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 38-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 10, 2025, at 10:01 p.m., Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 10, 2025, at approximately 1:56 p.m., DRPS officers of the Offender Management Unit (OMU) were in the area of Keele Street and Downsview Park Boulevard, Toronto, to locate a wanted person. They located the man [the Complainant] and sought to arrest him. The Complainant fled on foot but was tackled by a DRPS officer. The Complainant complained of a knee injury, and paramedic services transported him to Humber River Health (HRH). At approximately 10:00 p.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured right patella.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/04/10 at 10:18 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/04/11 at 11:42 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on April 11, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on June 3, 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 April 22, 2025, and April 30, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the south side of Downsview Park Boulevard, a short distance west of George Butchart Drive, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

DRPS Communications Recordings

The OMU team worked on a non-recorded radio channel and there were no recorded audio files. There were, however, two recorded phone calls.

On April 10, 2025, at 2:15 p.m., Toronto Paramedic Services contacted DRPS to confirm DRPS officers were in the area of Downsview Park Boulevard and Keele Street. A DRPS dispatcher contacted WO #3, who confirmed there was one person [the Complainant] in custody, who required an ambulance.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from DRPS between April 16, 2025, and June 6, 2025:

• General Occurrence Report
• Arrest Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• Notes – the SO, WO #3, WO #2 and WO #1
• Central Surveillance Notes
• OMU Group Chat messages
• Warrant for Arrest
• Use of Force Directive

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from HRH on May 7, 2025.

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

In the afternoon of April 10, 2025, the Complainant had stepped out of his residence in the area of Keele Street and Downsview Park Boulevard, Toronto, and was walking west on the south side of the roadway when several vehicles closed in on him. A fearful Complainant turned to run eastward as he was confronted by males exiting the vehicles. The Complainant lost his balance and fell after only a few steps but picked himself up and continued his flight. He had again only taken a few steps when he was tackled from behind by one of the males and brought to the ground.

The vehicles were unmarked police cruisers. They were occupied by plainclothes officers of the DRPS OMU. They had been looking to take the Complainant into custody on an arrest warrant and had tracked his location to an address on Downsview Park Boulevard. The SO was out of his vehicle and approaching the Complainant when he called out to him and watched as he turned in the opposite direction to run. The officer pursued the Complainant on foot, caught up to him, and took him down from behind. With the help of other OMU officers on scene, the SO handcuffed the Complainant behind the back.

The Complainant complained of knee pain after the arrest. Paramedics were called to the scene. They transported the Complainant to hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured right knee.

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 DRPS officers on April 10, 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 SO was within his rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody. There was a warrant in effect authorizing the Complainant’s arrest on serious charges, including kidnapping, criminal harassment and robbery.

I am also satisfied that the SO used no more force than was reasonably necessary in the Complainant’s arrest. There is a suggestion in the evidence that the Complainant did not realize that the males from the vehicles were police officers. That may well be so; the OMU were operating unmarked cars and some of them, like the SO, bore no police identifiers. That said, the weight of the evidence indicates that the SO and others announced themselves as police when they confronted the Complainant. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the Complainant was not given fair warning of what was happening. Thereafter, when the Complainant tried to escape by running away, he left the officers little choice but to resort to a measure of force to bring his flight to an end. A takedown made sense as it would immediately bring the flight to an end while positioning the officers to better manage any continuing resistance on the part of the Complainant, which they could reasonably expect in the circumstances given his attempt at escape.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was incurred when he was forced to the ground by the SO, there are no reasonable grounds to believe it was attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the officer. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: August 5, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino Director Special Investigations Unit