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 45-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 15, 2025, at 3:00 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 14, 2025, at about 10:00 p.m., TPS police officers were requested to attend the Tim Hortons restaurant at 5250 Dundas Street West for the removal of an unwanted male [now known to be the Complainant]. Police officers arrived and the Complainant declined requests to leave the premises. When officers attempted to arrest him, a struggle ensued. Once the officers were able to gain control of the Complainant, he complained of pain to his right elbow. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) arrived and transported the Complainant to St. Joseph’s Hospital Health Centre (SJHHC). At 2:18 a.m., May 15, 2025, a doctor diagnosed the Complainant with a radial head fracture of the right elbow.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/05/15 at 8:15 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/05/15 at 9:30 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on May 15, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between May 20, 2025, and May 27, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on June 19, 2025.

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on June 9, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired inside the Tim Hortons, 5250 Dundas Street West, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

Starting at about 10:08 p.m., May 14, 2025, the WO exited his cruiser and entered a Tim Hortons. The Complainant was seen on the far side of the store leaning on the front counter. The WO approached and asked an employee behind the counter what the problem was. The only word captured on the BWC recording was “threatened”. The WO spoke to the Complainant, and the Complainant complained that they would not give him bread or water. The WO told the Complainant he was being investigated for trespassing, that the conversation was being recorded on his BWC, and that he did not want to have to arrest him. The WO asked the Complainant to cooperate, and to take his hand out of his pocket. The Complainant was asked if he understood, but he rambled quietly. The WO told the Complainant he was under arrest for trespassing, and he held the Complainant’s leather jacket and asked him to cooperate. The Complainant spoke quietly. After about a minute, the SO arrived and placed his hand on the Complainant’s right elbow. The Complainant was again asked if he would cooperate. As the SO tried to control the right arm, the Complainant backed into the counter. The WO instructed the Complainant to turn around in a clockwise motion. The Complainant’s words continued to be unintelligible. The WO’s BWC captured the back of the Complainant’s jacket as the WO and SO attempted to arrest the Complainant and take him to the floor.

Starting at about 10:10 p.m., there was a struggle for about three seconds and the Complainant went to the floor near the counter. The SO was on the Complainant’s right side, and the WO moved back and stood up. The Complainant screamed and cried as he complained about his arm. The SO held the Complainant’s right wrist with two hands as the Complainant was placed in handcuffs behind the back. The Complainant repeatedly stated he was sorry, and that he did not know what he was doing. The Complainant was escorted out of the Tim Hortons to a cruiser, with no further resistance.

TPS In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

On May 14, 2025, at 10:14 p.m., the Complainant arrived at the SO’s cruiser. The ICC recordings did not capture the arrest but captured the Complainant talking while the officers waited for EMS to arrive. During this time, the Complainant was mostly unintelligible, but at one point he asked that they put him in jail. The Complainant blamed the two officers for breaking his arm.

Video Footage - Tim Hortons

On May 14, 2025, starting at about 9:20 p.m., the Complainant smoked a cigarette at a table inside the Tim Hortons. A staff member approached him and pointed towards the door. After some time, the Complainant left the Tim Hortons but returned about eight minutes later, sitting at the same table and appearing to talk to himself.

Starting at about 9:54 p.m., the Complainant went to the counter, leaned over and spoke to staff members.

Starting at about 10:08 p.m., the WO entered and engaged the Complainant in conversation for about a minute. The officer then took hold of the Complainant’s jacket just beneath the collar on the left side and attempted to walk him away from the counter. The Complainant took two steps and stopped. Four seconds later, the SO entered the store and approached the Complainant and the WO. The Complainant stepped back towards the counter. The WO guided the Complainant to the order counter and attempted to turn him towards the counter, but the Complainant would not comply. The WO attempted to control the Complainant’s left arm, and the SO controlled the right. The Complainant tried to break loose, and the WO and SO struggled with him. The WO delivered a close-handed strike to the Complainant’s upper left area. About two seconds later, the Complainant and the officers fell to the ground. The Complainant fell onto his right side, and the WO and SO fell to their knees. The WO was on the Complainant’s left side, and the SO was on the right. They gained control of the Complainant while he was on the ground and placed the Complainant in handcuffs behind the back.

Starting at about 10:11 p.m., the Complainant was brought to his feet and escorted out the main entrance.

TPS Communications Recordings & Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

On May 14, 2025, at 9:20 p.m., a staff member of the Tim Hortons called 911 to report a man [the Complainant] smoking inside the restaurant. During the call, someone yelled, “You’re not allowed to smoke in here.” About 20 minutes later, a staff member called 911 to report that the Complainant was still smoking inside the restaurant and was yelling and threatening to kill customers.

At 10:10 p.m., a police officer broadcast that the Complainant was in custody.

At 10:34 p.m., EMS were requested to check on the Complainant.

At 10:38 p.m., the WO advised the Complainant would be released from custody and that they would wait for EMS to attend.

EMS arrived at 11:20 p.m.

At 11:33 p.m., the WO advised that the Complainant appeared to have a fractured arm and would be going to the hospital.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from TPS between May 16, 2025, and August 13, 2025.

• Notes – SO and WO
• TPS Procedures - Arrest and Incident Response
• General Occurrence Report
• BWC footage
• CAD Report
• Communications recordings
• ICC footage
• Video footage from Tim Hortons

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between May 21, 2025, and May 23, 2025.

• Complainant’s medical records from SJHHC
• Video footage from Tim Hortons

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized.

The SO and his partner, the WO, were at the drive-through of the Tim Hortons located at 5250 Dundas Street West when they were approached by a restaurant employee reporting a disturbance inside. A male – the Complainant – had been yelling inside the restaurant, smoking and threatening customers. Asked to leave the premises, he had refused.

The WO was the first to enter the restaurant while the SO parked their cruiser. The officer approached the Complainant by the front counter, spoke briefly with a female employee and then attempted to have the Complainant leave. The Complainant made some utterances, which were largely unintelligible. He did not appear of sound mind. The SO entered the restaurant, and the two officers took hold of the Complainant, attempting to arrest him for trespassing.

There followed a brief scuffle during which the officers tried to control the Complainant’s arms behind the back. The Complainant resisted and was met with a single strike to the torso by the WO, after which the Complainant was taken to the floor. On the floor, the Complainant screamed in pain as he was handcuffed behind the back.

The Complainant was transported to hospital following his arrest and diagnosed with a dislocated (and, possibly, fractured) right elbow.

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.

Section 9(1), Trespass to Property Act - Arrest Without Warrant On Premises

9 (1) A police officer, or the occupier of premises, or a person authorized by the occupier may arrest without warrant any person he or she believes on reasonable and probable grounds to be on the premises in contravention of section 2.

On May 14, 2025, the Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by TPS officers. 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 Complainant had been asked to leave by Tim Hortons’ staff and refused. In his brief dealings with the WO and the SO, it was apparent that he was not going to leave of his own volition at the officers’ request. On this record, the Complainant was subject to arrest under section 9(1) of the Trespass to Property Act.

I am also satisfied that there is insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude the force used by the officers was unlawful. When the Complainant resisted arrest, the officers were entitled to resort to a measure of force to secure him in handcuffs. The officers’ efforts to wrestle his arms behind the back, and a single strike to the torso by the WO, would not appear a disproportionate use of force. The same is true of the takedown, which made sense in the circumstances as it would better position the officers to manage the Complainant’s resistance. Though it was this maneuver that probably resulted in the Complainant’s injury, it appears that was more a product of the awkward way the Complainant fell than any undue force on the part of the officers.

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

Date: September 9, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit