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 32-year-old man.

Notification of the SIU[1]

On August 16, 2025, at 8:45 a.m. the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On August 15, 2025, two TPS detectives observed an un-plated motorcycle travelling at high speed near the Sandman Hotel, 55 Reading Court, Etobicoke. They followed the motorcycle into the parking lot of the hotel and approached the male driver. He refused to identify himself and fought with the police officers as a bystander (now known to be the Complainant) recorded the interaction with a cellular phone. The Complainant entered one of the police vehicles and removed a TPS portable radio, resulting in his arrest. The Complainant was taken to the William Osler Health System - Etobicoke General Hospital (EGH) site and diagnosed with an arm fracture.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/08/26 at 10:44 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/08/26 at 11:24 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on August 16, 2025

Civilian Witness

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on August 16, 2025

Subject Official

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

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed.

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed.

The witness officials were interviewed on August 28, 2025, and September 3, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the parking lot outside the main entrance of the Sandman Signature Toronto Airport Hotel, 55 Reading Court, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Cellphone Video from a Witness

The SO was captured standing to the Complainant’s right, holding the Complainant’s right forearm with both hands. The Complainant rotated his body, faced the SO and grabbed the SO’s arms. The SO and the Complainant held each other’s arms, each trying to gain greater control of the other. The SO held the Complainant’s right forearm with both hands and took several steps forward, placing his right arm behind his back. The Complainant placed his left arm behind his back. The Complainant pulled forward and twisted clockwise, and the SO released his grip of both arms. The Complainant faced the SO. The SO attempted to grab the Complainant’s arms as the Complainant resisted his efforts. The Complainant held the SO’s left bicep with his left hand, while his right held onto the SO’s right arm/hand. The two jockeyed back and forth. The Complainant released his left-hand grip of the SO’s left bicep as he was pushed backwards. The SO faced the Complainant and held his left arm using his right hand. While facing each other, the SO, with a hand on each of the Complainant’s arms, guided him back into a concrete pillar. He held him as WO #2 placed the Complainant’s left arm behind his back and handcuffed him.

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On August 15, 2025, starting at 7:48 p.m., the SO guided the Complainant against a pillar and stood facing him. The SO placed the Complainant’s right arm behind his back, while WO #2 secured his left arm and handcuffed him. WO #2 placed the Complainant in a police vehicle and told him he was under arrest for obstruction of a peace officer and theft under $5000.

TPS Communications Recordings

On August 15, 2025, starting at 7:48 p.m., a police officer advised the communications centre dispatch by radio that two people [now known as CW #1 and the Complainant] were in custody at the Sandman Hotel. An ambulance was requested.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between August 16, 2025, and October 15, 2025:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Civilian Witness List
• General Occurrence Report
• Scene photographs
• Body-worn camera (BWC) footage
• In-car camera footage
• Civilian witness cellular phone video
• Technological Crimes Unit preliminary data extraction notes
• Notes – WO #1 and WO #2.
• Policies – Arrest; Persons in Custody; and Incident Response

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between August 19, 2025, and August 29, 2025:

• Video footage from the Sandman Signature Toronto Airport Hotel
• The Complainant’s medical records from EGH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police eyewitnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

In the evening of August 15, 2025, WO #1 observed a motorcycle operating without a proper licence plate. He followed the vehicle to the Sandman Signature Toronto Airport Hotel. It was parked in front of the main doors to the hotel. The motorcyclist – CW #1 – had entered the hotel to use the bathroom. WO #1 called the SO for assistance, deciding he would wait for CW #1 to emerge from the hotel. The SO arrived on scene and parked his unmarked Kia SUV in front of the hotel entrance. Both officers were attired in plain clothes.

CW #1 exited the hotel and was questioned by the officers. A struggle ensued when the officers told CW #1 that he was under arrest.

Outside the main entrance, the Complainant, a guest of the hotel, began to video record CW #1’s arrest with his cellphone. The officers asked the Complainant to call police for assistance and showed them their badges to confirm they were police. The Complainant declined to do so and continued to video record. At one point, he approached the SO’s vehicle, opened a door and looked inside. He then retrieved a portable radio that the SO had placed on the ledge of a pillar by the main entrance. WO #1 saw this and alerted the SO.

The SO approached the Complainant, knocked the radio from his hand and brought the Complainant’s right arm behind his back. The officer proceeded to trip the Complainant to the ground. The Complainant lifted himself up, after which he and the SO jostled with each other on their feet. A uniformed police officer - WO #2 - arrived on scene and assisted in handcuffing the Complainant behind the back.

The Complainant was seen at hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with a fractured right elbow.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code of Canada- 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 of the Criminal Code of Canada – 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 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.

I am satisfied that the Complainant was subject to lawful arrest for theft contrary to section 334(b) of the Criminal Code. Whether his intent was to steal the SO’s radio when he picked it up, it is entirely possible that his conduct gave the appearance of someone intending to abscond with the item.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO during the Complainant’s arrest was legally justified. The Complainant had, without authorization, taken the liberty of opening the SO’s vehicle door and taking hold of the officer’s radio. These were provocative acts that might reasonably have led the SO to suspect that the Complainant would resist arrest. At the same time, it was imperative that the SO deal with the Complainant as quickly as possible so that he could return to assist WO #1, who was on the ground struggling with CW #1. On this record, taking the Complainant to the ground made sense as it would better position the officer to manage any possible recalcitrance. In fact, the Complainant did resist and managed to get back to his feet where he struggled against the SO’s efforts to control his arms. The officer responded in kind by attempting to wrestle his arms behind the back. The Complainant was not subjected to strikes of any kind.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s fracture was incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, whether because of the grounding or his right arm being forced behind the back, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the injury is attributable to any unlawful conduct on the part of the SO. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: December 10, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit