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 46-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 20, 2025, at 10:41 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the TPS, on January 20, 2025, at 4:33 p.m., a man called TPS to report that he had located his truck in the 23 Division area by means of a Global Positioning System (GPS), after it had been stolen from Cambridge. Officers attended the area, located the truck and tried to stop it. The driver - the Complainant - drove away and collided with several marked police cruisers. When the truck was stopped, the Complainant was pulled out, taken to the ground and handcuffed. He was subsequently taken to Etobicoke General Hospital (EGH) by ambulance after he complained of chest pain. At 9:15 p.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured left wrist.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/01/20 at 11:34 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/01/21 at 8:24 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on January 21, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on February 27, 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

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on February 7, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question began in the parking lot of 160 Queen’s Plate Drive, Toronto, continued from there south on Queen’s Plate Drive, and concluded on and around Queen’s Plate Drive in the area of 137 Queen’s Plate Drive.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The SO, WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3

At 4:41:12 p.m., January 20, 2025, the SO stopped his cruiser with part of a white truck visible outside.

At 4:41:14 p.m., the SO and WO #1 stood by the driver’s side door of the truck. The SO unsuccessfully tried to open the driver’s side door. He then climbed onto the driver’s door step and directed the driver - the Complainant - to roll the window down. He did not do so.

At 4:41:42 p.m., the SO stepped down as the Complainant started to drive the truck towards the parked cruiser.

At 4:41:56 p.m., the SO returned to his cruiser and followed the truck.

At 4:42:42 p.m., a loud crash sounded as the truck struck WO #3’s marked cruiser with its emergency lights activated.

At 4:43:10 p.m., the SO continued to follow the truck southbound at 10 km/h.

At 4:43:48 p.m., the cruiser struck the driver’s side of the truck as it exited the parking lot travelling southbound on Queen’s Plate Drive.

At 4:44:58 p.m., the truck stopped southbound in the northbound curb lane of Queen’s Plate Drive. The SO exited his cruiser.

At 4:45:00 p.m., the SO ran southbound on the grass towards the driver’s side of the truck. The Complainant stood at the front of the truck, with its hood up. The SO yelled, “Stop!” and grabbed the upper shoulders of the Complainant.

At 4:45:04 p.m., WO #1 rounded the front of the truck while the SO spun the Complainant to the left. The Complainant landed on the snowy grass on his back.

At 4:45:07 p.m., the SO held the back of the Complainant’s jacket and moved him onto his left side. A scuffle ensued, and the SO used his right hand to punch the Complainant in the right side, while WO #1 grabbed the Complainant’s jacket with his left hand and used his right hand to punch the Complainant once in the right side of his head.

At 4:45:09 p.m., WO #1 used his right hand to pull on the Complainant’s right bicep and used his left hand to push down on the Complainant’s open left hand.

At 4:45:12 p.m., WO #2 arrived and reached under the Complainant as WO #1 used his right hand to punch the Complainant in the right ribs three times.

At 4:45:15 p.m., WO #2 held the Complainant’s right hand as WO #1 used both hands to pull on the Complainant’s right wrist, placing his right hand behind his back. The Complainant was then moved onto his stomach.

At 4:45:18 p.m., the SO used his right hand to hold the Complainant’s left elbow and moved his left hand behind his back.

At 4:45:22 p.m., WO #4 pushed the Complainant’s head and shoulders down as WO #2 handcuffed the Complainant’s hands behind the back.

At 4:46:08 p.m., the Complainant was moved to a seated position.

At 4:46:35 p.m., the SO held the Complainant under his left arm and stood him up.

At 4:46:41 p.m., WO #4 and WO #1 escorted the Complainant to WO #4’s cruiser where a pat-down search was performed.

At 4:47:09 p.m., the Complainant was placed in the rear driver’s side seat. He said, “My gas pedal got stuck okay, that’s why.”

At 4:47:50 p.m., WO #4 informed the Complainant he was under arrest for dangerous operation and possession of property obtained by crime, read him his rights to counsel, and cautioned him.

At 4:48:32 p.m., WO #1 and the SO told a sergeant they approached the truck to request the Complainant open the door, and that he drove into their cruiser and WO #3’s cruiser. The Complainant continued to drive on Queen’s Plate Drive at a speed of 10 km/h. The Complainant stopped the truck, exited, and tried to run away. WO #1 and the SO arrested the Complainant.

TPS In-car Camera (ICC) Footage - The SO and WO #1’s Cruiser, WO #3’s Cruiser, and WO #2 and WO #4’s Cruiser

At 4:40:53 p.m., January 20, 2025, the SO turned right into a parking lot [160 Queen’s Plate Drive] and drove towards a parked, white truck with its hood up.

At 4:41:16 p.m., after stopping the cruiser at the front of the truck, the SO and WO #1 approached the driver’s side.

At 4:41:33 p.m., the truck travelled forward with the hood up and struck the front passenger side of the cruiser. The truck then reversed.

At 4:41:40 p.m., the SO was situated on the step by the driver’s door. He jumped off when the truck drove forward around the driver’s side of the cruiser.

At 4:42:00 p.m., the SO got into his cruiser and drove behind the truck.

At 4:42:16 p.m., the SO drove past the truck on the driver’s side and stopped to block its path.

At 4:42:27 p.m., WO #3’s cruiser entered the parking lot and also attempted to block the truck’s path. The truck drove into the front of WO #3’s cruiser, spinning it around 180 degrees, causing significant damage.

At 4:43:48 p.m., the truck drove out of the parking lot and southbound on Queen’s Plate Drive. Its speed was around 10 km/h. The SO followed it.

At 4:44:52 p.m., a tractor-trailer slowly cut the southbound lanes off, preventing the stolen truck from continuing.

At 4:44:54 p.m., the truck crossed into the northbound lanes and stopped.

At 4:44:56 p.m., the Complainant exited the driver’s door. The SO and WO #1 got out of their cruiser and ran towards the Complainant.

At 4:45:04 p.m., WO #1 and the SO took the Complainant to the ground on the grass to the left of the driver’s side of the truck. Both officers punched the Complainant about the head area.

At 4:45:14 p.m., WO #2 and WO #4 joined the SO and WO #1 to restrain the Complainant. Due to the position of the officers, the view was obstructed.

At 4:46:35 p.m., the Complainant was stood up and taken to WO #2 and WO #4’s cruiser.

At 4:46:52 p.m., the Complainant stood at the cruiser with his hands handcuffed behind the back. WO #1 performed a pat-down search and directed him to the back seat.

At 4:50:07 p.m., the Complainant told WO #4 that the gas pedal was stuck. WO #4 then closed the door.

At 5:02:22 p.m., the cruiser travelled forward. The Complainant told the officers that he wanted to go to the hospital as he had chest pain, was dizzy and had trouble breathing because, “They kicked me.”

At 5:03:43 p.m., the Complainant was informed Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were being called.

At 5:22:18 p.m., EMS arrived. A paramedic opened the rear driver’s side door and spoke with the Complainant, who said, “These guys roughed me up badly.” The Complainant agreed to go in the ambulance, saying he experienced, “Chest pain like crazy.”

At 5:24:36 p.m., the Complainant exited the cruiser and was escorted away.

TPS Communications Recordings & Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

At 4:30:03 p.m., January 20, 2025, a woman called 911 to report a family member’s white Volvo transport truck had been stolen from Cambridge and they had located it through GPS at 160 Queen’s Plate Drive, Etobicoke. She advised that the suspect [the Complainant] was inside the truck with the hood up.

At 4:37:11 p.m., officers were dispatched to 160 Queen’s Plate Drive.

At 4:42:15 p.m., WO #1 reported the Complainant had attempted to drive off the property.

At 4:43:35 p.m., the Complainant had reportedly struck two cruisers. He was described as wearing a black balaclava and a black jacket.

At 4:43:40 p.m., WO #1 reported the Complainant had struck his cruiser.

At 4:44:08 p.m., the Complainant travelled 10 km/h southbound on Queen’s Plate Drive.

At 4:44:43 p.m., WO #4 reported that another truck helped them stop the Complainant.

At 4:46:12 p.m., WO #1 advised they had attempted to arrest the Complainant.

At 4:46:55 p.m., an officer advised the Complainant was in custody.

At 4:48:33 p.m., the dispatcher confirmed there were no injuries.

At 5:02:35 p.m., the Complainant was in WO #4’s cruiser.

At 5:04:40 p.m., WO #4 requested EMS as the Complainant complained of chest pain.

At 5:06:09 p.m., EMS was on the way.

At 5:28:27 p.m., EMS arrived.

At 5:40:53 p.m., EMS transported the Complainant to Etobicoke General Hospital.

At 9:35:29 p.m., the Complainant was transported to the police station.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between January 21, 2025, and February 18, 2025:

• TPS Occurrence Report
• Arrest and Supplementary Reports
• Communications recordings
• CAD Reports
• ICC footage
• BWC footage
• Identity and roles of each officer
• Notes - the SO, WO #1, WO #2, WO #4, WO #3, WO #6 and WO #5
• Previous occurrences involving the Complainant

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from EGH on February 6, 2025.

The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.

In the afternoon of January 20, 2025, TPS officers were dispatched to the parking lot of the plaza located at 160 Queen’s Plate Drive, Toronto. The owner of a Volvo tractor had called police to report that he had tracked his stolen Volvo to the parking lot, where it was stopped with a male in the driver’s seat.

The SO was the first officer on scene in a marked cruiser. With him was his partner, WO #1. They located the Volvo with its hood up at the north end of the plaza, stopped their cruiser in front of it, and exited to speak to the male in the driver’s seat. The male was wearing a balaclava. He refused to unlock the door at the officers’ direction and, instead, put the Volvo in motion.

The male was the Complainant. He drove forward slowly, striking the officers’ cruiser, and continued in a southward direction towards the plaza’s exit onto Queen’s Plate Drive.

The SO and WO #1 re-entered their cruiser and travelled ahead of the Volvo as it continued south in the parking lot, attempting to block it. Another cruiser entered the parking lot, travelled north, and also came to a stop in front of the Volvo. The Complainant continued south past the cruisers, striking and moving them out of his way, and entered onto the southbound lanes of Queen’s plate Drive.

The SO and WO #1 followed the Volvo as it travelled south at slow speed. The driver of a tractor-trailer, alert to what was going on, placed his vehicle ahead of the Complainant and eventually forced him to a stop in the northbound curb lane. The Complainant quickly emerged from the Volvo and went to the hood to lower it; it had remained up, obstructing his vision, to this point. Before he could do so, he was physically engaged by the SO and WO #1.

The officers forcibly grounded the Complainant and then delivered a series of punches to his upper body before he was handcuffed behind the back.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with what appeared an old fracture of the left wrist, possibly reaggravated during the incident with police.

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 diagnosed with a fracture that was possibly incurred in his arrest by TPS officers on January 20, 2025. 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 his 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 WO #1 were within their rights in seeking to arrest the Complainant for possession of a stolen vehicle given the information at their disposal from the owner of the vehicle.

With respect to the force used by the officers, I am unable to reasonably conclude it transgressed the limits of the criminal law. The takedown was clearly in order. The Complainant, with the hood of the Volvo up, had placed the lives of the officers and nearby traffic at great risk in a determined effort to escape apprehension. The officers could reasonably anticipate that he would physically resist arrest given his behaviour. In the circumstances, bringing the Complainant to the ground made sense as it would position the officers to better manage any such resistance. Once on the ground, the SO and WO #1 delivered a series of punches to the Complainant’s upper body, about four each. They say that the force was used to quickly subdue the Complainant, who was not surrendering his arms and whom they feared could have a weapon. The video footage does depict the Complainant struggling against WO #1’s efforts to secure his left arm before the officer delivers his blows. On the other hand, the SO’s punches occurred so quickly after he was grounded that it is doubtful the officer was reacting to any resistance on the Complainant’s part. That said, I accept that the SO’s conduct was justified by the need to immediately bring the Complainant under control in light of his reckless and violent behaviour with the tractor, and the possibility that he was armed. In arriving at this conclusion, I am mindful that the law does not expect officers in highly charged circumstances to measure their force to a nicety; what is required is that the impugned force be reasonable, not necessarily exacting: R. v. Nasogaluak,[2010] 1 SCR 206; R. v. Baxter(1975), 27 CCC (2d) 96 (Ont. CA).

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

Date: May 12, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit