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 42-year-old male (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 28, 2025, at 7:00 p.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 28, 2025, at 1:40 p.m., the YRP arrested multiple men for trafficking stolen property and possession of property obtained by crime. One of the men became combative and was grounded during his arrest. He subsequently complained of facial pain and was transported to a hospital where he was diagnosed with facial fractures.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/03/28 at 7:26 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/03/28 at 9:30 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on April 4, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between April 2, 2025, and April 14, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject officials were interviewed between May 28, 2025, and June 20, 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

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between May 7, 2025, and May 13, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the area of St. Clair Avenue East and Linden Avenue, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

YRP Communications Recordings

On March 28, 2025, at 1:40:57 p.m., WO #1 confirmed four individuals were in custody in the area of St. Clair Avenue East and Linden Avenue.

At 1:53:33 p.m., WO #1 requested Emergency Medical Service for an individual with a “cut to his head”.

At 2:17:21 p.m., WO #1 reported that the individual was transported to Scarborough Grace Hospital (SGH).

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the YRP between April 2, 2025, and April 25, 2025.

• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• Occurrence Report
• Supplementary Reports
• List of involved officers and their notes

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained medical records from SGH on April 16, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the two subject officials, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the early afternoon of March 28, 2025, a covert surveillance team of property crime officers, whose members included SO #1 and SO #2, tracked a Toyota Corolla to a store in the area of St. Clair Avenue East and Linden Avenue, Toronto. They had reason to believe that the Toyota’s occupants were in possession of stolen items. Earlier that day, members of the team had observed the Toyota and its occupants interacting with the target of an organized theft ring.

The Complainant was one of four persons in the Toyota, seated in the front passenger seat. CW #4 was the driver. CW #4 had brought the Toyota to a stop nose-in against a chain-link fence outside the store, after which the Complainant and another occupant entered the store where they sold the owners a telescope. The Complainant and his associate had just returned to the Toyota – the former standing by the open front passenger door – when their vehicle was blocked-in by unmarked cruisers.

SO #2 had called for a takedown of the vehicle. He stopped his vehicle perpendicular behind the rear of the Toyota, as another member positioned his cruiser by the driver’s side. An uninvolved, third-party pick-up truck was parked by the passenger side of the Toyota. SO #2 exited and advanced on the Complainant, directing him to the ground. The Complainant remained on his feet and was struck in the face by the officer, who proceeded to pull him down. There followed a physical engagement of some duration between the two, which was soon joined by SO #1 and other officers, before the Complainant was handcuffed behind the back.

The Complainant was seen at hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with a broken nose and cheekbone.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code - Protection of Persons Acting Under Authority

25 (1) Everyone 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 YRP officers on March 28, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming two subject officials – SO #1 and SO #2. 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 arrest and injuries.

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 the property crime surveillance team were proceeding lawfully to take the Complainant into custody at the time of the events in question. They had witnessed activity consistent with the possession and trafficking of stolen goods.

I am also satisfied that the nature and extent of the force brought to bear in the Complainant’s arrest did not exceed the remit of permissible force in the circumstances. The initial punch and takedown by SO #2 is subject to legitimate scrutiny. The Complainant did not promptly comply with the officer’s demands that he lower himself, but he was not otherwise aggressive or combative at the time. On the other hand, as the officer explained in his SIU interview, the surveillance team had prior experience suggesting theft rings of the type the Complainant was seemingly a member were commonly armed with knives and guns, and not adverse to using their vehicles to ram through a police blockade. With this context in mind, it made sense to want to quickly ground a non-compliant Complainant. Doing so would make it more difficult to bring possible weapons into play while expediting the parties’ removal from the crush zone between the Toyota and the pick-up truck in the event CW #4 tried to break free of the blockade. Thereafter, the weight of the evidence indicates that the Complainant vigorously resisted arrest, kicked at the officers and attempting to pull free of their hold. SO #2, SO #1 and WO #3 responded with multiple punches, and elbow and knee strikes, which was significant but not disproportionate to the Complainant’s fight.[3]

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injuries were incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe they are attributable to any criminal conduct on the part of the subject officials. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: July 25, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit