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 58-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 23, 2024, at 7:49 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the PRP, on May 23, 2024, at 11:45 a.m., the Complainant was causing a disturbance at the PRP Intimate Partner Violence Unit, 60 West Drive, Brampton. The Subject Official (SO) went into the lobby to assist with the Complainant, and a struggle ensued. The Complainant was grounded and suffered a nose injury. He was taken to Brampton Civic Hospital and diagnosed with a broken nose.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/05/24 at 7:20 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/05/24 at 10:11 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

58-year-old male; not interviewed (could not be located)

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on June 14, 2024.

Subject Official

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

The witness officials were interviewed on May 31, 2024.

Investigative Delay

Delay was incurred in the investigation owing to technical difficulties in retrieving and reviewing relevant video footage, and because of workload pressures in the Director’s Office.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the main floor of the building at 60 West Drive, Brampton.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage – 60 West Drive, Brampton

The video began with the Complainant seated at a table. At approximately three minutes and two seconds of the video, a security guard appeared to speak with the Complainant. The Complainant turned and faced the security guard while still seated and punched his left hand with his right fist.

At approximately three minutes and 47 seconds, the SO appeared in camera view from the right and walked to the left side of the video just out of camera view. After approximately 25 seconds, the Complainant stood up with clenched fists and walked quickly towards the SO, who was just out of camera view to the left. The hands of the SO could be observed on the left edge of the camera view as the Complainant was shoved backwards, causing him to fall and strike his face on the edge of the table he was originally seated at. After striking the table, the Complainant fell to the floor. The SO came into full camera view and grabbed onto the Complainant to control him.

Approximately four minutes later, WO #1 entered camera view and assisted the SO with handcuffing the Complainant. Blood could be seen on the floor around him.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – WO #2

While WO #2 was in the back of the ambulance with the Complainant, the Complainant asked for his belongings to be returned. WO #2 advised the Complainant that he was currently under arrest, and that his belongings were part of a crime scene and would be returned at a later date. The Complainant replied, “It’s not a crime scene, I fell on the table.”

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the PRP between May 23, 2024, and May 24, 2024:

• Names and badge numbers of involved police officers
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Occurrence Report
• Person Details Report - the Complainant
• All BWC footage of involved police officers
• In-car camera footage in relation to the Complainant
• Video footage from 60 West Drive, Brampton

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

In the morning of May 23, 2024, the Complainant was seated at a table on the main floor of the building situated at 60 West Drive, Brampton. The building housed the PRP Intimate Partner Violent Unit. The Complainant was belligerent with staff. A security guard attended and was threatened by the Complainant. The commotion caught the attention of a police officer in the building – the SO.

The SO spoke with the Complainant, identified himself as a police officer, and tried to de-escalate the situation. The Complainant told the officer he did not “give a fuck”. As the SO stood a short distance away from the Complainant speaking with the security guard, the Complainant rose to his feet and walked over to the pair, his hands held up. Words were exchanged and the Complainant waved with his arms on a couple of occasions. He was turning away from the officer, his arms still partially raised, when he was pushed from behind by the SO.

The push sent the Complainant tumbling towards the table at which he had been seated. His face struck the edge of the table before the Complainant landed on the floor.

The Complainant was subsequently diagnosed at hospital with a broken nose.

Section 34, Criminal Code - Defence of Person – Use or Threat of Force

34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) They believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

(b) The act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

(c) The act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:

(a) the nature of the force or threat;

(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;

(c) the person’s role in the incident;

(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;

(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;

(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and

(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a confrontation with a PRP officer in Brampton on May 23, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The SO was identified as 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 injury.

Section 34 of the Criminal Code provides that conduct that would otherwise constitute an offence is legally justified if it was intended to deter a reasonably apprehended assault, actual or threatened, and was itself reasonable. The reasonableness of the conduct is to be assessed in light of all the relevant circumstances, including with respect to such considerations as the nature of the force or threat; the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force; whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon; and, the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force.

The push to the back of the Complainant is subject to legitimate scrutiny. On the one hand, video footage of the event suggests the Complainant was turning away from the SO at the time of the shove. On the other hand, there is evidence that the Complainant had adopted a hostile posture towards the SO and the security guard, and had threatened the officer just before the push. The video also captured the Complainant with his arms raised at about the time the SO moved in to push him. That movement, coupled with the verbal threat, could have led the officer to believe an attack of some nature was imminent from the Complainant. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude with any confidence that the SO was not vested with a reasonable apprehension of assault at the operative time, and that he reacted with a shove in defence of himself and, quite possibly, the security guard. That being the case, the push would appear a reasonable tactic in the circumstances as it would quickly create space between the parties and prevent what was, arguably, a reasonably apprehended assault from materializing.

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

Date: June 13, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit