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 39-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On August 16, 2025, at 4:16 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On August 15, 2025, at about 3:40 p.m., TPS were called to a LCBO on Brimley Road, Scarborough, regarding a man [subsequently identified as the Complainant] who had shoplifted.  The Complainant was located by officers at 4:03 p.m.  A struggle ensued between the police and the Complainant in which two officers were injured and a conducted energy weapon (CEW) was deployed.  The Complainant was arrested by officers at 4:10 p.m., after which he complained of feeling ill and was transported to Scarborough General Hospital (SGH).  Initially cleared of any serious injury, the Complainant was eventually diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis[2] and admitted to hospital. 

The Team

Date and time team dispatched:                                           2025/08/16 at 5:17 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene:                                   2025/08/16 at 5:33 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned:                                3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned:                1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):                           

39-year-old male; not interviewed (declined); medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW                                                                  Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on August 15, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

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

SO #2                                                              Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1                                                            Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2                                                            Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3                                                            Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on August 20, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a stairwell at the rear of a property in the area of Eglinton Avenue East and Brimley Road, Toronto.

 

Image 1 - Still image taken from the BWC of SO #1 of the rear of the property

Forensic Evidence

Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW)[3] Deployment Data

SO #2 deployed his CEW five times during the course of the events in question.

SO #1 deployed his CEW three times during the course of the events in question.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[4]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

SO #1 and SO #2 were captured arriving in an alleyway at 4:02 p.m., August 15, 2025.  They approached the Complainant at the bottom of a stairwell and told him that he was being placed under arrest.  The Complainant protested that he had done nothing. SO #2 insisted that he come up the stairs and comply.  The Complainant refused and the police officers attempted to take control of him, while noting he was carrying a “crack pipe”.  He was told to stop resisting and drop the pipe, and warned that they would deploy a CEW if he did not comply.  A significant struggle ensued.  The Complainant was brought to the ground, but subsequently managed to stand up.  SO #1 broadcast that additional officers were required and deployed his CEW.  The Complainant continued to resist the officers’ attempts to control his arms.  Additional CEW deployments occurred but how many, and whether they were effective, was difficult to discern because of the close quarters in the stairwell.  SO #1 broadcast that a CEW had been deployed, after which his CEW fell during the continuing struggle.  SO #2 and SO #1 delivered hand and leg strikes.  SO #2 dropped his CEW on a step so he could use both hands to try and control the Complainant.  SO #2’s BWC unit could be seen on the steps leading up the stairwell.  The officer took hold of the Complainant’s right wrist and SO #1 had a grasp of the left wrist.  They ordered the Complainant to turn around as he sat on a step.  The Complainant said, “Never hit me again.”

Starting at about 4:05 p.m., WO #2 and WO #1 arrived and joined in the struggle.  Together, the police officers managed to roll the Complainant over to his right side.  SO #2 and WO #2 pinned the Complainant to the ground as his left arm was brought behind his back.  SO #1 recovered his CEW from the ground.  SO #2 placed a handcuff on the left wrist of the Complainant as he continued to struggle.  SO #1 updated dispatch of the fight with the Complainant and said that everything was not in order.  SO #1 ordered the Complainant to drop the glass pipe in his hand.  The Complainant refused and continued to resist. 

Starting at about 4:08 p.m., additional officers arrived.  The Complainant was subdued, and his hands were handcuffed behind the back.

Communications Recordings & Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report

On August 15, 2025, at 3:40 p.m., the CW, a security guard at a LCBO located on Brimley Road, Scarborough, called 911.  He reported a theft and assault, providing a description of the male suspect and his last known direction of travel.

At 3:53 p.m., information about the 911 call was broadcast to police officers.

At 4:03 p.m., SO #1 and SO #2 were assigned to respond to the call.  They located the man - the Complainant - at the rear of a property in the area of Eglinton Avenue East and Brimley Road.  There was a further update that police officers were fighting with the Complainant and additional officers were requested.  A further broadcast indicated that a CEW had been deployed. 

At 4:07 p.m., an officer broadcast that they were still fighting with the Complainant. 

At 4:08 p.m., a female officer indicated that the police officers were still fighting with the Complainant and he was still not in handcuffs. 

At 4:10 p.m., there was a request for EMS as the Complainant was bleeding from a broken glass pipe he had in his hands.  Two police officers were also said to have suffered cuts from the broken glass pipe. 

SO #1 subsequently updated dispatch that he had deployed his CEW utilizing two CEW cartridges, and SO #2 deployed his CEW utilizing one CEW cartridge. 

At 4:32 p.m., EMS transported the Complainant to SGH. 

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between August 18, 2025, and October 8, 2025:

• CEW deployment data
• Notes of witness officials
• Involved Officer List
• General Occurrence Report
• CAD Report
• Communications recordings
• BWC footage
• TPS policies on Arrest and CEWs

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from SGH on September 8, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police witnesses and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario.  As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed interviews with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the afternoon of August 15, 2025, TPS received a 911 call from a LCBO on Brimley Road.  Store security had contacted police to report the theft of alcohol by a male.  The security officer provided a description of the suspect and his last known direction of travel.

SO #1 and SO #2 were assigned to respond to the call.  They located a male fitting the description of the suspect - the Complainant - standing at the bottom of a stairwell to a basement apartment at the rear of a property in the area of Eglinton Avenue East and Brimley Road.  The officers told the Complainant he was under arrest and directed him to come up to ground-level.  The Complainant climbed up a few steps and then started to protest that “it wasn’t me”.  The officers continued to order the Complainant up and then took hold of him when he refused to comply.

There ensued a protracted struggle in the stairwell between the officers and the Complainant.  SO #1 and SO #2 attempted to wrestle the Complainant to the ground.  Unable to do so, the officers detached themselves momentarily from the Complainant to deploy their CEWs.  The discharges appeared to cause the Complainant pain, but did not immobilize him.  SO #1 and SO #2 re-engaged the Complainant, delivering a series of punches and leg strikes to the head and torso.  Still, they were unable to sufficiently subdue the Complainant to control his arms behind the back.  WO #1 and WO #2 arrived on scene and joined in the struggle.  While the Complainant was now effectively pinned against the stairs by the officers, he was still able to prevent them bringing his arms behind the back.  Additional officers arrived on scene, and the Complainant was dragged out from the stairwell to ground-level and handcuffed.

The Complainant was transported to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis. 

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 334, Criminal Code - Punishment for Theft

334 Except where otherwise provided by law, every one who commits theft

(a) if the property stolen is a testamentary instrument or the value of what is stolen is more than $5,000, is guilty of

 (i) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years, or

 (ii) an offence punishable on summary conviction; or

(b) if the value of what is stolen is not more than $5,000, is guilty

(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on August 15, 2025.  The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1 and SO #2 subject officials.  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 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.

SO #1 and SO #2 had cause to arrest the Complainant for theft contrary to section 334(b) of the Criminal Code.  The Complainant matched the description of the male said to have committed a theft at a nearby LCBO.

As for the force brought to bear by the police in the Complainant’s arrest, I am unable to reasonably conclude it exceeded what was justified.  The Complainant refused to submit to arrest and then struggled against the officers’ efforts to handcuff him behind the back.  In the circumstances, the officers were within their rights in attempting to take him to the ground as it would better position them to deal with any continuing resistance on the part of the Complainant.  The Complainant was able to prevent that happening and to resist strenuously.  The officers’ decision to escalate their force to strikes and the use of CEWs also made sense given their lack of success in wrestling control of the Complainant.  The Complainant would still not be sufficiently subdued to apply the handcuffs until additional officers arrived on scene and managed to overpower him with their sheer numbers.  On this record, while it is regrettable that the Complainant suffered a serious condition, likely brought about by the discharge of the CEWs, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that his injury was attributable to excessive and unlawful force by the subject officials.

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

 

Date:   December 4, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit