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 57-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 12, 2025, at 7:43 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On February 11, 2025, at 2:00 p.m., the Complainant was arrested by shopping plaza security officers after threatening a bank employee. At 2:06 p.m., Witness Official (WO) #1 and WO #2 arrived on scene and took the Complainant into custody without incident for threating the bank employee and breaching a release condition. It was noted that the Complainant had sustained a cut above his right eye when arrested by plaza security officers. The Complainant was transported to 31 Division, paraded before Subject Official (SO) #1 at 2:50 p.m. and, because of the injury above his right eye, taken to Humber River Hospital (HRH). The Complainant was later discharged and transported to 32 Division, arriving at 7:22 p.m. The Complainant was booked at 32 Division by SO #2 and placed inside a cell. Regular checks were conducted. At 7:30 p.m., the Complainant removed his right shoe and placed his hand over top his mouth, potentially ingesting an unknown substance. At 7:36 p.m., the Complainant took his left shoe off, removed a blue baggie, and placed his hand over top his mouth, again potentially ingesting an unknown substance, after which he lay down and went to sleep. At 10:48 p.m. and 10:53 p.m., the Complainant was checked, and appeared to be breathing without issue. At 11:28 p.m., Service Employee Witness (SEW) #1 checked the Complainant. As he appeared unconscious and not breathing, SEW #1 entered the cell and unsuccessfully attempted to wake the Complainant. Emergency medical services (EMS) were called. At 11:50 p.m., the Complainant arrived at North York General Hospital (NYGH). He was intubated and transferred to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), where he remained in critical condition.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/02/12 at 8:05 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/02/12 at 9:48 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

57-year-old male; not interviewed (unable to locate)

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on February 13, 2025.

Subject Officials

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 #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on February 21, 2025.

Service Employee Witnesses

SEW #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SEW #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The service employee witnesses were interviewed on February 21, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a cell at TPS 32 Division.

Physical Evidence

The SIU forensic investigator attended the scene - TPS 32 Division, cell area. The Complainant’s cell had a typical layout consisting of a bed made of hardened material and a sink/toilet combination. A wrapped sandwich was on the floor and a small piece of torn plastic was on the bed itself. A small sticker and a crumpled plastic bag in the hallway outside on the floor had markings indicating EMS intervention. A video camera was noted in the hallway directly across from the entrance to the cell.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Communications Recordings

On February 11, 2025, at 12:03:17 p.m., a bank called 911 to report that a client [now known to be the Complainant] had called the tele bank line and said he would attend the branch at a mall [address provided] in Toronto to harm someone. The Complainant was upset due to a discrepancy in his bank account. The bank had already been notified, and they were aware of the Complainant as they had had trouble with him in the past.

Starting at about 1:02:41 p.m., the CW called 911 to report the tele bank incident. The Complainant had attended the branch and was escorted out by mall security about ten minutes prior.

Starting at about 1:35:06 p.m., the dispatcher requested that police officers attend the shopping mall in relation to the 911 calls. A unit (WO #1 and WO #2) reported they would attend.

Starting at about 2:05:27 p.m., WO #1 informed the dispatcher that the Complainant was in custody and requested that an ambulance attend to check on a cut to the Complainant’s left eye.

Starting at about 2:29:57 p.m., WO #1 reported he was en route to 31 Division with the Complainant. The ambulance had attended and cleared the Complainant.

Starting at about 2:40:08 p.m., WO #1 reported he had arrived.

Starting at about 3:21:44 p.m., WO #1 reported he was en route to the HRH.

Starting at about 6:34:10 p.m., WO #1 reported they were en route to 32 Division.

Starting at about 11:36:02 p.m., 32 Division requested an ambulance for the Complainant, who was breathing but unconscious.

Starting at about 11:51:07 p.m., the Complainant was en route to the NYGH.

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

On February 11, 2025, at 1:56:43 p.m., WO #1 was captured speaking with a man on his cellular phone. The man reported that a person [now known to be the Complainant] had called the bank, spoken with a supervisor, and said something along the lines of: “You don’t want to mess with me, or get in my way, it’s only ten years for attempted murder, and going to the branch.” The mall security had an eye out for the Complainant as well. WO #1 said he was at the branch and would speak with the staff to prepare safety plans. The Complainant would be arrested if he attended the bank as he had conditions not to attend the branch.

Starting at about 2:02:42 p.m., WO #1 and WO #2 stood outside the bank. WO #1 said, “[The Complainant’s first name], what’s going on?” The Complainant walked towards the police officers. He had a bruised right eye, and bled from the right eye down his cheek. WO #1 asked what happened to his eye. The Complainant said, “They pushed me.” WO #1 asked, “Who pushed you?” The Complainant said, “Uh, the body, the guards, whatever.” WO #1 asked the Complainant, “Where are you not supposed to be?” The Complainant said, “Listen, all I want is my money.” WO #1 said, “You are on conditions where you cannot be on this property, criminal conditions, okay? And you keep coming back. So, unfortunately, we’re going to have to place you under arrest now, okay? So, hands behind your back.” WO #1 and WO #2 handcuffed the Complainant with his hands behind the back. WO #2 asked if he needed an ambulance for his head injury. The Complainant declined. WO #1 asked if he had anything on him. The Complainant said, “No.” WO #1 searched the Complainant’s pockets.

Starting at about 2:08:48 p.m., the Complainant was captured sitting in the rear seat of a police vehicle.

Starting at about 2:47:43 p.m., WO #1 opened the door and directed the Complainant to exit the police vehicle. He went willingly with WO #1.

Starting at about 3:21:11 p.m., a view of the booking hall was captured from behind the booking desk. A door to the left camera frame was open and WO #1 could be heard in conversation with the Complainant in the sally port. The Complainant cursed. The Complainant entered the booking area. His hands were handcuffed behind the back. He had a bandage across his right eyebrow. WO #2 directed the Complainant to stand in front of the booking desk. He stood flanked by WO #2 and WO #1, and was paraded before SO #1. WO #2 reported that a frisk search had been conducted, yielding some papers. Due to the amount of clothing worn by the Complainant, WO #2 requested another search. SO #1 asked the Complainant what happened to his head. The Complainant said a mall security guard pushed him, and he fell and hit the radiator. He complained of a sore shoulder, reported he had no thoughts of suicidal ideation or self-harm, and indicated he had not consumed alcohol or substances. SO #1 asked the Complainant if he had any drugs in his possession, and the Complainant said, “No, man.”

Starting at about 3:29:09 p.m., WO #1 performed a frisk search on the Complainant. WO #1 removed the handcuffs. SO #1 and a special constable assisted WO #1 and WO #2 with the frisk search. The Complainant’s jacket and sweater were removed. When asked to remove his hoodie, the Complainant requested to go to the hospital because his head hurt. The Complainant removed his hoodie and turned to place both hands on the wall. WO #1 searched the Complainant’s upper body, pockets, and lower body. The Complainant was directed to remove his shoes.

Starting at about 3:32:59 p.m., WO #1 and WO #2 each picked up a shoe and looked in it.

Starting at about 3:33:33 p.m., WO #1 pulled the lace out and reached into the shoe with his gloved left hand.

Starting at about 3:33:42 p.m., WO #2 pulled the lace out and seemingly reached into the shoe with her gloved left hand.

Starting at about 3:34:00 p.m., the Complainant sat on a bench, removed his socks, and gave them to WO #1. The Complainant’s socks were searched and returned for him to put back on.

Starting at about 3:37:24 p.m., the Complainant reported his head hurt, and that he needed to see a doctor and wanted to go to hospital. SO #1 told the Complainant he would be taken to the hospital.

En route to the hospital, the Complainant said, “No man, I can’t do it. I’m fucking ready to kill myself. I’m not fucking going back to jail, man, not at this age. Throw me off the fucking 401, I don’t give a fuck, I’ve had it, man.”

Starting at about 6:39:15 p.m., the Complainant sat in the back seat of the police vehicle. He had a bandage wrapped around his head (after his visit to the HRH).

Starting at about 6:57:58 p.m., the police vehicle stopped. WO #1 informed the Complainant of his past charges and the release conditions not to attend the mall.

Starting at about 7:13:40 p.m., the Complainant said, “Please man, fucking shoot me, kill me, please, I don’t want to fucking be here.”

Starting at about 7:26:01 p.m., a view of the 32 Division booking area was captured. The Complainant was paraded before SO #2. The Complainant was said to have been escorted to the hospital from 31 Division and cleared by a doctor. WO #1 removed the handcuffs from the Complainant. He was not allowed to take his coat to his cell because, as was explained, the last time he was allowed his coat in cells, he had crack hidden in it that the police had not located during the search. The Complainant was escorted from the booking area by WO #1 and WO #2, and a special constable, to be lodged in a cell.[3]

Starting at about 7:27:51 p.m., the Complainant sat on the bed on the right side of the cell. He leaned forward and to the side occasionally. He got up twice to pick up small pieces of paper, and discarded them.

Starting at about 7:30:56 p.m., the Complainant removed his right shoe and held it in his hands. Due to the position of a cell bar, it was unclear what he did with the shoe. The Complainant sat on the bed with his legs dangling to the side and his upper body turned away from the camera. It was unclear what he was doing.

Starting at about 7:32:30 p.m., the Complainant pulled his legs up and lay down on his right side. The video froze and then resumed. The Complainant sat up and raised his right hand to his mouth.

Starting at about 7:34:03 p.m., the Complainant raised his right hand to his mouth. The Complainant had his shoe on his lap, fiddled with it, and placed it back on his foot.

Starting at about 7:36:16 p.m., the Complainant removed his left shoe and looked inside. The Complainant rubbed his left foot and put his shoe back on. The Complainant used both hands to unwrap something. The Complainant put both hands in his front hoodie pockets. The Complainant lay down on his right side, after which he rested with his head against the wall on his back and knees bent up.

At about 7:39:10 p.m., the video jumped to 8:21:14 p.m. The Complainant rested on his back with one knee bent and one knee outstretched. SEW #2 and SEW #1 entered the left camera frame and checked on the cell to the right of the Complainant before they exited.

Starting at about 8:43:04 p.m., SEW #2 placed a white item at the foot of the Complainant’s cell. The corner of an arm entered the right camera frame periodically.

Starting at about 10:48:22 p.m., SEW #1 attended the Complainant’s cell and looked at him.

Starting at about 10:53:55 p.m., SEW #1 and SEW #2 entered the left camera frame and looked in on the Complainant.

Starting at about 10:54:37 p.m., SEW #1 and SEW #2 exited the left camera frame.

Starting at about 11:28:04 p.m., SEW #1 entered the left camera frame and unlocked the cell. SEW #1 and SEW #2 entered the cell and shook the Complainant’s right leg. SEW #1 reached out with his right hand to the Complainant’s upper body. SEW #2 shook the Complainant’s right leg vigorously.

Starting at about 11:30:23 p.m., SEW #1 and SEW #2 exited the cell, locked it behind them, and exited the left camera frame.

Starting at about 11:32:31 p.m., SEW #1 and SEW #2 entered the left camera frame, opened the cell, and entered. SEW #1 performed a sternum rub on the Complainant, who had no reaction.

Starting at about 11:33:11 p.m., SEW #2 shook the Complainant’s right foot as SEW #1 continued to perform a sternum rub.

Starting at about 11:33:34 p.m., SEW #1 and SEW #2 exited the cell.

Starting at about 11:34:43 p.m., SEW #1 and SEW #2, and SO #2, entered the cell. SO #2 used two hands to grab the Complainant’s right leg and pulled him, so he slid along the bed. SO #2 pulled on the Complainant’s right leg again and performed a sternum rub. SO #2, and SEW #1 and SEW #2, exited the cell.

Starting at about 11:40:17 p.m., SEW #1 entered the left camera frame and looked in on the Complainant. He then entered the cell, touched the Complainant’s right foot, and pulled on his left arm.

Starting at about 11:42:51 p.m., SEW #1 entered the left camera frame followed by two male paramedics. The paramedics tended to the Complainant.

Starting at about 11:45:16 p.m., the paramedics put the Complainant on a stretcher. The stretcher was moved from the cell, and the paramedics tended to the Complainant in the hall.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between February 14, 2025, and March 1, 2025:

• Notes - WO #1, WO #2, SEW #1 and SEW #2
• Procedure - Search of Persons
• Procedure - Persons in Custody
• Booking questions
• Booking Record - the Complainant
• TPS History - the Complainant
• General Occurrence Report
• BWC footage
• ICC footage
• Custody footage
• Communications recordings

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between February 13, 2025, and February 25, 2025:

• Ambulance Call Reports from Toronto EMS
• Incident Summary Reports from Toronto EMS

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes.

The Complainant was arrested in the afternoon of February 11, 2025, for being in violation of a term of a release order, namely, that he not attend a shopping mall in Toronto. He had arrived at a bank branch at that location in an agitated state, believing that his money was being improperly accessed. WO #1 and WO #2 took the Complainant into custody. As the Complainant was bleeding from the face, an ambulance was called. Paramedics dressed his wound and left, the Complainant having declined their offer of a trip to hospital.

The Complainant was transported to 31 Division where he was booked and subjected to a search of his person and clothing, which turned up nothing. When asked by the booking officer – SO #1, he denied having consumed drugs or alcohol. He also told SO #1 he was not in possession of any drugs. The Complainant asked to go to hospital and SO #1 acquiesced to the request.

WO #1 and WO #2 transported the Complainant to hospital. After his visit with a physician, the officers took the Complainant to 32 Division where he was paraded before SO #2 before being lodged in a cell.

The Complainant was placed in a cell at about 7:30 p.m. Shortly after, he appeared to ingest a substance after manipulating his shoes. At about 11:30 p.m., SEW #1 and SEW #2 entered the Complainant’s cell and found him unresponsive – breathing but unconscious.

Paramedics arrived at the cell and transported the Complainant to hospital where he spent time in the ICU. The Complainant signed himself out of hospital on February 17, 2025.

Section 215, Criminal Code - Failure to Provide Necessaries

215 (1) Every one is under a legal duty

(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person

(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and

(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.

(2) Every person commits an offence who, being under a legal duty within the meaning of subsection (1), fails without lawful excuse to perform that duty, if

(b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant lapsed into acute medical distress while in the custody of the TPS on February 11, 2025. 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 medical incident.

The offences that arise for consideration are failure to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to sections 215 and 221 of the Criminal Code, respectively. Both require something more than a simple want of care to give rise to liability. The former is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. The latter is premised on even more egregious conduct that demonstrates a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is not made out unless the neglect constitutes a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable standard of care. In the instant case, the question is whether there was any want of care on the part of either subject official, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that endangered the Complainant’s life or contributed to his health crisis. In my view, there was not.

I am satisfied that the Complainant was lawfully in police custody through the series of events culminating in his medical event. In contravention of a release order, he had attended at the shopping mall upset about his banking situation.

I am further satisfied that the police personnel who cared for him comported themselves with due regard for his well-being through his time in custody. The Complainant was subjected to what appeared to be a thorough search of his person and clothing on arrival at 31 Division, which had turned up nothing of concern. There is also evidence that the Complainant was regularly monitored while in the cell at 32 Division by the special constables tasked with that responsibility. While it might be that the Complainant’s apparent ingestion of an illicit substance could have been detected sooner or, conceivably, even prevented had he been subjected to more frequent checks, the Complainant did not present as a high risk detainee who would warrant a heightened level of supervision - he appeared of sound mind and had denied being in possession of drugs. Of some concern is the fact that the Complainant was not searched again at 32 Division on his return from hospital. The Complainant’s custodians did not seem to think that another search was warranted as he had already been checked and was in continuous police custody between his arrivals at 31 and 32 Division. That line of logic, however, fails to account for periods in which the Complainant was left alone to some extent at hospital, whether when using the bathroom or being seen by a physician. Be that as it may, it would be speculation to conclude that the Complainant was able to take possession of illicit substances during these times. Far likelier, in my view, is that the substances were concealed on his person or in his clothing from the moment of his arrest, and that the officers who searched him at 31 Division simply failed to locate them, despite what appears to have been a competently conducted search.

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

This matter involved what appears to have been a late notification of the incident by the police service to the SIU in possible contravention of section 16 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. An unconscious Complainant was seen by paramedics at 32 Division at about 2345 hours, February 11, 2025, but the matter was not reported to the SIU until about 0740 hours of the following day. I will be raising this matter in my reporting letter to the chief of police. Further to section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, I will also be referring this matter to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency for their consideration.

Date: May 28, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit