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 37-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 23, 2025, at 1:02 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 3:12 p.m., January 22, 2025, police were informed of a robbery near Bloor Street West and Kipling Avenue. Responding officers located a fleeing vehicle nearby and stopped it without incident. The female driver remained in the car while a man [now known to be the Complainant] fled on foot. In the foot pursuit, the Complainant was taken to the ground and arrested by two officers at 3:15 p.m. on northbound Islington Avenue, north of Bloor Street West. The Complainant was transported to 22 Division station where he complained of being dizzy. He was taken by ambulance to the St. Joseph’s Health Centre (SJHC) and, at 11:03 p.m., diagnosed with “mildly depressed bilateral comminuted nasal bones fracture, acute or chronic”.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/01/23 at 6:53 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/01/23 at 11:03 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on January 23, 2025.

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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness official was interviewed on February 2, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the northbound lanes of Islington Avenue, a short distance north of Bloor Street West, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Communications Recordings

On January 22, 2025, starting at about 3:11 p.m., a person reported a robbery at an address near Bloor Street West and Kipling Avenue. The male suspect’s description was provided. Reportedly, the male had intimated possession of a weapon in his jacket, but no weapon was actually seen. The male told an employee at the address that he did not want to harm him. The employee gave him $500, and the male left. He fled alone, in the driver’s seat, of a Kia Forte, travelling eastbound on Bloor Street West.

Starting at about 3:12 p.m., the dispatcher broadcast there had been a hold-up. WO #1 reported he could check the area.

Starting at about 3:15 p.m., WO #2 and the SO indicated they would also attend. WO #2 and the SO subsequently reported a Kia eastbound on Bloor Street West at Islington Avenue.

Starting at about 3:17 p.m., WO #2 and the SO reported the Kia travelling northbound on Islington Avenue. The officers broadcast that they would pull in front of the vehicle, while another vehicle would block it from behind. WO #1 reported that the Kia was northbound on Islington Avenue, north of Bloor Street West, and they were about to stop it.

Starting at about 3:18 p.m., WO #2 and the SO reported they had the Kia stopped, and that one person was in custody.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - WO #1, WO #2 and the SO

The footage was of no investigative value.[3]

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage - WO #1

On January 22, 2025, starting at about 3:17 p.m., WO #1 stopped his cruiser facing westbound Bloor Street West at the intersection of Bloor Street West and Islington Avenue. A Kia sedan was captured travelling east on Bloor Street West and making a left turn northbound onto Islington Avenue. A fully marked police vehicle [now known to be operated by WO #2] followed the Kia into the intersection. WO #2 announced over the radio, “I’ll stop in front of it, you lock it up.” As the Kia travelled northbound on Islington Avenue in the left passing lane, WO #2’s police vehicle passed the Kia via the curb lane and crossed into the passing lane ahead of the Kia. WO #2 stopped the police vehicle and the Kia stopped behind it. The SO exited the front passenger seat of the police vehicle, drew his firearm and pointed it at the Kia, and walked towards the Kia. WO #2 exited the driver’s seat of the police vehicle and walked to the Kia. The SO said, “Show me your hands.” The front passenger door opened and a male – the Complainant – ran southeast from the Kia. As the Complainant ran, the SO used his left hand to grab the Complainant’s left arm as they both ran out of the right camera frame. The SO and WO #1 said, “Get on the ground, don’t move!”

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between January 24, 2025, and February 27, 2025:

• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Policies - Arrest & Incident Response
• BWC footage
• ICC footage
• Photographs
• Notes - WO #1 and WO #2
• Communications recordings

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the SJHC on January 28, 2025:

• The Complainant’s medical records
• Ambulance Call Report and Incident Summary Report

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, 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.

In the afternoon of January 22, 2025, the SO, a passenger in a cruiser operated by WO #2, and other TPS officers responded to a robbery at an address near Bloor Street West and Kipling Avenue. The male suspect had reportedly brandished a concealed weapon, was provided $500, and had fled in a Kia eastbound on Bloor Street West.

The SO and WO #2 located the vehicle and pursued it east on Bloor Street West and north on Islington Avenue. A short distance north of Bloor Street West, the officers pulled in front of the Kia in the passing lane of Islington Avenue and came to a stop, forcing the Kia to also stop behind them. Another cruiser, operated by WO #1, positioned his cruiser directly behind the Kia. The officers exited their cruisers and confronted the occupants of the Kia – a female driver and a male front seat passenger – the Complainant.

The Complainant exited the Kia through the front passenger door and fled southwards on Islington Avenue. He had not travelled very far when he was grabbed by the SO and WO #1, forced to the ground, and handcuffed.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a broken nose that was either “acute or chronic”.

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 January 22, 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 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 Complainant matched the description of a male robber and was a passenger in a vehicle that had been seen fleeing the scene of the robbery. On this record, I am satisfied that he was subject to arrest for the crime that had taken place.

I am also satisfied that only lawful force was brought to bear in effecting the Complainant’s arrest. Given what they knew of the robbery, the SO and WO #1 would have had cause to be concerned that the Complainant was armed with a weapon. His flight from police would have also given them reason to believe he would physically resist arrest. In the circumstances, it made sense to ground the Complainant as doing so would position the officers to better manage any resistance from the Complainant while mitigating the risk of him accessing a weapon on his person.

It remains unclear whether the Complainant’s broken nose was incurred in the takedown or pre-existed his arrest. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than within the limits of the criminal law, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.

Date: May 15, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit