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 63-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 3, 2025, at 10:27 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 2, 2025, at 12:45 p.m., an employee from the Tim Hortons located at 555 Yonge Street, Toronto, requested police officers attend for an intoxicated and unwanted guest. The Subject Official (SO) attended and spoke with the Complainant, who was cooperative and left the premises without incident. While out front of the restaurant, the SO talked with the Complainant. The Complainant attempted to sit on a nearby planter and fell to the ground. The SO requested that paramedic services attend to check on the Complainant; however, when an assessment was attempted, he declined medical attention. Due to the Complainant’s intoxicated state, the SO arrested and handcuffed him. While escorting the Complainant to a police vehicle, the Complainant fell to the ground and landed on the right side of his face. Paramedics were contacted again to assess the Complainant because he had sustained a cut above his right eyebrow. Paramedics responded and transported the Complainant to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH) to be assessed. At 6:43 p.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with a right zygomaticomaxillary complex fracture to his right cheek. The police officers at the hospital were notified of the diagnosis at 9:12 p.m.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/04/03 at 10:48 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/04/03 at 1:17 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

Not interviewed (unable to locate)

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #2 Declined an interview

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between April 9, 2025, and April 28, 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 in and around the area outside the front door of the Tim Hortons located at 555 Yonge Street, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

The ground surface outside the Tim Hortons was a concrete pathway five steps above street level. There was a waist-high concrete planter located outside the Tim Hortons.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – the SO and Officer #1

On April 2, 2025, at 12:45:30 p.m., the SO exited his police vehicle and walked towards a Tim Hortons [555 Yonge Street]. He entered and walked up to the sales counter. An employee pointed to the SO’s right side.

At 12:46:04 p.m., the SO approached a man [the Complainant] seated at a table. The SO directed the Complainant to leave the restaurant. The Complainant stood up, stumbled to one side, then walked to the front door. He appeared unsteady on his feet.

At 12:46:55 p.m., the Complainant and the SO left the Tim Hortons together.

At 12:47:18 p.m., the Complainant leaned against a concrete planter in front of the Tim Hortons. He struggled to remain upright and collapsed to a seated position on the ground as he spoke incoherently. He subsequently slumbered onto his right side with the right side of his head resting on the ground. The SO offered to get him help and said, “I can tell you’ve been drinking a lot.”

At 12:47:55 p.m., the SO requested paramedic services attend his location. The Complainant tried to sit up but could not. He had no visible injuries to his head or face.

At 12:49:11 p.m., the Complainant propped himself up on his right arm. He spoke incoherently to the SO, who encouraged the Complainant to sit up. The Complainant collapsed back down to the ground.

At 12:50:37 p.m., the Complainant placed himself in a seated position with his back against the concrete planter. He yelled incoherently.

At 12:54:20 p.m., the SO queried the Complainant on his phone and found he had been arrested for public intoxication one week prior.

At 12:56:47 p.m., the Complainant called the SO a racial slur. The SO remained calm, told the Complainant not to use that slur, then explained an ambulance was on its way.

At 1:00:58 p.m., the Complainant used a racial slur again. The SO became assertive with the Complainant and told him not to use the slur again or he would be arrested for public intoxication.

At 1:01:17 p.m., the Complainant made his way to his knees and used a metal barrier on the concrete planter to pull himself upright. He pointed a finger and used an aggressive tone towards the SO, but his words could not be understood. The Complainant leaned against the planter.

At 1:02:21 p.m., the Complainant walked towards the front door of Tim Hortons. The SO told him he was not allowed inside. The SO grabbed the Complainant’s left shoulder and blocked his way inside. The Complainant leaned against the Tim Hortons windows.

At 1:06:22 p.m., the Complainant said he did not want an ambulance. The SO said if the Complainant did not go with the ambulance, then he would go to jail.

At 1:07:12 p.m., paramedics arrived. The SO explained the Complainant had fallen down and was intoxicated by alcohol. When the paramedics offered to assess the Complainant, he told them to, “Shut up,” multiple times. He then flipped all parties the middle finger and said, “Fuck you.” The SO pointed out where the Complainant had struck his head. The SO asked the Complainant repeatedly if he wanted to go to the ambulance, and the Complainant repeatedly replied, “Shut up”.

At 1:08:28 p.m., the SO grabbed the Complainant’s right wrist. The SO moved him away from the Tim Hortons windows and bent him forwards over the concrete planter. The SO told the Complainant he was under arrest for public intoxication.

At 1:08:39 p.m., the paramedics walked back to their ambulance.

At 1:09:03 p.m., the SO handcuffed the Complainant with his hands behind his back. The SO used his right hand and held the Complainant by the left upper arm. The SO bent over and picked up a red bag from the ground, which belonged to the Complainant.

At 1:09:10 p.m., the SO stepped to his left. The Complainant was out of camera view. The Complainant fell in the direction the SO had stepped. The SO used his left hand and attempted to grab the Complainant’s left arm to prevent the fall. The Complainant landed on his face and cried out indiscernibly. The SO immediately walked down the steps to street level and called out for the paramedics to return.

At 1:09:41 p.m., the paramedics returned. The SO advised, “I tried to walk with him, and he fell right over and smacked his head.”

At 1:10:58 p.m., the Complainant was placed in a seated position. He had a laceration over his right eyebrow. The SO switched the handcuffs to the front of the Complainant’s body. The Complainant yelled indiscernibly. He was escorted to a nearby stretcher and then to the ambulance.

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage

On April 3, 2025, at 7:05:43 a.m., a man [the Complainant] laid on his side across the rear prisoner compartment seat of Officer #2’s vehicle and snored. He remained in this position through the duration of his transport.

At 7:18:15 a.m., the police vehicle arrived at TPS 51 Division.

At 7:58:35 a.m., police officers [Officer #2 and Officer #3] attempted to rouse the Complainant. Police officers had to prop the Complainant into a seated position to remove him from the vehicle. Once out of the vehicle, the Complainant was unable to stand. The police officers laid him on the ground of the garage. The Complainant was searched.

At 8:29:16 a.m., the Complainant was picked up and carried out of camera view.

Custody Footage

On April 3, 2025, at 7:58:48 a.m., a police vehicle was parked in a sally port [TPS 51 Division]. Two police officers [Officer #2 and Officer #3] removed a man [the Complainant] from the rear prisoner compartment of the vehicle. The Complainant went to the floor.

At 8:02:11 a.m., the Complainant was stood up. After a few steps, he went to the floor again.

At 8:04:41 a.m., the police officers stood the Complainant up. They moved him closer to the police vehicle as if they were about to return him inside the vehicle but then placed him on the ground.

Police Communications Recordings

On April 2, 2025, at 12:35:36 p.m., an unidentified man called from the Tim Hortons located at 555 Yonge Street to report a man [the Complainant] yelling at customers. The man had thrown a cup of coffee at an employee. The Complainant had been asked to leave but did not. The caller wanted police officers to attend.

At 12:45:21 p.m., a police officer [the SO] advised he had arrived at the location.

At 12:47:57 p.m., the SO requested paramedic services attend his location because the Complainant had fallen and struck his head.

At 1:09:38 p.m., the SO reported the Complainant was in custody.

Video Footage - 555 Yonge Street

At 1:08:09 p.m., the SO held the Complainant’s left upper arm. The officer picked up a red bag belonging to the Complainant. The SO took a step to escort the Complainant towards the front stairs, which led down to street level. The Complainant faced towards the concrete planter and was pulled to his left side. His left foot appeared to roll onto his ankle. He collapsed to the ground into a prone position with his hands handcuffed behind his back. The SO attempted to catch the Complainant as he fell. The SO immediately dropped the bag of the Complainant’s belongings and walked towards where an ambulance was parked.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from TPS between April 4, 2025, and May 22, 2025:

• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Injury Report
• BWC footage
• ICCS footage
• Communications recordings
• Custody footage
• Incident Response Policy

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between April 5, 2025, and April 15, 2025:

• Video footage from 555 Yonge Street
• Video footage from Tim Hortons
• Medical records from Toronto Paramedic Service

The events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of April 2, 2025, the TPS received a call about a disturbance in progress at the Tim Hortons at 555 Yonge Street. A guest – the Complainant – was behaving in an unruly fashion and refusing to leave.

The SO arrived at the Tim Hortons and escorted the Complainant from the restaurant without incident. The Complainant was inebriated and unsteady on his feet. He collapsed to the ground outside the front door. The officer contacted paramedics.

The Complainant had made it to his feet by the time paramedics arrived. He refused to be medically assessed and the paramedics took their leave.

The SO proceeded to arrest the Complainant for public intoxication and handcuffed him behind the back. The officer had taken a step to his left when the Complainant again lost his footing and fell, striking his face on the ground. The paramedics, who were still en route to their ambulance, returned to the scene and took the Complainant to hospital.

The Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured right cheekbone. He refused medical treatment and was discharged.

Section 31, Liquor Licence and Control Act - Intoxication

31 (1) No person shall be in an intoxicated condition in,

(a) a place to which the general public is invited or permitted access; or

(b) any part of a residence that is used in common by persons occupying

more than one dwelling in the residence.

(2) A police officer or conservation officer may arrest without warrant any person who is contravening subsection (1) if, in the opinion of the officer, it is necessary to do so for the safety of any person.

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 was seriously injured while in the custody of a TPS officer on April 2, 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 injury.

There is no question of any unnecessary force having been brought to bear by the SO in what was clearly a lawful arrest under section 31(2) of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019.

The real issue is whether the officer exercised due care over the Complainant’s safety once the arrest was effected. The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s fall. In my view, there was not.

It might well be that the SO could have dealt more carefully with the Complainant to avoid the fall that resulted in his injury. After all, he was aware that an inebriated Complainant had already fallen once. Perhaps the officer could have offered the Complainant more physical support, or waited for another officer to attend the scene to assist with the escort. On the other hand, if the SO was less attentive than he should have been, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing that he transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. The Complainant, while unsteady on his feet, had managed to exit the Tim Hortons on his own power. Moreover, the officer’s call to paramedics indicated a concern on the part of the SO for the Complainant’s wellbeing.

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

There appears to have been a late notification of the incident to the SIU by the police service in possible violation of section 16 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. Though the service appears to have been aware of the Complainant’s serious injury as early as 9:12 p.m., April 2, 2025, the SIU was not notified until about 10:27 a.m. of the following day. The delayed notification hindered the SIU from an attempt at an interview with the Complainant, and the possibility of confirming his diagnosis via medical records if he had signed a medical release. Late notifications of this nature jeopardize the integrity of SIU investigations, detract from the SIU’s independence and credibility, and undermine the public’s confidence in policing and policing oversight. Pursuant to the SIU’s legal obligation under section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, the matter of this apparent late notification will be referred to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency. I will also be raising it in my reporting letter to the Chief of Police.

Date: July 22, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit