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 28-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 21, 2024, at 10:47 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the TPS, on December 20, 2024, at 11:19 p.m., TPS officers responded to a possible impaired driver at Finch Avenue West and Pearldale Avenue. At 11:38 p.m., the Complainant, asleep at the wheel of a vehicle, was arrested for impaired driving and placed in the back of a cruiser. There was an issue with his handcuffs, and he was removed from the car. He bit a police officer when the handcuffs were removed, and a struggle ensued. The Subject Official (SO) struck the Complainant in the head and took him to the ground. He was assisted by Witness Official (WO) #1. Back at the police station, the Complainant’s face was seen to be swelling. He was taken to North York Hospital and diagnosed at 9:23 a.m. with a fractured orbital bone.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/12/21 at 1:07 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/12/21 at 4:19 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on December 21, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on January 7, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on February 14, 2025.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on December 27, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired outside in and around the southwest corner of the intersection of Finch Avenue West and Pearldale Avenue, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC), In-car Camera (ICC) & Custody Footage

On December 20, 2024, starting at about 11:34 p.m., WO #1 and the SO’s cruiser stopped in front of a Mercedes with its emergency lights activated. WO #2 was captured approaching the Mercedes on the driver-side. WO #1 was at the driver-side and the SO was on the passenger-side. WO #1 banged on the front driver-side window. The Complainant stepped out of the vehicle. WO #1 took hold of the Complainant’s left arm, and the SO took hold of his right arm, and they were brought behind the Complainant’s back. WO #1 and the SO walked the Complainant along the sidewalk to their cruiser.

Starting at about 11:40 p.m., the rear driver-side door of the cruiser was opened and the Complainant got inside. His hands were handcuffed behind his back. WO #1 stood at the open door and made the Complainant aware of his rights to counsel. The Complainant complained about the handcuffs, and the officer agreed to check them. The rear driver-side door was opened, and the Complainant exited the police vehicle. The Complainant was turned to face the police vehicle by the SO. The officer behind the Complainant asked what was wrong with the handcuffs. He tried to readjust the handcuffs with a key, noting they seemed too loose and had slipped down. WO #1 was on the Complainant’s right side and the SO asked her to try with her key as his was warped. She told the Complainant to hold his hands closer together so they could help him as she tried to readjust the handcuffs. She said he was pulling his arms away. The handcuff was taken off the right hand but the one on the left hand remained. The Complainant moved around and would not keep his arms still, seemingly pulling the left arm away. WO #1 told him to keep his hand behind his back. The Complainant pulled his right arm away from WO #1. She told him to stop, and a struggle ensued as the Complainant pulled away. The SO and WO #1 faced the Complainant up against the police vehicle again.

At 11:46 p.m., WO #1’s BWC turned off. It resumed recording at 11:47 p.m. WO #2 approached and held the Complainant’s left arm as the SO tried to secure the handcuffs. The Complainant began to struggle again and moved slightly away from the police vehicle. WO #1 tried to pull his right arm behind his back and the Complainant grabbed WO #2’s arm. The SO had his arms around the Complainant’s chest from behind. WO #1 told the Complainant to get on the ground and the officers tried to pull him to the ground. The Complainant pulled away from them and took a few steps onto the road. WO #2 and WO #1 lost their grip, and the SO went to the ground on top of the Complainant. The SO straddled him as he continued to struggle and tried to get up. The SO held the Complainant down with one hand on his head and yelled, “You fucking bit me.” The Complainant said he was sorry and said, “Please,” repeatedly. He asked the SO to get off him and the SO said, “No.” He told the Complainant they were past that point, and he had been given ample opportunity to calm down. The Complainant continued to say he was sorry, repeatedly asking the SO to get off. WO #1 secured the Complainant’s feet. WO #2 was to the SO’s left, holding the Complainant’s left upper body. WO #2 told the Complainant to stop forcing it, and instructed him to put his hand to the back. The Complainant continued to struggle. WO #2 told him to face down several times. The SO delivered multiple closed-fist punches to the Complainant’s head and face area while telling him to “let go”. Another police officer arrived and assisted the SO and WO #2 with getting the Complainant’s hands behind his back. The handcuffs were secured. The Complainant said they “slashed” him in his face. He continued to ask them why they did this to him, and said they had punched him in the face.

Starting at about 11:51 p.m., Officer #1 approached and assisted WO #1 with holding the Complainant’ s legs. Another police officer approached and assisted Officer #1 with securing a leg restraint around the Complainant’s legs. WO #1 got up and asked the SO if he needed emergency medical services (EMS) as he had been bitten. The Complainant was picked up and held by police officers.

Starting at about 11:56 p.m., the Complainant was placed in the rear of the police vehicle. A police officer [now known to be Officer #2] opened the rear passenger door. The Complainant was placed face down and headfirst into the police vehicle by police officers on the driver-side as Officer #2 pulled him across the seat towards the passenger-side by his jacket. Both rear doors were closed, and the Complainant brought himself to a seated position on the driver-side. WO #1 looked through the rear window of the police vehicle and said paramedics were needed for the Complainant as he was bleeding from the nose. WO #1 got in the driver seat and told the Complainant EMS were on the way. She told him he was under arrest for impaired operation of a conveyance and assault peace officer.

On December 21, 2024, starting at about 12:00 a.m., a paramedic – CW #3 – asked the Complainant questions about his health. The Complainant replied the only pain he had was in his hands. He said he was being erratic due to his paranoia. CW #3 asked if he had any drugs or alcohol, and the Complainant said, “Zero.”

Starting at about 12:04 a.m., a police officer pushed the Complainant’s feet back inside the police vehicle and the door was closed. The Complainant complained about his hands burning and continued to say “please” and “sorry” repeatedly. The police vehicle moved.

Starting at about 12:23 a.m., WO #1 asked the Complainant if he had any injuries. He said he had had injuries before but did not respond to whether he had current injuries. The officer said his nose was bleeding and possibly his lip as well. He said it was because he was hit, but it was his fault as he had hit himself on the pavement when he was arrested. The Complainant complained again of his hands burning.

Starting at about 1:06 a.m., the Complainant was walked into the booking hall. He stood in front of the booking desk with Officer #2 to his left, and Officer #1 and WO #1 to his right. The Complainant said he was sorry repeatedly. WO #1 said she could smell alcohol. The Complainant said he would not dispute that and would not lie.

Starting at about 1:17 a.m., WO #3 asked the Complainant if he had any recent injuries. The Complainant said he had previous trauma to his right leg above the knee. The Complainant also said he had claustrophobia as a health concern, and head trauma from two to three weeks prior. WO #3 said he saw bumps to the left side of the Complainant’s forehead. The Complainant said he had fallen when arrested by the police officers, and they had nothing to do with it. Some swelling was seen on his right eye.

Starting at about 2:55 a.m., the Complainant was walked into the booking hall with WO #1. His right eye was swollen shut. WO #1 handed him some tissue for his eye and the Complainant sobbed. WO #3 said there was extreme swelling to the Complainant’s right eye and the police officers would take him to the hospital. When WO #3 asked him what happened to his eye, the Complainant did not respond.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between December 24, 2024, and February 14, 2025:

• Notes - WO #1, WO #2, the SO, and WO #3
• Policy Incident Response
• Prisoner Log
• Prosecution Summary
• Intoxication Report
• Use of Force Recertification – the SO
• BWC footage
• ICC footage
• Custody footage

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between December 30, 2024, and January 6, 2025:

• Incident Summary Report from EMS
• Ambulance Call Report from EMS
• The Complainant’s medical records from North York General Hospital

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

In the late evening of December 20, 2024, TPS officers were dispatched to the area of Finch Avenue West and Pearldale Avenue, Toronto. A Mercedes was stopped, its engine running, in the eastbound curb lane of Finch Avenue West, west of Pearldale Avenue. Its driver was reportedly asleep in the driver’s seat.

WO #2 was the first to arrive on scene, stopping his cruiser behind the Mercedes. The SO and his partner – WO #1 – arrived in their cruiser shortly after, stopping the vehicle nose-to-nose with the Mercedes. The officers were able to rouse the driver – the Complainant – and have him exit the vehicle. He was handcuffed without incident behind the back and placed in the rear seat of SO and WO #1’s cruiser.

When the Complainant complained of pain because of the handcuffs, the officers agreed to adjust them. He was removed from the cruiser and placed front first against the driver-side. After his right cuff was removed, the Complainant began to resist the SO and WO #1. The officers attempted to keep him pinned against the cruiser, but he was able to break free. The SO took hold of the Complainant and forced him to the ground. The struggle continued as the Complainant refused to surrender his right arm to be re-handcuffed. The SO struck him multiple times in the head area. Additional officers arrived on scene, and the Complainant was secured in handcuffs and leg restraints.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fracture of the right orbital bone.

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 TPS officers on December 20, 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 and his colleagues were within their rights in moving to take the Complainant into custody for drunk driving given the signs of impairment he displayed – he had stopped with his engine running in a live lane of traffic, had fallen asleep at the wheel of the vehicle, and smelled of alcohol.

With respect to the force used by the SO, namely, a takedown and multiple hand strikes to the head, I am unable to reasonably conclude it was unjustified. The Complainant presented as a formidable challenge. He managed to break free of the grasp of three officers and, over the course of two or three minutes on the ground, was able to keep his right arm from being controlled by the SO. At some point, the evidence indicates he bit the SO on the right forearm. The takedown made sense in the circumstances as it would position the officers to better deal with any additional resistance on the part of the Complainant. When the Complainant continued to struggle and took hold of a carabiner on the SO’s vest, pulling the officer towards him, the SO was entitled to resort to a measure of force to break the Complainant’s hold. The force used was significant – about a half-dozen left hand punches to the head (some of which did not land) followed by two rights – but did not exceed what was warranted in the circumstances. The number of punches seemed excessive to one of the paramedics on site, but it is important to note that the paramedic was not aware that the SO was being held by the Complainant at the time. In arriving at this conclusion, I am mindful that an officer embroiled in a physical struggle is not expected to measure his responsive force to a nicety; what the law requires is force that is reasonable in the circumstances, not necessarily exacting: R v Nasogaluak,[2010] 1 SCR 206; R v Baxter(1975), 27 CCC (2d) 96 (Ont. CA).

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s fracture was incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, more than likely the result of one or more of the SO’s punches, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury is attributable to any unlawful conduct on the part of the officer. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: April 14, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit