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 22, 2025, at 11:12 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On February 22, 2025, at 1:52 a.m., a female contacted the TPS for assistance with the removal of the Complainant, who was demonstrating aggressive behaviour and banging on a door of a home they shared in North York. The Complainant was known to suffer from mental illness and although he normally resided with the female, on the date in question she requested his removal. Officers arrived at the home and learned that the Complainant was wanted on an outstanding bench warrant. The Complainant became assaultive when officers attempted to arrest him at 2:04 a.m., and he was taken to the ground. The Complainant was transported to 33 Division and lodged pending a bail hearing. At about 6:00 a.m., he complained of pain to his right ring finger. The Complainant was transported to the North York General Hospital (NYGH) and diagnosed with a fracture of the right ring finger.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/02/22 at 1:17 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/02/23 at 1:55 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on February 23, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on February 23, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on April 7, 2025.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between March 11, 2025, and March 12, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the driveway of a home situated in North York, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Police Communications Recordings – 911

On February 21, 2025, starting at about 11:10 p.m., the CW called 911 and asked for help because the Complainant had damaged her house. The CW said, “Stop it,” to the Complainant, who was yelling in the background. In response, the Complainant said, “Well, then you hang-up the phone and just be reasonable.” The CW was in her bedroom and did not know where the Complainant was, but he was inside the home. The Complainant had been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder.

Starting at about 11:21 p.m., the call-taker told the CW that officers had arrived at her home. The call-taker remained on the phone with the CW until she went to the front door and saw officers.

On February 22, 2025, starting at about 1:51 a.m., the CW called 911 and reported she had received instruction to call the police again when the Complainant returned home. The Complainant was at the front door of the home and banging on it. The CW was in her bedroom and could not see him.

Starting at about 1:57 a.m., the call-taker told the CW that officers had arrived and were at her residence talking to the Complainant.

Police Communications Recordings – Radio

On February 22, 2025, starting at about 1:52 a.m., a TPS dispatcher requested that officers attend a residence in North York for an unwanted guest knocking at the door.

Starting at about 1:53 a.m., WO #1 and the SO requested to be assigned to the call.

Starting at about 1:54 a.m., the SO was informed that the Complainant was wanted on an outstanding bench warrant and was subject to arrest.

Starting at about 2:03 a.m., WO #3 reported he was on scene, and that the Complainant was in custody following a struggle.

Police Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On February 22, 2025, starting at about 1:56 a.m., the SO shone his flashlight at a residence. The Complainant was captured standing at the top of a driveway. The SO said, “Sir?” The Complainant told him to get off the property if they did not have a warrant. WO #1 told the Complainant they wanted to talk to him. The Complainant walked down the driveway. The SO pointed his right index finger towards him and said, “Take your hands out. Keep your hands out. Don’t put them in the jacket again, okay?” The Complainant said, “I will put them in the jacket in my property.” The Complainant walked to the edge of the driveway with his hands behind his back and said, “Don’t come any further than this.” WO #1 tried to engage the Complainant in conversation but the Complainant refused to answer questions. The Complainant told the officers not to enter onto his property.

Starting at about 2:02 a.m., WO #1 moved towards the Complainant and grabbed him. The SO grabbed the Complainant’s right arm. The Complainant struggled with the officers. The nature of the interaction was partially obstructed. WO #1 and WO #2 held the front of the Complainant’s jacket and tried to pull him forward as the SO moved the Complainant’s right arm behind his back. An officer told the Complainant that he had a bench warrant. The SO continued to hold the Complainant’s right hand behind his back while the Complainant struggled. WO #1 held the Complainant’s left wrist behind his back.

Starting at about 2:03 a.m., the SO tried to handcuff the Complainant’s right wrist, but he pulled his arm away. The SO said, “Don’t move, don’t resist.” WO #2 put a leg out and pushed the Complainant over. The Complainant landed on the driveway on his left side. The Complainant subsequently rolled onto his back and used his right leg to kick out at the SO twice. WO #1 was on the Complainant’s right side and WO #2 was to the left. The SO backed away and said, “Assault, he kicked me.” WO #1 held the Complainant’s upper body down. WO #2 was to the left side of the Complainant, and the SO approached the right side at the Complainant’s hip. WO #2 used his left knee to push the Complainant’s left leg down. The SO tried to handcuff the Complainant and held him by his fingers. He told the other officers that the Complainant was wearing gloves and it was hard to handcuff him. The Complainant struggled with the officers. They told him not to move. The SO handcuffed the Complainant’s right wrist. The officer reached up the left sleeve of the Complainant’s jacket and pulled his hand out by his fingers. The SO grabbed the Complainant’s left wrist, and WO #2 handcuffed the wrist. The SO double-locked the handcuffs.

Starting at about 2:18 a.m., WO #2 knocked on the door to the home and spoke with the CW. He said the Complainant had been arrested for a bench warrant. The Complainant provided WO #2 with the Complainant’s medication.

Police In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – Cruiser # 3322

On February 22, 2025, starting at about 2:08 a.m., the Complainant shouted and cursed outside the cruiser. The officers struggled with the Complainant on the road at the passenger side of the cruiser.

Starting at about 2:11 a.m., the rear passenger door opened, and the Complainant was captured resting face down on the ground with his hands handcuffed behind the back. WO #1 picked the Complainant up by his right elbow and held him up at the seat level. The SO opened the rear driver-side door. WO #2 entered the rear driver-side door as the SO and WO #1 attempted to put the Complainant into the rear passenger-side door. The Complainant shouted at the officers and kicked out with his tied legs. WO #1 held the Complainant by the right elbow, and WO #2 reached forward and pulled the Complainant through the back seat by the hood of his jacket. The Complainant slid across the back seat on his stomach. WO #2 pulled the Complainant by his elbows as WO #1 pushed his feet into the cruiser and the SO removed the leg restraints. WO #1 and WO #2 closed both rear doors.

Starting at about 2:20 a.m., WO #1 informed the Complainant he was under arrest for a bench warrant and assaulting a police officer. The Complainant shouted and cursed at the officers.

At 3:13 a.m., the cruiser arrived at 32 Division.

Police Custody Footage

On February 22, 2025, starting at about 3:21 a.m., Cruiser # 3322 parked in the sally port with WO #1 standing next to an opened, rear passenger-side door. WO #2 opened the access door to the sally port and informed WO #1 they could start. WO #1 helped the Complainant out of the cruiser and guided him to the booking desk. The SO, Officer #1 and Officer #2 were present in the booking room. WO #1 explained to the Complainant the room was equipped with audio and video recording equipment and the equipment was activated. The Complainant told Officer #1 that he understood he was under arrest for an assault against the police. He gestured to his right in the direction of the SO and said the officer came onto his property and tackled him. WO #1 explained to Officer #1 the reasons for the Complainant’ arrest.

Starting at about 3:30 a.m., Officer #1 asked the Complainant if he had any injuries. The Complainant said, “No.” Officer #1 asked the Complainant about a red mark on the left side of his head, and the Complainant said it happened when his head was rubbed into the ice. The Complainant was asked if he had any other injuries and he replied, “No.”

Starting at about 3:52 a.m., the Complainant complained of a swollen right ring finger and told Officer #1 that the injury occurred during his arrest.

Starting at about 3:55:00 a.m., the Complainant demonstrated the discomfort to his right ring finger. When Officer #1 asked him if he wanted to go to the hospital to have it examined, the Complainant said, “No,” and asked if it was possible just to make note of it.

Starting at about 4:05 a.m., Officer #1 informed the Complainant that he was going to send him to the hospital and asked if he would allow a physician to examine his finger.

With his hands handcuffed behind his back, the Complainant was escorted and placed in a cell by WO #1 and WO #2. The Complainant extended his right hand out of the cell and Officer #3 pointed to his right ringer finger.

The Complainant was subsequently removed from the cell, his hands handcuffed behind the back, and escorted out of the cell block by Officer #4.

Starting at about 6:30 a.m., Officer #3, Officer #5, Officer #6 and Officer #4 were present in the booking room. Officer #3 explained to the Complainant that he was going to be transported to the NYGH to have his finger examined.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between February 25, 2025, and April 25, 2025:

• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Notes - SO, WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3
• Policy - Use of Force
• TPS History - Complainant
• BWC footage
• ICC footage
• Custody footage
• Arrest and Bench Warrants
• Prisoner Record - Complainant

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from NYGH on February 28, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, the SO and other police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the early morning of February 22, 2025, the SO, together with WO #1 and WO #2, was dispatched to a home in North York. The CW had called police to report a domestic disturbance involving the Complainant. The Complainant had earlier damaged property inside the house and was now outside banging on the front door seeking to be let in.

The officers arrived on scene shortly before 2:00 a.m. to find the Complainant on the front driveway of the address. They were aware of a bench warrant for the Complainant. The Complainant warned the officers to remain at the foot of the driveway and not to enter onto the property.

After several minutes of attempting to speak to him, the officers moved forward and took hold of the Complainant. The Complainant resisted the officers’ efforts to secure him in handcuffs and was forced to the ground. Following a further period of struggle, the officers wrestled control of the Complainant, handcuffing him behind the back and placing him in leg restraints.

The Complainant was carried a short distance to one of the cruisers and placed in the rear for transport to the police station.

At the police station, the Complainant indicated that his right ring finger was injured. He was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fracture of the finger.

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 February 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 officers, including the SO, were acting lawfully in moving to take the Complainant into custody on the basis of the bench warrant in effect.

I am also satisfied the officers, including the SO, used no more force than was necessary to effect the Complainant’s arrest. When the Complainant reacted by vigorously resisting arrest, the officers were entitled to respond with a measure of force. A takedown made sense in the circumstances as it would position the officers to better manage any additional resistance by the Complainant. In fact, the Complainant continued to struggle against the officers on the ground, even lashing out with his feet and legs. Given their positional advantage and greater numbers, however, the officers were able to subdue the Complainant without the use of strikes of any kind. On this record, the evidence does not make out an unwarranted application of force by any of the officers.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s fractured right finger was incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to conclude the injury was attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the police. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: June 17, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit