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 January 27, 2025, at 9:01 p.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On January 27, 2025, at 1:03 p.m., a woman called the YRP asking that police attend her apartment in Vaughan to remove an unwanted man. Police officers arrived on scene at 1:12 p.m., and grounds were formed to arrest the Complainant. The Complainant became combative and actively resisted arrest. He was grounded by officers. Once he calmed, the Complainant was transported to the YRP District 2 police station and paraded in front of a staff sergeant. During that process, the Complainant reported he was suffering from pain in various areas of his body. YRP officers transported the Complainant to the MacKenzie Health hospital in Richmond Hill. He was assessed and, at 3:37 p.m., admitted to the hospital under the Mental Health Act. At 6:35 p.m., a doctor reported that the Complainant had sustained a fractured left hand.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/01/28 at 9:26 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/01/28 at 11:47 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on January 28, 2025.

Civilian Witness

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Not interviewed[2]

CW #1 was interviewed on January 31, 2025.

Subject Official

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

SO #2 Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 was interviewed on March 25, 2025.

Witness Official

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary

WO #5 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary

The witness officials were interviewed on March 11, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a building located near Clark Avenue and Yonge Street, Thornhill, and the booking area of YRP District 2 station, 171 Major MacKenzie Drive West, Richmond Hill.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Police Communications Recordings

CW #1 called the YRP and reported there were two men in her apartment refusing to leave. She indicated that one of the men broke her door, and she was unsafe. The first man she referred to as a “strange white dude” [the Complainant] and the second man was her friend [CW #2], although she declined to identify him. CW #1 reported that the Complainant told her he did not want to leave and, as a result, CW #2 also refused to leave. CW #1 indicated that the Complainant broke down her bedroom door because she had his bottle of vodka. He was, at the time of her call, sitting in a chair in her bedroom and refusing to leave. A man could be heard speaking in the background of the call. CW #1 stated that CW #2 and the Complainant were arguing. The call was then disconnected.

The dispatcher advised the responding officers there were two men inside the apartment and one of them had attempted to break down a bedroom door. The dispatcher also advised responding officers that there was a caution on file regarding a domestic violence hazard and there had been a forcible confinement call at the address a few days earlier.

One of the responding officers reported he had been to the apartment recently and found the caller to be very uncooperative. The officer reported the domestic violence hazard involved CW #2.

The dispatcher broadcast that there were Canadian Police Information Centre cautions for CW #2 regarding violence and pointing a firearm. The dispatcher further advised there were several other entries regarding violence and firearms for CW #2.

At 1:20 p.m., January 27, 2025, a police officer broadcast that a person was under arrest for mischief. The officer reported they were in the stairwell and the arrested man was uncooperative, but there were three officers present, and they were fine.

Video Footage - Yonge Street

There were no time-stamps on the video footage.

In one recording, SO #1, SO #2 and WO #1 were captured entering the front entrance of CW #1’s building. Two police vehicles were parked at the side of the building.

At one second of elapsed time on the recording, a camera overlooking the garbage and recycling bin area at the side of the building recorded the three officers exiting the building with the Complainant. The Complainant had his hands handcuffed behind the back. He struggled as the officers led him towards two parked police vehicles.

At 31 seconds, as the group was at the side of the parked police vehicles, the Complainant was forced down onto the sidewalk. Any view of his upper body and the actions of the police officers was obstructed by garbage bins stored along the side of the building.

In another recording, SO #1 and WO #1 were captured leading the Complainant towards the police vehicles, with SO #2 following. The Complainant was twisting his body, and SO #2 grabbed him and started to forcibly manage him. The Complainant was subsequently forced down onto the sidewalk.

The Complainant appeared back on his feet, and he was standing at the side of SO #1’s police vehicle. He was then loaded into that vehicle.

Police In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

The Complainant was captured being loaded into the police vehicle operated by SO #1. He was very antagonistic and repeatedly complained to SO #1 about the officer slamming his face into something. SO #1 denied having done so. As SO #1 attempted to caution the Complainant with respect to a charge of mischief, the Complainant was continuously profane. SO #1 asked for the Complainant’s name, but the Complainant declined to identify himself and continued to complain that SO #1 had forced his face into something. SO #1 advised the Complainant that the police hoped to release him on a Form 10, but they needed his name. The Complainant complained the police officers did not ask for his name prior to smashing his face into a wall. The Complainant said the slamming of his face would be on body-worn camera.[4] The Complainant asked several times to be taken to the hospital.

On the way to the police station, the Complainant told SO #1 he did not feel safe. He asked SO #1 to pull over and summon a supervisor to transport him to the police station. He again complained his face had been slammed into a wall. He also complained the handcuffs were too tight.

Once in the police station sally port, the Complainant continued to complain the handcuffs were too tight and he said everything would be recorded by the ICC system. SO #1 opened the car door and checked the handcuffs, and he commented the handcuffs were loose. The Complainant told SO #1, “I’ll beat you up.” The Complainant was then removed from the vehicle.

Twenty-five minutes later, the Complainant was again placed into SO #1’s vehicle, to be transported to the hospital. During this journey he was very subdued. No injuries were apparent on his face.

Video Footage – Police Booking Area

A YRP vehicle, operated by SO #1, was captured arriving at the sally port.

SO #1, SO #2, WO #1 and WO #3 were present when the Complainant was removed from the vehicle. The Complainant said he did not do anything [wrong] and yelled, “Fucking goof.” He was removed from the vehicle and escorted into the booking area, where he was directed to sit on a bench across from the booking officer’s desk.

The Complainant stood and SO #1 took hold of his left shoulder, while SO #2 placed a hand on the Complainant’s right chest. SO #1 then shoved the Complainant down onto the bench.

The Complainant yelled at WO #3, “Fuck you, suck my dick!” and he stood again. SO #1 attempted to pull the Complainant down onto the bench and SO #2 delivered an elbow strike to the Complainant’s face. WO #1, though present, was minimally involved in the struggle.

WO #3 attempted to explain to the Complainant that they needed his name so they could release him, otherwise, he would have to attend court, where he would be fingerprinted and identified. The Complainant continued to hurl profanities at WO #3.

The Complainant complained, “I was minding my business ‘till this [racial slur] came and smacked my face against the wall.” The Complainant complained he was injured, and said he wanted to go to the hospital.

The Complainant continued to stand and the officers, primarily SO #1 and SO #2, struggled to force him down onto the bench. Eventually, SO #1 pulled the Complainant down onto the floor.

While on the floor the Complainant accused SO #1 of stepping on his hand, which SO #1 denied.

WO #3 informed the Complainant the officers would have released him if he had provided his name. The Complainant then provided his name to WO #3, who stated they would look into his background to determine whether it was appropriate to release him. The Complainant admitted he was on probation.

When WO #3 asked the Complainant whether he had any medical conditions, the Complainant stated his face hurt and he had asthma.

The Complainant was escorted back to SO #1’s vehicle, and he was transported to the hospital.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the YRP between January 27, 2025, and April 24, 2025:

• Notes of the witness officials
• Booking Record –The Complainant
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• General Occurrence Report
• Call History
• E-mail – summary of incident
• Video footage - booking
• ICC footage - SO #1’s police vehicle
• Communications recordings, and
• Photographs

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources:

• The Complainant’s medical records from MacKenzie Health hospital, received on January 30, 2025
• Video footage from an address in the area of Yonge Street, Thornhill, received on February 26, 2025

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and SO #2, and other police and civilian witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, SO #1 did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

In the early afternoon of January 27, 2025, SO #1 and SO #2, in the company of WO #1, attended at a residential unit of a building located near Clark Avenue and Yonge Street, Thornhill. The resident – CW #1 – had called police to report that there were two unwanted males with her refusing to leave, one of whom had damaged her bedroom door. CW #1 answered the officers’ knock at the door. Beside her was one of the unwanted guests – the Complainant. The Complainant walked out the open door into the hallway and proceeded into a stairwell to exit the building. Asked to stop by the police, he continued on his way down the stairwell.

Having entered the residence and confirmed that the Complainant was responsible for the damage to the bedroom door, SO #2 called for his arrest on a charge of mischief. The officers pursued the Complainant and caught up to him in the stairwell. The Complainant resisted arrest but was handcuffed behind the back.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was escorted outside to a waiting cruiser. He was highly belligerent and placed on the ground to calm down, after which he was seated in the vehicle and taken to the station.

The Complainant remained aggressive during the booking procedure at the station, and was again placed on the floor. He complained of pain and was transported to hospital where he was diagnosed with a broken left hand.

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 430(1), Criminal Code - Mischief

430 (1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully

(a) destroys or damages property;

(b) renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective;

(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or

(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.

The Complainant was seriously injured in or around the time of his arrest by YRP officers on January 27, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming two subject officials – SO #1 and SO #2. 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.

SO #2 had witnessed the damage to the bedroom door and come to learn from CW #1 that the Complainant had attempted to force it open to retrieve a bottle of vodka. Coupled with what he knew of the 911 call, this information gave rise to lawful grounds to arrest the Complainant for mischief contrary to section 430(1) of the Criminal Code.

With respect to the force used by the officers against the Complainant, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was unlawful. It is alleged that the Complainant was not resisting arrest in the staircase when SO #2 and SO #1, having caught up to him, punched him in the ribs up to a dozen times, and his face was slammed into a wall by SO #1. That evidence stands in contrast to the accounts of SO #2 and WO #1, who indicate that the Complainant physically resisted and was wrestled into custody without resort to any strikes by the officers. The incriminating scenario described above must also be approached with caution as its source denied a couple of things that the weight of the evidence suggests were true, namely, that the Complainant was intoxicated at the time and that he had damaged the bedroom door. On this record, there being no reason to believe the more incriminating version of events is any likelier to be closer to the truth than the one proffered by the police, and some reason to doubt it, I am unable to reasonably conclude that any of the officers’ conduct in the stairwell was unlawful. The officers’ takedown of the Complainant en route to the cruiser would appear a reasonable use of force. It made sense to place the highly agitated Complainant on the ground for period in the hopes he would calm before placing him in the cruiser. Moreover, there is no evidence that the grounding was executed with undue force. The same can essentially be said with respect to the takedown at the police station during the Complainant’s booking. If SO #1 did in fact step on the Complainant’s hand on this occasion, the video footage of the incident suggests that he did so inadvertently. The elbow strike by SO #2 during this time is subject to legitimate scrutiny. The Complainant was handcuffed when struck and surrounded by police officers. On the other hand, the Complainant’s hostility remained unabated – he continuously threatened the officers with bodily harm and adopted an aggressive posture. In the circumstances, I am unable to conclude that a discrete sharp use of force to subdue a confrontational individual was an unnecessary escalation.

It remains unclear whether the Complainant’s injury was incurred in his dealings with the officers or pre-existed the officers’ arrival at CW #1’s residence, perhaps the result of the Complainant damaging the bedroom door. Be that as it may, I am satisfied for the foregoing reasons that his fractured left hand is not attributable to any unlawful conduct on the part of the subject officials. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: May 23, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit