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

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 13, 2025, at 5:13 a.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 12, 2025, at 11:53 p.m., YRP were notified of a carjacking at Highway 7 and Times Avenue in Richmond Hill in which three males had approached a vehicle and discharged a firearm, striking a passenger in the leg. The males stole a BMW M3 and fled the area. A spent shell case was recovered at the scene. The YRP Hold-up Unit, accompanied by a member of the Peel Regional Police (PRP) Robbery Bureau, became engaged. The Hold-up Unit members, with aid of the YRP helicopter, followed the males to a residential area in Toronto, where they abandoned the vehicle and fled on foot. With assistance of the helicopter and police canine services, the males were located and arrested. A firearm was recovered. The three males were taken to YRP 2 District where one of them, the Complainant, complained of jaw pain. He was taken to Mackenzie Health (MH) and diagnosed with a fractured jaw and a lost tooth.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/06/13 at 5:39 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/06/13 at 6:19 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on June 13, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject official was interviewed on August 7, 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

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between July 2, 2025, and July 30, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on Lynnbrook Drive, in and around the area of its intersection with Stoneton Drive, Toronto. The area is a residential neighbourhood.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

YRP Communications Recordings & CAD Report

On June 13, 2025, at 12:00 a.m.,[3] a male called YRP and reported that he and Witness #1 were at the Ten Ren’s Tea restaurant at Times Avenue and Highway 7 in Thornhill. Two men wearing black balaclavas and hoodies, one armed with a gun, had just stolen Witness 1’s BMW, driving off westbound on Highway 7. The caller did not know if those men had arrived in another vehicle. He reported Witness #1 was tracking the BMW using his cellular telephone. The caller reported that the man with the gun had fired a shot into the sidewalk and a piece of shrapnel from the bullet hit Witness #1 in the leg, resulting in an open wound that was not bleeding. The caller noted that the BMW application revealed the vehicle was southbound on Leslie Street, just south of John Street. A few minutes later, he reported that the BMW was stopped on Lyndhurst Drive in Markham.

A female also called 911. She reported that she and her boyfriend were in the area of Times Avenue and Highway 7 in Thornhill. They had seen a Honda with three men inside. Two men exited and approached a BMW parked beside them. One of the men had a gun in his hand. He pointed it at someone and fired one shot. The Honda then drove off, and the two men entered the BMW and followed the Honda eastbound on Highway 7.

YRP ICC Footage

On June 13, 2025, starting at about 1:17 a.m., the first marked police vehicle arrived at the intersection of Stoneton Drive and Lynnbrook Drive, Toronto. A silver Toyota Camry was parked on the west side of the street, facing northbound, about 30 metres north. There were three or four plainclothes officers, wearing “Police” vests, standing outside the rear passenger side of the Toyota Camry. They appeared to be searching a man.

Starting at about 1:31 a.m., the officer in the marked police vehicle moved off, executed a U-turn, and drove a short distance southbound to the intersection of Stoneton Drive, coming to a stop facing south. There were two more silver Toyota Camrys, a dark blue minivan and another marked YRP police SUV, Unit 248, stopped in the intersection.

Starting at about 1:34 a.m., both marked police vehicles departed to the YRP 2 District.

Starting at about 2:14 a.m., the cruiser containing the Complainant arrived at YRP 2 District. The Complainant asked for an ambulance because his jaw was sore, and he was having difficulty swallowing. He occasionally spit onto the rear floor of the police vehicle.

Starting at about 2:33 a.m., the Complainant said, “My jaw is sore, but they literally ripped my tooth out and I’m coughing up blood now.”

Starting at about 2:36 a.m., two plainclothes officers opened the driver’s side rear door and spoke with the Complainant, advising him they were going to read him his rights to counsel as he was facing additional charges. The Complainant confirmed he was a youth. He was advised he was under arrest on charges of Robbery with a Firearm, Disguise with Intent, Possession of Property Obtained by Crime Over $5,000.00, Unlawful Possession of a Prohibited Firearm, Unlawful Possession of a Prohibited Device, and Reckless Use of a Firearm. The Complainant acknowledged he understood.

Starting at about 2:40 a.m., a uniformed officer removed the Complainant from the police vehicle.

Video Footage from a Residence

The camera was oriented towards Lynnbrook Drive and Stoneton Drive. It captured three males running prior to their arrests.

YRP Helicopter Footage

The Complainant’s arrest was obstructed by tree cover.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the YRP between June 24, 2025, and July 27, 2025:

• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report
• General Occurrence Report [Robbery Call]
• YRP helicopter footage
• YRP in-car camera (ICC) footage
• Video footage from a residence
• YRP General Procedure– Offender Arrest
• Notes – WO#1, WO#3, WO#4, WO#5, WO#6 (YRP)
• Notes – WO #2 (PRP)

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from Mackenzie Health Hospital (MHH) on August 8, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and one of the subject officials, SO #2, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the other subject official, SO #1, did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

At about midnight of June 13, 2025, YRP received a 911 call about a carjacking. The caller reported that he was outside the Ten Ren’s Tea restaurant in Thornhill when he and his friends were accosted by masked males demanding the keys to Witness #1’s BMW. One of the males brandished a firearm, discharging a shot into the ground. Shrapnel from that round had struck Witness #1 in the leg. The males had driven off in the BMW. The police received another 911 call from a third party who had witnessed the event. She reported that the males had pulled up in a Honda, and that the stolen BMW then followed the Honda as it left the scene.

Members of the YRP Hold-up Unit, including SO #1 and SO #2, became engaged in attempting to locate the BMW and the Honda. The YRP helicopter was also deployed. The police lost track of the BMW but eventually located a Honda that matched the description of the one used in the carjacking. The helicopter followed the Honda eastbound on Highway 401 until McCowan Road, where it exited southbound. The Honda travelled south a distance, turning east onto Huronia Gate and, eventually, north onto Lynnbrook Drive. Officers in police vehicles located the vehicle in the area and began to converge on the Honda.

The Complainant was a passenger in the Honda. Two other males were also in the vehicle. The Honda came to a stop by the east curb of Lynnbrook Drive, south of Stoneton Drive, after which its three occupants exited and began to flee north before turning west to travel a distance on Stoneton Drive. Confronted by police vehicles on Stoneton Drive, the Complainant turned to flee east and then south on Lynnbrook Drive. He was on the front yard of a residence on Lynnbrook Drive when he was tackled to the ground.

SO #2 was in the front passenger seat of a police vehicle driven by WO #2 that had tracked the Honda occupants to the intersection of Lynnbrook Drive and Stoneton Drive. He observed the Complainant running past the passenger side of their stopped vehicle, exited, and took him down following a brief foot pursuit. SO #1 joined SO #2 with the Complainant on the ground and assisted in taking him into custody.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a broken right lower jaw.

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 344 (1), Criminal Code – Robbery

344 (1) Every person who commits robbery is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of

(i) in the case of a first offence, five years, and

(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

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.

With information at their disposal that the Complainant was implicated in a gunpoint carjacking, I am satisfied that SO #2 and SO #1 were within their rights in seeking to take him into custody for robbery contrary to section 344(1) of the Criminal Code.

As for the force used by SO #1 and SO #2 in the Complainant’s arrest, I am unable to reasonably conclude on the evidence that it was unwarranted. The takedown made sense as it would end the Complainant’s flight while better positioning the officers to safely deal with any continuing resistance by the Complainant, including the possible use of a firearm, which they had cause to believe could be in his possession. There is an account in the evidence that the Complainant was repeatedly struck in the head by the officer who grounded him (SO #2) and kneed in the face by the second officer on scene (SO #1) despite his having offered no resistance to his arrest. That account must be taken with a grain of salt. For example, it also indicates that the Complainant walked away from the Honda after it was parked on Lynbrook Drive, and only began to flee when he was confronted by police. Video footage, however, establishes that the Complainant and his associates were running from the Honda before they encountered the police. The discrepancy is an important one as it belies the notion the Complainant was not complicit in the preceding carjacking. That rendition of events is also contested by SO #2. SO #2 concedes that he struck the Complainant in the head several times after the takedown, but explains that he did so to subdue a struggling Complainant. SO #2 makes no mention of any strikes delivered by SO #1. On this evidentiary record, I am not reasonably satisfied that the evidence of excessive force is sufficiently cogent to warrant being put to the test by a trier-of-fact.

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

Date: October 11, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit