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 78-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On November 26, 2024, at 2:55 p.m., the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA), notified the SIU of a complaint received by LECA involving a serious injury to the Complainant.

Reportedly, the Complainant attended 32 Division of the Toronto Police Service (TPS) on September 13, 2024, at around 8:45 p.m., for a landlord-tenant issue. During his attendance at the station, he was taken to a room where he was tied and beaten with a gun by the Subject Official (SO). The Complainant sustained fractured ribs in the assault.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/11/27 at 6:54 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/11/27 at 8:57 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on December 2, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on January 6, 2025.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on December 9, 2024.

Service Employee Witness (SEW)

SEW Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The service employee witness was interviewed on December 9, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the lobby and front steps of TPS 32 Division, 30 Ellerslie Avenue, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

External Video Footage – TPS 32 Division

TPS 32 Division had an external camera, which might have captured the interaction and arrest. As this event happened in September, the video was no longer available at the time of request due to its retention period.

Video Footage - Ellerslie Avenue

The camera, affixed to the exterior of a building on Ellerslie Avenue, was situated at ground level facing north. There was no sound component to the video. The camera was a distance away, making it difficult to discern precisely what was happening in the footage it captured.

On the video recording, a tree blocked the view of the steps leading to the front entrance of 32 Division. From what could be seen, at 3:02:51 p.m., the doors of the building opened and a dark figure [now known to be the SO] forced outside the Complainant, who stumbled onto the stairs.

At 3:02:56 p.m., the Complainant appeared to bend forward and moved partially away from the door, holding onto the railing to steady himself. He then stood up and appeared to move towards the doorway. The SO came forward and there appeared to be a short interaction between the two.

At 3:03:04 p.m., both the Complainant and the SO appeared to be physically engaged, and falling down the stairs and out of sight.

At 3:03:13 p.m., a police officer [now known to be WO #1] went outside the police station, followed by another police officer at 3:03:27 p.m. [now known to be WO #2]. The Complainant was stood up and carried back into the police station.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

BWC recordings from the SO and WO #2 did not capture the interaction between the SO and the Complainant. The recordings began when the Complainant was at the bottom of the front stairs of TPS 32 Division. He was resisting, and was ordered to stop. No strikes or punches were used to place the Complainant in handcuffs with his hands behind his back. He was escorted back to the police station. The SO said, “You don’t hit officers.” The Complainant had to be carried and dragged into the lobby. The SO could be heard saying, “You’re fine.” The Complainant stated, “What you’ve done to me, it is terrible,” The SO replied “Well, you shouldn’t have hit me.”

The Complainant was taken to the booking room yelling, “Emergency ambulance, call emergency ambulance.” The SO left the room, leaving the Complainant with WO #1 and WO #2 and two special constables.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from TPS between December 2, 2024, and December 12, 2024:

• Officer Involvement List;
• Prosecution Summary (General Occurrence);
• Notes - the SO;
• Notes - WO #2;
• Notes - WO #1;
• Notes - WO #3;
• Notes - the SEW; and
• BWC recordings.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained records from the following other sources between December 3, 2024, and December 13, 2024:

• The Complainant’s medical records from North York General Hospital;
• Video footage from Ellerslie Avenue, North York; and
• Records from Toronto Paramedic Services.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, the SO and other police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the afternoon of September 13, 2024, the Complainantattended TPS 32 Division in an agitated state and asked for a police officer to arrest someone who had assaulted him. He tried to push paperwork through the hole of the front desk Plexiglass barrier. The SEW explained, several times, the process that needed to be followed to make a complaint. As the Complainant became increasingly angry, argumentative, and verbally aggressive,the SEW went from his desk to the lobby to better communicate with the Complainant without speaking through a barrier. The Complainant’s temperament worsened. The SEW advised him that he would have to leave as he was causing a disturbance. He refused to leave. WO #1 and the SO entered the lobby area to assist the SEW as the situation had escalated. The SO asked the Complainant to leave. The Complainant ignored his requests to leave the station and continued shouting. The SO grabbed the Complainant by the arm and escorted him out the front door.

The SO successfully removed the Complainant from the building and attempted to guide him down the stairs. He looked away for a moment and, when he looked back, the Complainant was making his way back up the stairs. The Complainant stood on the first step of the entry landing, said he was not leaving, and tried to go around the SO to get back into the building. The Complainant slapped the SO on the left side of his neck and face area. The SO raised his hands to guard against further strikes. The two became physically engaged and fell down the first flight of stairs.

The SO arrested the Complainant on the landing area for assaulting a peace officer. The Complainant resisted arrest, and WO #1 and WO #2 arrived to provide assistance. The Complainant was handcuffed behind his back and carried into the police station. No kicks or strikes were delivered.

Emergency medical services (EMS) attended, and the Complainant declined to be taken to the hospital. Three days later the Complainant attended hospital and was diagnosed with four right side rib fractures.

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 2(1), Trespass to Property Act - Trespass an Offence

2 (1) Every person who is not acting under a right or authority conferred by law and who,

(a)without the express permission of the occupier, the proof of which rests on the defendant,

(i) enters on premises when entry is prohibited under this Act, or

(ii) engages in an activity on premises when the activity is prohibited under this Act; or

(b)does not leave the premises immediately after he or she is directed to do so by the occupier of the premises or a person authorized by the occupier,

is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000.

Section 9, Trespass to Property Act - Arrest Without Warrant on Premises

9 (1) A police officer, or the occupier of premises, or a person authorized by the occupier may arrest without warrant any person he or she believes on reasonable and probable grounds to be on the premises in contravention of section 2.

(2) Where the person who makes an arrest under subsection (1) is not a police officer, he or she shall promptly call for the assistance of a police officer and give the person arrested into the custody of the police officer.

(3) A police officer to whom the custody of a person is given under subsection (2) shall be deemed to have arrested the person for the purposes of the provisions of the Provincial Offences Act applying to his or her release or continued detention and bail.

Section 175 (1), Criminal Code – Causing a Disturbance

175 (1) Every one who

(a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,

(i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting language,

(ii) by being drunk,

(iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,

Is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Section 270(1), Criminal Code - Assaulting a Peace Officer

270 (1) Every one commits an offence who

(a) assaults a public officer or peace officer engaged in the execution of his duty or a person acting in aid of such an officer;

(b) assaults a person with intent to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of himself or another person; or

(c) assaults a person

(i) who is engaged in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure, or

(ii) with intent to rescue anything taken under lawful process, distress or seizure.

The Complainant was seriously injured at or around the time of his arrest by TPS officers on September 13, 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.

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.

At the time the SO intervened to assist the SEW, he had observed the Complainant refusing to leave the station and acting in a hostile and disruptive manner. Moreover, after escorting the Complainant out of the building, he slapped the SO. In the circumstances, whether pursuant to sections 2 and 9 of the Trespass to Property Act, or section 175(causing disturbance) and section 270 (assault peace officer) of the Criminal Code, the SO was within his rights in seeking to arrest the Complainant.

There is conflicting evidence with respect to the events surrounding the arrest of the Complainant. There is some evidence the Complainant was arbitrarily arrested, and subjected to excessive and abusive force by the SO. Specifically, it is alleged that the SO entered the lobby, handcuffed the Complainant (saying nothing to him during the arrest) and brought him to a room with no lights on. According to this account, the officer then struck the Complainant numerous times with his handgun in the area of his ribcage and about both arms, resulting in his four right side rib fractures. Once the SO left, and he was alone, the Complainant yelled for help and used his cellular phone to call 911. EMS attended but police officers would not allow EMS to let him leave.

The SO and the other police witnesses, on the other hand, say the arrest was largely uneventful. The Complainant was shouting and getting aggressive with the SEW, and it was clear that he would not leave peacefully on his own so the SO escorted him out. Aside from having to grab the Complainant’s arm to guide him out of the building, no force was brought to bear. The Complainant was under constant supervision and was never left alone inside the police station. The SO denied he struck the Complainant with his gun.

On the aforementioned record, it would be unsafe and unwise to rest charges on the strength of the incriminating evidence as there are aspects of this account that call its credibility into question. The account states, for instance, that police handcuffed and arrested the Complainant in the lobby and said nothing to him during the arrest. However, this is belied by evidence which indicates that officers arrested and handcuffed the Complainant outside on the walkway in front of TPS 32 Division and communicated with him throughout the arrest. Further, the account claims the Complainant called 911 while alone from a dark room at the police station and police would not allow EMS to let him leave. Again, this is contradicted by evidence which indicates that the Complainant called 911 from the front lobby of the police station in the presence of WO #2 after he was released from custody and asked to leave the building. Additionally, the account makes no mention of the Complainant causing a disturbance, being asked to leave the police station, or being escorted out of the police station.

On this record, there being no reason to believe that the more incriminating evidence is any likelier to be closer to the truth than that tendered by the police officers, and good reason to suspect it is less reliable, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.

With respect to the Complainant’s injuries, it would appear that at least some of the fractures were old injuries. As for the fractures he might have sustained on September 13, 2024, these are likely to have been incurred in his fall down the front steps of the division. There is no mention of the fall in the more incriminating rendition of events. The SO says that the Complainant lost his balance and fell. And the video footage of the incident, while appearing to show both parties falling down the steps together, did not clearly capture the events leading to the fall. In the circumstances, the evidence around the fall does not give rise to concern about potential criminal liability on the part of the SO.

The file is closed.

Date: March 26, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit