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 injuries of a 50-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On August 1, 2025, at 3:52 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 31, 2025, two members of the Toronto Fugitive Squad (TFS) executed an extradition warrant in Toronto, arresting the Complainant as he exited a residence in the area of Bathurst Street and St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto. The Complainant had been wanted in the United States for four years in relation to fraud charges. The Complainant sustained a laceration above his left eye in the arrest and complained of trouble breathing. He was transported by Toronto Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH). Later that day, at 8:45 p.m., the arresting officers – Witness Official (WO) #1 and the Subject Official (SO) - contacted the Toronto Police Operations Centre and requested relief at the hospital. They indicated that they were with an arrested person with an eye injury. At 9:20 p.m., two uniformed officers [now known to be WO #5 and WO #6 of 51 Division] attended the hospital and took over custody of the Complainant. On August 1, 2025, at 2:45 a.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with a complex fracture to his left zygomaticomaxillary complex.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/08/01 at 4:39 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/08/01 at 10:25 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on August 1, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on August 7, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO 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

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between August 8, 2025, and September 2, 2025.

Investigative Delay

Delay in the investigation was incurred owing to resource pressures in the Director’s Office.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around a roadway in the area of Bathurst Street and St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage from Camera

A video camera was situated across the street from an address in the area of Bathurst Street and St. Clair Avenue West. The footage from the camera obtained by the SIU started on July 31, 2025, at 2:49 p.m. Two workers were captured doing brickwork on a pillar at the east side entrance to the driveway of the address. Directly across from the entrance, on the north side of the street and facing west, was a Lexus SUV with a bicycle rack on the back. A Mercedes sedan was parked facing into the driveway.

Starting at about 2:51 p.m., the Complainant, wearing a black T-shirt and blue jeans, and carrying a backpack over his right shoulder, walked down the driveway and across the street. The driver’s door of the Lexus opened and a man - the CW - exited the vehicle. The Complainant stood near the back of the Lexus and faced the CW. Shortly after, the front right corner of a dark-coloured vehicle could be seen to stop and face the Lexus. A man – the SO - approached the Complainant on foot. At about the same time, a dark-coloured SUV travelled east on the roadway and stopped beside the Lexus. WO #1 exited the SUV and approached the SO and the Complainant. The SO grabbed the Complainant’s right elbow and directed him towards the Lexus. The Complainant struggled with the SO and refused to turn towards the Lexus. The SO, using his right leg and knee, performed a leg sweep on the back of the Complainant’s left leg. The Complainant fell backwards and disappeared from camera view. WO #1 remained on his feet at the back of the Lexus and the CW remained close to the driver’s door of his Lexus. WO #1 subsequently got down at the back of the Lexus, also disappearing from camera view. The CW kept looking at his telephone and then walked to the back of the Lexus.

Starting at about 2:53 p.m., WO #1 was at the back of the Lexus, facing the rear passenger side of the vehicle. The back of the Complainant’s head could be seen. WO #1, standing behind the Complainant, had his right and left arms around the Complainant’s upper chest / neck area. The two then disappeared off camera. The SO stood to the side. There appeared to be a struggle near the bicycle rack on the back of the Lexus as it was seen to move. The CW appeared to talk with someone at the back of the Lexus, after which he walked up the driveway of the residence.

Starting at about 2:55 p.m., the CW returned to the Lexus.

Starting at about 2:56 p.m., WO #1 went back to his vehicle, obtained his cell telephone, and made a telephone call.

Starting at about 2:59 p.m., a tall, elderly man with white hair approached from the driveway. WO #1 spoke to the man, who looked in the direction of the Complainant and then went back to his residence.

Starting at about 3:01 p.m., WO #1 moved his unmarked SUV.

Starting at about 3:03 p.m., the first fully-marked police vehicle arrived on scene, eastbound on the roadway.

Starting at about 3:06 p.m., a second fully-marked police car arrived.

Communications Recordings

On July 31, 2025, at 2:58 p.m., a uniformed police officer was dispatched to an address in the area of Bathurst Street and St. Clair Avenue West to assist WO #1. A 40-year-old man [now known to be the Complainant] was said to be in custody with problems breathing. Paramedics were requested.

At 3:40 p.m., the Complainant was noted to be in transit to SMH by ambulance.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between August 2, 2025, and September 8, 2025:

• Body-worn camera footage
• In-car camera footage
• Video footage
• Communications recordings
• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Involved Officers List
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5 and WO #6
• TPS History – the Complainant
• TPS policies – Arrest; Incident Response (Use of Force & De-escalation)
• Arrest warrant – the Complainant
• Photographs

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between August 5, 2025, and September 29, 2025:

• Ambulance Call Report from Toronto EMS
• The Complainant’s medical records from SMH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, and a police and non-police eyewitness, 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 afternoon of July 31, 2025, the SO and another member of the TPS Fugitive Squad, WO #1, were operating unmarked police vehicles in the area of Bathurst Street and St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto. They were seeking to execute an extradition warrant on the Complainant, whom they had reason to believe resided at a house in the area. The Complainant was wanted in the United States in a multi-million-dollar cryptocurrency fraud investigation.

The Complainant stepped out of the house at about 2:50 p.m. to meet an acquaintance – the CW. The CW was in a Lexus parked facing west across the street from the Complainant’s residence. The CW exited the Lexus, and he and the Complainant spoke by the driver side of the vehicle. The conversation was short-lived. Within moments, the Complainant was confronted by a plainclothes officer – the SO.

The SO pulled up to the scene in his vehicle, stopped it nose-to-nose with the Lexus and exited. The officer walked quickly to the Complainant, grabbed hold of his left arm, and tried to turn him to face the Lexus. The Complainant resisted the SO’s efforts and was taken to the ground behind the rear of the Lexus, the officer kicking his left leg out from under him.

At about the same time, WO #1 drove up to the scene and exited his vehicle. He approached the site of the struggle, showed the Complainant his badge on a couple of occasions, and intervened to assist the SO. The officers wrestled control of the Complainant’s arms following a struggle and handcuffed him behind the back.

Paramedics arrived on scene and transported the Complainant to hospital. He was diagnosed with several facial fractures.

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 TPS officers on July 31, 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 injuries.

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’s arrest was authorized by a warrant issued under the Extradition Act. As such, I am satisfied that the SO and WO #1 were within their rights in attempting to take him into custody.

I am also satisfied that the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing that the force used by the officers in the Complainant’s arrest was unnecessary. The takedown was a reasonable tactic. The Complainant had resisted the SO’s efforts to move him towards the Lexus where, presumably, the officer would have stood him against the vehicle to apply handcuffs. Forcing him to the roadway would better position the officers to deal with any continuing resistance on the part of the Complainant. Thereafter, the weight of the evidence indicates that there was an exchange of strikes to the upper body by the Complainant and the SO as the parties wrestled on the ground. Here, too, the evidence does not point to excessive force by the SO, particularly as the Complainant continued to struggle following the strikes. Of concern in the evidence is an assertion that the second officer on scene – WO #1 – choked the Complainant with a forearm around his neck for approximately a minute, causing him to black out. There are problems, however, with this claim. It is contested by third-party evidence that describes an officer’s arm around the Complainant’s neck but says nothing of the Complainant losing consciousness. Moreover, while the video footage of the incident depicts WO #1’s right arm across the Complainant’s upper chest and neck area for about five seconds, it is difficult to discern whether the officer was deliberately choking the Complainant or simply attempting to control him in a kind of headlock. What is clear is that the Complainant continued to struggle throughout this process. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that WO #1 was choking the Complainant, or that the force he applied was more than was needed to overcome the Complainant’s resistance.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injuries were incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe they are attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the arresting officers. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed

Date: December 11, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit