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 33-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On November 5, 2024, at 7:30 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On November 5, 2024, at 12:48 a.m., the Complainant, in custody in a cell at 22 Division, was found to have a cell phone on him. He refused to turn over the phone and a struggle ensued with two constables and a special constable. The Complainant was taken to Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH), and diagnosed with a fractured orbital bone at 7:00 a.m.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/11/05 at 7:41 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/11/05 at 9:50 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on November 5, 2024.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on November 5, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on November 28, 2024.

Service Employee Witness (SEW)

SEW Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The service employee witness was interviewed on November 28, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired inside a cell at 22 Division, 7750 Hurontario Road, Brampton.

Physical Evidence

On November 5, 2024, at 9:50 a.m., SIU forensic investigators attended the scene. PRP had secured the cell with a seal. The cell measured two metres long by one-and-a-half metres wide. There was a red stain on the tile floor next to the toilet. There was a security camera on the hallway wall opposite the cell door.

Cell at PRP 22 Division

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

The SIU received BWC videos from PRP for cameras assigned to the WO, the SO, Officer #1, Officer #2, Officer #3, Officer #4, Officer #5, Officer #6, Officer #7, Officer #8, Officer #9, Officer #10 and Officer #11.

On November 4, 2024, at 9:58:36 p.m., Officer #1 and Officer #2 arrived at a residence in the area of Chinguacousy Road and Steeles Avenue West. They spoke with the CW, who denied there was a problem at the address. They spoke with an individual at a nearby residence, who reported the CW had been assaulted by a man [the Complainant]. Officer #1 and Officer #2 left the area.

At 11:35:52 p.m., Officer #1 and Officer #2 returned to the initial residence. They spoke with another witness, who said the Complainant had returned to the house in a vehicle and struck multiple vehicles on the road. The Complainant had destroyed property inside the house. Additional police officers arrived. Officer #11 advised the Complainant was subject to arrest for a breach of the conditions of his release and would be investigated for dangerous driving.

At 11:57:10 p.m., the WO spoke with the CW on the street. The Complainant approached them from further down the street. The WO told the Complainant to stop, to put his hands behind his back, and that he was under arrest. The Complainant did not stop and walked onto the front lawn. He said, “Bro, I’ll shit on you.” The WO grabbed the Complainant’s left wrist. Officer #11 approached them and grabbed the Complainant’s right side. The WO and Officer #11 forced the Complainant slowly into a kneeling position onto the driveway. The Complainant appeared to resist. The WO handcuffed the left wrist while Officer #11 pinned the Complainant’s head to the ground. Officer #11 told the Complainant to “stop resisting” and “don’t reach for it”. The Complainant kept his right hand underneath his body and would not provide it to be handcuffed. The right hand was successfully handcuffed.

The Complainant was stood up. The WO and Officer #11 escorted the Complainant to the WO’s vehicle. He would not walk. As soon as they reached the police vehicle, the Complainant placed his foot against the police vehicle and pushed off of it to keep his distance. Officer #11 and Officer #2 held the Complainant up against the police vehicle while the WO searched the Complainant. Nothing was found. The Complainant threatened to bite Officer #2. The Complainant resisted being placed inside the police vehicle. He pushed off of the police vehicle with his feet. Officer #11 grabbed the Complainant’s right leg. The Complainant said, “You’re breaking my foot,” repeatedly. He looked at the WO and threatened to choke him. The Complainant’s face appeared uninjured. The police officers decided to place the Complainant in a police vehicle with a larger prisoner compartment.

On November 5, 2024, at 12:05:09 a.m., the Complainant was escorted to a different police vehicle. He again pushed off of the vehicle with his feet to not enter the rear prisoner compartment. He growled and tried to bite police officers. He was secured successfully in the rear prisoner compartment of the SO’s police vehicle.

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage

The footage was from police vehicles assigned to the SO and Officer #12.

On November 5, 2024, at 12:06:07 a.m., the ICCS was activated in the rear prisoner compartment of the SO’s police vehicle. The Complainant laid across the rear seat and kicked repeatedly at the left rear passenger door. His face appeared uninjured. He cursed at the SO almost constantly throughout the transport to PRP 22 Division.

At 12:26:13 a.m., they arrived at PRP 22 Division.

Custody Footage

The videos had no audio track.

On November 5, 2024, at 12:32:23 a.m., the Complainant was escorted into the booking hall from the sally port. The Complainant had to be carried into the booking hall as he would not stand firmly on his feet. He was subsequently carried directly into a cell.

At 12:33:14 a.m., the Complainant was secured in the cell. He laid on the floor in the recovery position with his head next to the toilet and his feet near the cell door.

At 12:43:47 a.m., the Complainant stood up. He appeared to yell at no one. He rubbed at his left shoulder with his right hand.

At 12:44:46 a.m., he sat on the cell bench.

At 12:45:40 a.m., he removed a cell phone from the right front pocket of his pants. He appeared to speak with someone on speakerphone.

At 12:46:26 a.m., the SO ran to the cell door. He attempted to reach through the bars and grab the phone from the Complainant but was unsuccessful. The WO arrived at the cell door. The SO appeared to speak with the Complainant. The SEW arrived at the cell door.

At 12:46:38 a.m., the SEW pointed something at the Complainant through the bars of the cell door. The Complainant shielded his eyes. Nothing appeared to emit from the item.

At 12:47:10 a.m., the SEW opened the cell door. The WO entered the cell and was followed by the SO. The view of their interaction with the Complainant was partially obscured by the SEW, who stood in front of the cell door. The Complainant remained seated on the bench. He was pushed backwards against the bench wall and then forced down onto his right side on the bench. The SO grabbed the cell phone from the Complainant’s right hand.

At 12:47:37 a.m., the SO exited the cell and turned around to face the interior of the cell where the WO remained. The view of the WO and the Complainant was obscured by the SEW. The Complainant had sat up and leaned forward towards where the WO stood obscured by the SEW.

At 12:47:39 a.m., the SO re-entered the cell. The WO pushed the Complainant into the far corner of his cell on the bench. The WO stood over the Complainant. The SO went to the WO’s right side. The WO braced himself with his left hand against the cell wall. The WO briefly stood on the cell bench over top of the Complainant. They appeared to struggle.

At 12:47:52 a.m., the WO and the SO exited the cell. The SO and the SEW closed the cell door. The WO immediately adjusted the collar of his uniform shirt.

At 12:48:26 a.m., the SEW moved away from the cell door and the view of the Complainant became unobscured. The Complainant sat on the cell bench and leaned forward. He placed his right hand against the right side of his face.

At 12:59:56 a.m., the Complainant had exhibited an emotional response for several minutes when he looked towards the camera briefly. The left side of his face appeared swollen. He wiped his face with his right sleeve, after which blood was apparent on his sleeve.

At 1:08:01 a.m., the Complainant looked towards the camera and the special constables outside his cell. He gestured towards his face. His left eye appeared swollen shut.

At 1:23:02 a.m., paramedic services arrived.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from PRP between November 5, 2024, and November 28, 2024:

• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• BWC footage
• ICCS footage
• Custody footage
• Notes – the WO and the SEW
• Incident Response Policy

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between November 7, 2024, and November 29, 2024:

• The Complainant’s medical records from BCH
• Cell phone videos from the Complainant and the CW
• Video footage from a residence in the area of Chinguacousy Road and Steeles Avenue West, Brampton

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and 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.

Just before midnight of November 5, 2024, the Complainant was arrested by PRP officers at a residence in the vicinity of Chinguacousy Road and Steeles Avenue West, Brampton. He had been at the address in violation of a condition of his release. The Complainant physically resisted arrest but was taken into custody without injury and transported to 22 Division.

As the Complainant remained agitated on arrival at the police station, he was placed directly in a cell prior to being booked. The plan was to complete the intake procedure once he had calmed. Within minutes of his being lodged in a cell, the Complainant retrieved a cell phone from a pocket and began to use it. It had not been located in the brief search conducted at the site of the arrest.

The SO, in the company of the WO and a special constable, the SEW, attended at the cells and directed that the Complainant provide them the phone. The Complainant refused to do so, and the SO and the WO entered the cell to forcibly remove it. The WO took hold of the Complainant, and pinned him against the wall and then the cell bench as the SO wrestled the phone free. The SO walked away to leave the cell but quickly returned. The Complainant had grabbed hold of the WO’s collar. The WO again pinned the Complainant against the wall and delivered two to three punches to his chest. The SO physically intervened as well. The WO freed himself from the Complainant’s grasp, and he and the SO left the cell.

The Complainant bled from the face after the altercation. He was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left orbital bone.

Section 34, Criminal Code - Defence of Person – Use or Threat of Force

34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) They believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

(b) The act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

(c) The act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:

(a) the nature of the force or threat;

(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;

(c) the person’s role in the incident;

(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;

(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;

(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and

(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

The Complainant was seriously injured while in the custody of the PRP on November 5, 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 injury.

Section 34 of the Criminal Code provides that conduct that would otherwise constitute an offence is legally justified if it was intended to deter a reasonably apprehended assault, actual or threatened, and was itself reasonable. The reasonableness of the conduct is to be assessed in light of all the relevant circumstances, including with respect to such considerations as the nature of the force or threat; the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force; whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon; and, the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force.

The Complainant had been arrested and was lawfully in custody at the time of the events in question. Discovered with a phone in his possession, the SO and the WO were within their rights to enter the cell to confiscate it.

Though the custody footage was obscured by the positioning of the special constable outside the cell, the totality of the evidence indicates that the Complainant grabbed hold of the WO’s collar. When he did that, the WO was entitled to defend himself, and the SO was entitled to assist. On the evidence, the officers responded with two to three punches each in quick succession. The Complainant had threatened to choke the WO at the scene of his arrest, and it appeared he was now attempting to do just that. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officers acted with excess in striking the Complainant as they would have wanted to overcome an assault of that nature as quickly as possible.

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

Date: February 27, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit