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 22-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 18, 2024, at 7:05 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 17, 2024, at 10:15 p.m., plainclothes police officers working a carjacking / auto theft investigation in the area of Bramsteele Road, Brampton, were conducting surveillance on a stolen Jeep Wrangler. The Complainant approached and entered the stolen vehicle. The police officers attempted to arrest the Complainant, who fled on foot. He ran southbound through a parking lot, scaled a fence and eventually fell down an embankment adjacent the southbound off-ramp from Highway 410 at Steeles Avenue. The Complainant sustained a cut to his head and complained of a headache. He was transported to Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH) by Peel Emergency Medical Service (EMS) and diagnosed with a parietal skull fracture.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/05/18 at 8:07 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/05/18 at 10:09 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on May 18, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

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

The subject official was interviewed on July 16, 2024.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between May 21, 2024, and June 3, 2024.

Investigative Delay

Delay was incurred due to difficulties making contact with the Complainant and resource pressures in the Director’s Office.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a ravine at the northwest corner of Steeles Avenue East and the Highway 410 southbound off-ramp to Steeles Avenue East, Brampton.

Forensic Evidence

Examination of Firearm for Biological Transfer

On August 16, 2024, at 1:40 p.m., SIU forensic services attended TPS 23 Division and met with the TPS SIU Liaison Officer. The parties attended at a secure locker in the gun room. Contained inside the locker was a Glock 40 model 22 pistol – the firearm assigned to the SO during the events in question – and three issued magazines. The firearm was secured in the safe mode. The pistol and magazines were transported to an interview room. The items were examined for any visible evidence of biological fluids, with negative results. After photographing the items, the following swabs were taken:

• swab of the pistol’s butt area
• swab of the pistol’s slide area
• swab of the three magazines

At 2:10 p.m., the pistol and magazines were returned to the TPS SIU Liaison Officer.

The TPS SIU Liaison Officer advised SIU forensic services that the SO had been for Use of Force training since the incident occurred on May 17, 2024. He also explained that the service armourer cleaned the firearms after training, per TPS policy.

On August 20, 2024, the swabs were transferred to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) for further examination and processing.

On October 14, 2024, a report was received from the CFS indicating that DNA profiles from two people were found on two of the swabs, and three profiles were found on the other swab. None of the profiles were blood.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Booking Video

On May 18, 2024, at 6:05 a.m., the Complainant was brought into TPS 23 Division by plainclothes police officer, WO #1, and a uniformed police officer. The Complainant had a white bandage on his head and was wearing a blue hospital gown. WO #1 advised the sergeant behind the counter of the charge the Complainant was facing. The sergeant asked the Complainant a series of questions, and they spoke briefly about the Complainant being injured and coming from BCH. At no time did the Complainant tell the sergeant how he sustained his injury, and the sergeant did not ask the Complainant how he sustained his injury.

Police Communications Recordings

On May 17, 2024, at 10:15 p.m., WO #2 advised dispatch that they had one person in custody and required an ambulance on the southbound off-ramp of Highway 410 at Steeles Avenue. The injured person was a young man who was conscious and breathing. WO #2 advised dispatch that no other police units were required, and he asked about an estimated time of arrival for EMS.

At 10:32 p.m., the injured person – the Complainant – was said to be complaining of a headache.

At 11:08 p.m., the Complainant was en route to hospital in an ambulance.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between May 21, 2024, and June 6, 2024:

• Booking video
• Communications recordings
• Policy - Arrest
• Policy - Incident Response
• History with TPS – the Complainant
• Release Order – the Complainant
• DRPS General Occurrence Report - Theft of Motor Vehicle
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Notes – WO #1
• Notes – WO #2
• Use of Force Qualifications – the SO
• Occurrence Report

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between July 19, 2024, and October 14, 2024:

• Peel Ambulance Call Report
• Centre of Forensic Sciences Biology Report

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the evening of May 17, 2024, the SO, WO #1 and WO #2 - members of the TPS Carjacking Task Force - travelled in plainclothes and unmarked vehicles to a strip mall on Bramsteele Road, Brampton. They had received information that a vehicle stolen a week prior - a Jeep Wrangler - had been located in the area. The officers found the vehicle parked beside a loading bay and set up around it to conduct surveillance. In time, the detective overseeing the operation called for the takedown of a male observed to have exited the vehicle. The SO, WO #1 and WO #2 drove towards the male.

The male was the Complainant. At the sight of the officers, the Complainant fled on foot southwards towards Bramsteele Road. He crossed the street and continued his flight along the west side of the Canadian Convention Centre towards a fence line. With the officers in pursuit behind him, the Complainant attempted to scale the fence, failed, and continued along the fence line in a southwest direction before coming across a mound of dirt. Climbing the mound, the Complainant was able to reach the top of the fence and scale over it, landing on an embankment and falling into a creek at the bottom of a ravine.

The SO climbed the same fence, lost his footing on the embankment on the other side and fell into the same creek. The officer grabbed hold of the Complainant and handcuffed him behind the back.

The Complainant was taken to hospital after the arrest and diagnosed with a hairline skull fracture.

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 and around the time of his arrest by a TPS officer on May 17, 2024. 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 unable to reasonably conclude on the evidence that the SO was without legal authority when he pursued the Complainant to arrest him for possession of stolen property. The officers gave evidence indicating that the Complainant had entered and then exited a vehicle they had reason to believe was stolen. There was no evidence to the contrary.

I am also unable to reasonably conclude that the SO used anything other than justified force in placing the Complainant under arrest. In a version of events proffered in the evidence, confronted by the officer in the ravine, the SO is said to have struck the Complainant multiple times in the left side of the head with the butt of his gun. This evidence is contested by the SO. The officer admits he had his gun out at one point in the ravine when, on first seeing the Complainant, he observed an object in his hand. He quickly re-holstered his gun, however, when it appeared the object was a cell phone. Thereafter, according to the SO, he took hold of the Complainant and managed to handcuff him following a brief struggle. No strikes of any kind were delivered. As for the Complainant’s injury, it would appear consistent with a fall in the creek. On this record, there being no reason to believe that the incriminating account of what happened is any likelier to be closer to the truth than that of the SO’s, I am not satisfied the evidence of excessive force is sufficiently cogent to warrant being put to the test by a court.

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

Date: January 21, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit