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 49-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 30, 2025, at 10:45 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On January 29, 2025, the TPS arrested the Complainant for an incident at a residence in Toronto and lodged him at the TPS’s 22 Division. On January 30, 2025, he was removed from his cell to be fingerprinted and photographed. During this process, the Complainant was grounded by officers. He was subsequently taken to the Etobicoke General Hospital (EGH), where it was determined that he had sustained a fractured left orbital bone.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/01/30 at 11:45 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/01/30 at 12:50 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on February 2, 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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on March 6, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the fingerprint room of TPS 22 Division.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Police Body-worn Camera (BWC) and In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

On January 29, 2025, starting at about 9:23 p.m., two TPS officers arrived at an address and knocked on the door. A woman answered the door and let the officers in. She confirmed that the Complainant was outside at the rear of the residence, and that he had earlier placed a hand on her face and pushed her. The officers went to the rear and arrested the Complainant without incident.

The footage also captured the transport of the Complainant from his residence to TPS 22 Division station, which was uneventful.

Fingerprint Room Footage

Starting at about 2:03:35 a.m., January 30, 2025, the Complainant walked into the room and took a seat on a grey steel bench with his hands folded in front of him. The Complainant grimaced, held his stomach with his right hand, and appeared to be in pain. WO #1 entered the room and spoke to the Complainant, who shook his head and shrugged his shoulders.

Starting at about 2:10:21 a.m., there were five police officers in the room: WO #3, WO #1, WO #2, WO #4 and the SO. All of them, except for WO #3, moved towards the Complainant. WO #4 took a position behind the seat of the Complainant and placed his hands on the Complainant’s shoulders. WO #2 placed a hand on the Complainant’s right arm. WO #4 held the Complainant’s head to face the camera.

Starting at about 2:11:30 a.m., the Complainant started to resist. The SO stood to the left and in front of the Complainant, and held his forehead to face the camera. The Complainant’s head and neck were kept immobile by the four police officers so he could remain motionless for the photographs.

Starting at about 2:14:14 a.m., the Complainant was brought to his feet and escorted to the fingerprint scanner. He appeared lethargic and had to be helped off the bench.

Starting at about 2:14:22 a.m., WO #3 stood in front of the Complainant. The Complainant stood to her right looking over her right shoulder. WO #3 took his right hand and rolled the fingers of his right hand over the scanner. WO #1 held the Complainant’s right forearm and WO #4 stood at his right shoulder. The SO stood off the Complainant’s left shoulder. The Complainant appeared as though he was going to faint. He was supported by WO #4 from behind. He became agitated. The SO held the Complainant’s left hand and arm. The Complainant turned to look at the SO, and raised his left arm held by the police officer. Suddenly, he turned aggressive and shook his left hand loose from the SO’s grip. The Complainant was grounded face first onto the floor. WO #1 and WO #2 were on his right side, WO #4 was behind him, and the SO was to his left. The SO leaned over the Complainant’s head and tried to secure the Complainant’s hands behind his back. The SO used his right knee to deliver a knee strike to the Complainant’s left deltoid. A second later, the SO used his right knee once more delivering a second knee strike to the left side of the Complainant’s head and neck area.

Starting at about 2:17:09 a.m., the SO placed his left knee on the back of the Complainant’s head for a very brief period. Eleven seconds later, the Complainant was brought to his feet with both hands handcuffed behind the back, and escorted out of the room.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between January 30, 2025, and February 5, 2025:

• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Occurrence Report
• Supplementary Reports
• Involved Officer List
• BWC footage
• ICC footage
• Custody footage
• Notes of all witness officials

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The Complainant’s medical records were obtained from the EGH on March 24, 2025.

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

In the evening of January 29, 2025, the Complainant was arrested at his residence with respect to an allegation of domestic assault. He was taken into custody, brought to 22 Division, and lodged in a cell to await a bail hearing.

Early the next morning, the Complainant was removed from his cell unhandcuffed and taken to a room to have his photograph and fingerprints taken. When the Complainant refused to cooperate for the photograph, his head was held in position by several police officers, including the SO. The Complainant was then walked to the fingerprint scanner where he continued to resist the officers’ efforts. With two officers on his right side, and two on his left, his arms were held in an effort to facilitate the process. After a while, while an officer was still trying to take his right hand prints, the Complainant suddenly yanked his left arm loose from the hold of the SO and WO #4. The officers grappled to control the Complainant and forced him to the floor, where he landed front first. The SO lowered himself by the left side of the Complainant’s head and attempted to free his left arm from under him before delivering two knee strikes to the shoulder and head area. Following the strikes, the Complainant’s arms were positioned behind his back and handcuffed.

The Complainant was subsequently seen at hospital and diagnosed with left-sided facial fractures.

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 while in the custody of the TPS on January 30, 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 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.

Given what they knew of the 911 call about an assault allegedly perpetrated by the Complainant on his partner, and confirmation received by officers from the reported victim at the scene to the effect that the Complainant had pushed her in the face, I am satisfied that the Complainant was subject to arrest for assault. Once in lawful custody, the police were entitled to exercise reasonable control over the Complainant’s movements to ensure he was safely processed according to law.

I am further satisfied that the force brought to bear against the Complainant in the fingerprint room was justified. The Complainant’s agitation had been rising and boiled over when he violently freed his left arm from the grips of the SO and WO #4. The officers were within their rights in reasserting control over the Complainant at that point. A takedown made sense as it would immediately position the officers to better manage the Complainant’s resistance. It would also appear that the two knee strikes were reasonable in the circumstances, occurring as they did after the SO had tried and failed to wrestle control of the Complainant’s left arm. No further strikes were delivered once the Complainant was handcuffed behind the back.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s facial fractures were incurred in the altercation in the fingerprint room, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that they are attributable to unlawful force on the part of the SO or the other officers present at the time. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: May 22, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit