner, WO #1, made their way to the business park at 175 Toryork Drive, Toronto. With information provided by a vehicle monitoring service, they had tracked a stolen Mercedes to the area. The owner of the Mercedes had earlier that day been carjacked at his residence in Mississauga. At the time, one of the two assailants had brandished a knife.

The officers, in an unmarked cruiser, travelled past the stolen Mercedes. It was parked front forward with no one inside in front of Unit F46, on the west side of the business park. As WO #1 reversed into a parking spot south and east of the Mercedes, a Honda Pilot travelled north past their location and came to a stop in front of the stolen vehicle. The Complainant emerged from the front passenger seat of the Honda and began to make his way towards the driver’s door of the Mecedes, unlocking the vehicle with the stolen key fob. As WO #1 pulled out and brought his vehicle to a stop behind the Honda, the Complainant began to run towards the Honda, which had started to travel north in the parking lot.

WO #1 and the SO exited their cruiser and ran after the Complainant, who was attempting to re-enter via the front passenger side door of the moving Honda. The SO drew and fired his CEW. The Complainant immediately locked-up and fell face first onto the ground. The Honda sped away.

The officers engaged the Complainant on the ground. The Complainant refused to readily give up his arms to be handcuffed, and was met by a knee strike (WO #1) and a punch (the SO) to the torso.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a brain bleed.

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 PRP officers on November 10, 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.

WO #1 and the SO were aware of the 911 call about the carjacking and the fact that the Mercedes owner had been threatened with a knife. With the help of the car monitoring service, they had located the stolen vehicle in the parking lot at 175 Toryork Drive and observed as a male – the Complainant – moved towards it, unlocking it as he did so. On this record, I am satisfied that the Complainant was subject to arrest for auto theft.

I am also satisfied that WO #1 and the SO used no more force than was necessary in taking the Complainant into custody. With the Complainant running away from the officers attempting to re-enter the Honda, the officers could reasonably anticipate that he would resist his arrest. With that in mind, and reason to believe that the Complainant could be armed with a knife, the SO acted reasonably in firing his CEW. If the weapon worked, the officers would have an opportunity to safely approach and arrest a temporarily incapacitated Complainant without having to physically engage a potentially armed individual. It is highly regrettable that the Complainant likely suffered his brain bleed in the fall from the CEW discharge, but the unfortunate consequences of the force used by the officer do not detract from its reasonableness in the circumstances. As for the strikes delivered by the officers after he was down, I am unable to reasonably conclude that they were excessive in light of the evidence that the Complainant resisted arrest on the ground.

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

Date: February 28, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit