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 37-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On Wednesday, March 12, 2025, at 4:37 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On Tuesday, March 11, 2025, the Subject Official (SO) was working a paid-duty at the Marshalls store in Dufferin Mall at 900 Dufferin Street, Toronto, when he became aware that the store’s loss prevention officer was struggling with a man involved in a theft. At 7:57 p.m., the SO attempted to intervene and, during a struggle, deployed his conducted energy weapon (CEW). The man fell to the ground, striking his face on the sidewalk. The man – the Complainant - was arrested and taken to the Toronto General Hospital (TGH) where he was diagnosed with a fractured nasal cavity and broken nose.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/03/12 at 5:02 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/03/12 at 7:07 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 12, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on March 13, 2025.

Subject Official

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

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the sidewalk in and around the area of the Marshalls store at 900 Dufferin Street, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

On March 12, 2025, SIU forensic investigators arrived at 900 Dufferin Street (Dufferin Mall). The area was near the Marshalls store. It included the entrance/exit to the parking garage and a portion of the west sidewalk on the north side of the parking entrance/exit. There was a pedestrian entrance to the mall south of the vehicle entrance. There was an area of red staining on the west sidewalk. Also on the ground in the same general area were two small yellow plastic pieces, believed to be components of a discharged CEW.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data - SO

At 7:55:49 p.m., March 11, 2025, the trigger was pulled, and Bay 1 discharged with an electricity duration of 4.955 seconds.[2]

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Video Footage – Dufferin Mall

Starting at about 00:00:32 hours into the footage, the Complainant entered the Marshalls store. CW #2 exited the Marshalls store and milled about in the Dufferin Mall lobby. The Complainant exited the store with a black Nike backpack on. CW #2 and the Complainant had an altercation, and the Complainant ran away.

Starting at about 00:03:54 hours, the SO exited the Marshalls store into a vestibule.

BWC Footage – SO

On March 11, 2025, starting at about 7:55:17 p.m., the SO watched the security video monitors with CW #1, before running from the security office and exiting the Marshalls store. The Complainant was struggling at the street door with CW #2. The SO followed the Complainant and CW #2 as they struggled onto the west sidewalk. CW #2 held the Complainant’s jacket by the collar with both hands and the SO grabbed the Complainant on the left side. The Complainant pulled his body from his jacket and shirt as he struggled with CW #2 and the SO. CW #1 grabbed the Complainant’s right forearm and elbow, and said, “Stop fighting.” The Complainant broke free from CW #1 and CW #2. The SO raised a CEW. The Complainant ran northbound, and CW #2 followed him. The SO said, “Get off, disengage, Taser, Taser, Taser.” A crackling sound was heard, and the Complainant fell forward face first, landing on the concrete sidewalk with his hands at his sides. The SO stood over the Complainant and said, “Don’t move.” The officer informed the dispatcher he had deployed his CEW and requested an ambulance.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between March 12, 2025, and March 21, 2025:

• BWC footage - SO
• CEW deployment data
• General Occurrence Report
• Policies - Arrest / Incident Response
• Annual Recertification in Use of Force - SO

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between March 12, 2025, and March 17, 2025:

• Video footage - Dufferin Mall
• Incident Report - CW #2
• Incident Report - CW #1
• The Complainant’s medical records - TGH
• Video footage – Marshalls
• Ambulance Call Report – Toronto Emergency Medical Service (EMS)
• Incident Summary Report – Toronto EMS

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and civilian eyewitnesses, 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 an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

In the evening of March 11, 2025, the SO was working a paid-duty providing security at Marshalls - a store located at the Dufferin Mall, 900 Dufferin Street, Toronto - when he was alerted to a theft in progress. The store’s non-police security officers – CW #1 and CW #2 – had detected a customer leaving the store with unpaid merchandise.

The customer was the Complainant. Confronted by CW #2 upon exiting the store, the two became engaged in a physical struggle. CW #1 and the SO intervened in the struggle but the Complainant was able to pull himself free. He attempted to escape northwards outside the store but had not gone very far before he was struck in the back by the probes of a CEW discharged by the SO. The Complainant immediately locked-up and fell face first onto the pavement, breaking his nose in the process.

The Complainant was arrested and sent to hospital where he was treated for his injury.

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 a TPS officer on March 11, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming the officer – 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.

I am satisfied that there were lawful grounds to arrest the Complainant for theft given the video evidence of his activities in the store.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s arrest was reasonably necessary. When the Complainant physically resisted the officer’s efforts to take him into custody, the SO was entitled to resort to a measure of force. He did so using like, and therefore proportionate, force, namely, engaging in a wrestling contest to overcome the Complainant’s resistance. Thereafter, when the Complainant broke free of the officer’s and security officers’ hold, the SO was within his rights in turning to the use of his CEW. The weapon represented a reasonable escalation of force at the time as it carried a legitimate prospect of bringing an end to the Complainant’s flight without the infliction of serious injury.

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

Date: July 7, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit