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 27-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 26, 2024, at 9:33 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 1:20 a.m., the PRP received a call to a residence in the area of Wanless Drive and McLaughlin Road, Brampton, from a woman [now known to be CW #1] reporting that her husband, the Complainant, was acting erratically. The Complainant, upset from a previous fight with a family member earlier that night, had accessed knives and a crowbar. His intention was to return to the family member’s home. Four police officers in two vehicles responded to the Complainant’s home and encountered him outside the house armed with a crowbar. A conducted energy weapon (CEW) was deployed, and the Complainant fell on the driveway and struck his head on the pavement. He was transported by a Peel Emergency Medical Services (EMS) ambulance to Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH) where he was diagnosed with a non-life-threatening brain bleed. Police officers were advised the Complainant would be admitted to the BCH for two to three days.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/12/26 at 10:00 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/12/26 at 1:17 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on December 27, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between December 27, 2024, and January 4, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 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 December 30, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the front driveway of a home in the area of Wanless Drive and McLaughlin Road, Brampton.

Physical Evidence

On December 26, 2024, at 1:17 p.m., a SIU forensic investigator arrived on scene. There were two vehicles in the driveway. Between the two vehicles was a yellow disposable emergency blanket. A PRP officer advised that under the blanket was a crowbar, which the Complainant had reportedly brandished when the police arrived. There was a second yellow disposable emergency blanket on the sidewalk just a short distance from the crowbar. Police officers had placed the blanket to protect a blood stain on the driveway, as inclement weather and snow had started. Also on the driveway were a few blankets, and two pillows that were taken out of the home. On top of, and below, the blankets were two CEW probes and wires.

Inside the garage was a utility table that had two large Cuisinart knives.

The entire scene was photographed, and exhibits were collected.

Figure 1 - Crowbar found at scene

Figure 2 - Knives found in garage

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data - SO #2

On December 26, 2024, at 1:23:30:384 a.m.,[2] the trigger was pulled, Bay 1 was deployed and, at 1:23:30:662 a.m., electricity was discharged for 0.116 seconds. At 1:23:30.777 a.m., the trigger was pulled, Bay 2 was deployed and, at 1:23:31.102 a.m., electricity was discharged for 4.958 seconds.

CEW Deployment Data - SO #1

On December 26, 2024, at 1:23:20.975 a.m., the trigger was pulled, Bay 1 was deployed and, at 1:23:21.242 a.m., electricity was discharged for 4.934 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

PRP Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

SO #2 was a passenger in a marked police vehicle [driven by WO #1]. The police vehicle stopped facing westbound in front of the driveway to a residence in the area of Wanless Drive and McLaughlin Road. Two vehicles were parked on the driveway facing the residence. A woman - CW #1 - stood between the vehicles, at the bottom of the driveway, next to the sidewalk.

Starting at about 1:23 a.m., December 26, 2024, SO #2 exited his police vehicle and drew his service pistol with his left hand. A shirtless man - the Complainant - stood at the top of the driveway. He walked to the west side of the driveway and then back to the centre before proceeding down the driveway between the two parked cars. He carried a yellow crowbar. SO #2 transitioned from his service pistol to his CEW, and shouted “Taser, taser!” At 1:23:30 a.m., SO #2 deployed his CEW twice.

At the same time, SO #1, standing to SO #2’s right at the opposite side of the driveway, deployed her CEW.

The Complainant grabbed his stomach with his left hand and fell backwards across the sidewalk, striking the back of his head on the concrete sidewalk. SO #1 approached the Complainant’s head area and WO #1 approached the Complainant’s right side and handcuffed him with his hands to the front. WO #1 placed the Complainant in the recovery position on his right side.

An ambulance was called.

Video Footage – Doorbell Camera #1

The video, 23 seconds in length, was recorded from a motion-activated doorbell camera. The recording was not date or time-stamped. Captured were an ambulance and two police vehicles, all with their emergency lights activated, in front of the residence where the incident occurred. The video was recorded after the deployment of the CEWs and, therefore, was of limited investigative value.

Video Footage – Doorbell Camera #2

The video was from a front doorbell camera, and was not date or time-stamped. The first recording was 1:01 minutes in length. The view was of the street and the driveway in front of the residence where the incident occurred. A man - the Complainant - walked up and down the middle of the road. He had no shirt on, and swung a large knife above his head. A woman - CW #1 - watched from the sidewalk.

The second video was 2:05 minutes in length and started with a police officer putting up security tape around the front porch. There were two police vehicles and an ambulance on the street, with their emergency lights activated. The video was recorded after the deployment of the CEWs and, therefore, was of limited investigative value.

Communications Recordings

On December 26, 2024, at 1:17 a.m., CW #1 called the PRP and advised the call-taker that the Complainant was standing in the middle of the roadway in front of their residence in the area of Wanless Drive and McLaughlin Road, Brampton, with a knife in his hand. CW #1 reported that a family member had struck the Complainant, and he was bleeding from the head. She described the Complainant. He was drunk and out of control. She described the knife as a large kitchen knife with a white handle.

Starting at about 1:23 a.m., CW #1 advised the Complainant was back in the garage. SO #2 and WO #1 advised they were on scene, and SO #1 advised she was also on scene. CW #1 let the telephone line go.

Starting at about 1:24 a.m., SO #2 broadcast that the Complainant had been “tased”. He requested an ambulance. A few seconds later, he asked for a rush on the ambulance as the Complainant was bleeding from the head.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the PRP between December 26, 2024, and December 30, 2024:

• BWC footage.
• Communications recordings
• CEW deployment data
• Use of Force Training Records - SO #1
• Use of Force Training Records - SO #2
• Incident Details Report
• Incident History
• List of Involved Police Officers.
• Directive - Incident Response.
• Directive - Criminal Investigations.
• Notes - WO #3 and WO #1, and WO #2.
• Occurrence Reports
• Person Details Report of the Complainant

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between January 4, 2025, and January 31, 2025:

• Ambulance call report from Peel EMS
• The Complainant’s medical records from BCH
• Video – doorbell camera #1
• Video – doorbell camera #2

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police eyewitnesses, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officials did not agree interviews with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the early morning of December 26, 2024, PRP officers were dispatched to a residence in the area of Wanless Drive and McLaughlin Road, Brampton. A woman at the address had called police to report that the Complainant, upset following a physical altercation with members of their family, was intoxicated, out of control and holding a knife in the middle of the roadway. WO #1 and SO #2, in one cruiser, and SO #1, in another, arrived on scene at about 1:20 a.m., stopping their vehicles by the curb at the bottom of the residence’s driveway.

The Complainant emerged from his garage holding a crowbar. With the officers out of their vehicles, he started to walk towards them. He had walked past the sidewalk when he was immobilized by one or more CEW discharges by the officers and fell to the ground, striking the back of his head in the process.

SO #2 and SO #1 had each fired their CEWs, twice and once, respectively.

The Complainant was placed in the recovery position by the officers and transported to hospital by paramedics. He had sustained 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.

Section 88, Criminal Code - Possession of Weapon for Dangerous Purpose

88 (1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by PRP officers on December 26, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming SO #1 and SO #2 subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official 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.

Based on what they knew of the 911 call involving knives, and what they gathered firsthand on witnessing the Complainant in possession of a crowbar, I am satisfied that the Complainant was subject to arrest for ‘weapons dangerous’ contrary to section 88(1) of the Criminal Code.

I am also satisfied that SO #2 and SO #1 used no more force than was reasonably necessary to arrest the Complainant when they discharged their CEWs at him. They had reason to believe that the Complainant was in a violent mood and completely capable of wielding the crowbar against the officers. A direct physical confrontation with the Complainant would have risked serious harm coming to the officers given the weapon in his possession, and was effectively off the table. On this record, it made sense to attempt to neutralize the Complainant from a distance with a less-lethal device when he had neared to within three metres of the officers.

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

Date: April 24, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit