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 30-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 19, 2024, at 8:23 a.m., the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA), notified the SIU of a complaint received by LECA involving a serious injury to the Complainant.

According to the complaint, on September 18, 2024, the Complainant was apprehended under the Mental Health Act (MHA) by Toronto Police Service (TPS) officers. He was thrown to the ground when he attempted to give the police officers a pocketknife. The Complainant was subsequently admitted to the Michael Garron Hospital (MGH) and diagnosed with broken ribs and nerve damage in his hands.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/12/20 at 8:13 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/12/20 at 10:00 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on December 27, 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

The witness officials were interviewed on January 12, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the intersection of Danforth Avenue and Danforth Road, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Communications Recordings

On September 18, 2024, at 9:22 a.m., a woman called 911 and reported a man [now known to be the Complainant] knocking on residence doors and removing items from front porches. The Complainant was holding a piece of wood and a broom, and was sweeping the road. The caller reported the Complainant was not violent but had mental health issues.

Another caller reported the Complainant was on Danforth Avenue and Victoria Park Avenue, walking on the road. When vehicles honked at him, he would hit the vehicle with a wooden log.

WO #1 and WO #2 were dispatched to the area of Warden Avenue and Danforth Avenue and reported they were with the Complainant.

At 9:58 a.m., the SO and WO #3 assisted WO #1 and WO #2 in apprehending the Complainant.

At 10:20 a.m., WO #2 reported the Complainant was in the police vehicle, and they were en route to MGH.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

Starting at about 10:04 a.m., September 18, 2024, WO #1 and WO #2 stopped their police vehicle behind the SO and WO #3’s police vehicle. At the time, the SO and WO #3 were talking to the Complainant on a sidewalk.

Starting at about 10:06 a.m., the Complainant came into view cradling a log in his left arm. He was told to provide his name and address; he did not comply. The SO told the Complainant the police officers were concerned for his safety, and that they would take him to hospital.

Starting at about 10:09 a.m., the Complainant tried to walk away. The SO placed his left hand in front of his waistband. The Complainant asked if he was under arrest. The SO used his right hand and grabbed the Complainant’s left forearm. WO #1 grabbed the Complainant’s right arm while WO #2 reached over the Complainant’s left arm to remove the log he cradled in his left arm. The Complainant struggled against the police officers. He was taken to the ground next to a knee-high brick fence by the SO, who was on his left side. WO #1 was on the Complainant’s right. The Complainant was placed prone with his arms behind the back. WO #1 grabbed his handcuffs and handcuffed the Complainant’s right arm and, with the help of the SO, handcuffed the Complainant’s left arm. Shortly after, the Complainant was brought to his feet and searched.

Starting at about 10:12 a.m., the SO and WO #1 were about to escort the Complainant to a police vehicle when WO #2 noticed the Complainant had an object [now determined to be a pocketknife] in his clenched right hand. WO #2 tried to pry the pocketknife from the Complainant’s hand.

Starting at about 10:13 a.m., the Complainant was taken to the ground by police officers for a second time. He was ordered to open his hand and drop the pocketknife. The Complainant struggled. The SO knelt with his right knee on the Complainant’s left shoulder and delivered about seven knee strikes to the upper left torso. The Complainant released the pocketknife and WO #2 took it.

Starting at about 10:15 a.m., the Complainant was brought to his feet and escorted to a nearby police vehicle.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between December 31, 2024, and January 13, 2025:

• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• BWC footage – WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and the SO
• General Occurrence Report
• Involved Officers List
• Notes and will-say statements - WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3
• Policy

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from the Complainant on February 4, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

TPS officers were dispatched to the area of Danforth and Warden Avenues, Toronto, in the morning of September 18, 2024. They had received 911 calls about a male behaving erratically – walking on the road, striking vehicles with a wooden stick and removing items from front porches.

The male was the Complainant. He was in mental health distress at the time of the events in question.

WO #1 and WO #2 were the first officers to arrive on scene. They were followed shortly by the SO and WO #3. The officers were able to coax the Complainant off the road onto the sidewalk in the area of Danforth Avenue and Danforth Road. The Complainant refused to identify himself. Persuaded that the public’s and the Complainant’s safety were at risk by his behaviour, the officers decided to apprehend the Complainant under the Mental Health Act.

The Complainant resisted the officers’ efforts to handcuff him and was taken to the ground. Following a short struggle, he was handcuffed with his hands behind the back and brought to his feet. Moments later, WO #2 noticed that the Complainant had a pocketknife in his right hand. The officer tried but was unable to remove the knife from the Complainant’s grasp, prompting the SO to force him to the ground. The Complainant refused to release the knife. He was met by a half-dozen or so knee strikes by the SO to the upper left torso area, after which the knife was removed from his possession.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and admitted under the MHA. He was also diagnosed with fractures to the lateral aspect of his left third and fourth ribs.

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 17, Mental Health Act - Action by Police Officer

17 Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on September 18, 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.

The Complainant, while of unsound mind, was walking in the middle of live lanes of traffic and striking vehicles with a wooden stick. He was a danger to himself and others, and subject to apprehension under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.

With respect to the force brought to bear by the SO in the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was excessive. The two takedowns made sense as the Complainant was resisting arrest on each occasion. On the ground, the officers could better expect to manage any further struggle by the Complainant. As for the knee strikes, these were delivered at a time when the Complainant, having been directed and refused to release a pocketknife, continued to grasp hold of it. No further strikes were delivered once the Complainant was dispossessed of the knife, which, though in a closed position, would reasonably have been of concern to the officers.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injuries were incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, I am unable to reasonably conclude they are the result of

unlawful conduct on the part of the SO. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.

Date: April 10, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit