SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OVI-073
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Mandate of the SIU
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, 2019Pursuant 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 Privacy ActPursuant to section14 (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.
- 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, 2004Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.
Other proceedings, processes, and investigationsInformation 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.
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 a 31-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.
Notification of the SIUOn March 9, 2022, at 4:30 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.
According to PRP, at 9:44 a.m., March 9, 2022, PRP officers attempted to arrest the Complainant for several robberies. PRP tactical police officers attempted to box-in the Complainant while he was driving a stolen vehicle, but he was able to escape and fled on foot. A foot chase ensued, and a conducted energy weapon (CEW) was discharged. The Complainant was taken to the ground in the area of 243 Queen Street East, Brampton. He complained of a sore ankle and was taken to the Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH). At 3:25 p.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured right ankle.
The TeamDate and time team dispatched: 03/09/2022 at 5:01 p.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 03/09/2022 at 7:08 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):Declined to be interviewed
Subject Official (SO)SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
Witness Officials (WO)WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on March 11, 2022.
The Scene On March 9, 2022, a SIU forensic investigator attended the area of the arrest of the Complainant on Queen Street East, Brampton. There were two scenes: 243 Queen Street East and 245 Queen Street East. Both scenes were secured. A vehicle, reportedly used by the Complainant, was at the 243 Queen Street East location. The scene was located on the east side of the building, which was Toronto Car Sales. The vehicle was secured with police tape and identified as a Hyundai Tucson. The rear passenger side window was smashed. The location and the Tucson were photographed.
The second scene was on the sidewalk at 245 Queen Street East, which was a retail plaza. A Ford SUV PRP vehicle was contained in the scene. The vehicle, through investigation, was found not to be involved in the incident.
A third scene, where the Complainant was reportedly knocked down, was identified at the west side of 245 Queen Street East, but it was not held.
Both scenes were searched for any CEW components, blood spatter or other evidence, with negative results.
Figure 1 - Parking lot area in front of 245 Queen Street East
Physical EvidenceOn March 10, 2022, a SIU forensic investigator attended the PRP Tactical Unit. In the garage was a black Ford SUV tactical vehicle. The vehicle had no damage. This vehicle had reportedly boxed-in the Hyundai. The tactical vehicle was photographed.
The SIU forensic investigator then attended the armament cleaning room where PRP turned over CEW 1, which was a Taser X2, issued to WO #2. Also turned over was CEW 2, which was a Taser X2, issued to WO #1.
CEW 1 was photographed. It contained two cartridges. Both cartridges appeared intact. The data downloaded from the weapons indicated that cartridge 1 of CEW 1 was triggered on March 9, 2022, at 9:43:54 a.m., for an associated discharge of four seconds. There was no trigger activity associated with CEW 2.
Figure 2 – WO #2’s CEW
The SIU forensic investigator also examined and photographed the unmarked PRP vehicle driven by the SO. The vehicle had no damage.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence 
Video Footage - Toronto Car Sales, 243 Queen Street East, Brampton The front of the building was located on the south side of Queen Street East, facing north.
At 9:56 a.m., the camera captured a black Tucson SUV enter the lot and stop facing the bottom of the L of the L-shaped building.
At 10:01 a.m., a large black SUV [now known to be a police vehicle driven by WO #4] entered the lot off Queen Street and bumped into the rear of the Tucson to pin the Tucson against the building. This police vehicle was followed onto the lot by another unmarked black vehicle. A police officer [now known to be WO #1] exited the passenger side of WO #4’s vehicle, took cover behind the door, and appeared to call out commands in the direction of the Tucson. As WO #1 approached the Tucson, the Complainant exited the driver’s door of the Tucson. He ran in an easterly direction across the driveway to the driveway of 245 Queen Street East. WO #1 carried a C8 rifle and ran to the rear of WO #1’s vehicle and then eastbound across the driveways in pursuit of the Complainant.
When the Complainant reached the second driveway, he started to run northward towards Queen Street. At the same time, an unmarked police vehicle [now known to be driven by the SO] followed and turned slightly into the Complainant. The Complainant was struck by the left front quarter-panel of the SO’s vehicle by the wheel well. The SO’s vehicle bumped the right side of the Complainant, who continued to run but lost his balance. The Complainant fell to the ground but got back up and ran several more strides eastbound on the south sidewalk of Queen Street East, where he fell again.
At 10:01 a.m., the Complainant was engaged by three officers. Owing to the distance and the number of bodies involved, the details of the engagement on the ground could not be discerned.
Video Footage - 247 Queen Street East, Brampton The front of the building was an apartment complex with multiple business premises on the ground floor. The building was located on the south side of Queen Street East and faced north. There was one camera that afforded a view of 245 Queen Street East. There was no date or time stamp on the recording.
At 4:17 minutes into the video, the Complainant was seen to run into the screen from the left side, eastbound, on the south sidewalk of Queen Street East. The Complainant fell to the ground and was quickly engaged by three officers. Because of the distance the camera was from the scene, and the number of police bodies over the top of the Complainant, the details of the arrest could not be made out.
PRP Booking VideoThe Complainant was brought into the booking area at 4:20 p.m., on March 9, 2022. He had his right leg in a cast and supported himself with crutches. The footage was unremarkable and ended at 4:41 p.m.
PRP Communications RecordingsThe dispatch recording was one minute and 14 seconds in duration.
At 9:44 a.m., a detective asked dispatch to show himself, other RU (Robbery Unit) police officers and the Tactical Rescue Unit (TRU) on scene at 243 Queen Street East. They had the Complainant in custody for robbery and required one or two uniform police officers to attend. The officer advised all was in order.
At 9:45 a.m., two officers were dispatched.
At 9:46 a.m., the detective advised dispatch that an ambulance was required for CEW probe removal. He also requested a tow truck for a stolen motor vehicle tow.
At 10:00 a.m., an officer advised dispatch that the Complainant was to be transported to BCH and he required another unit to attend to either follow the ambulance or remain with the stolen vehicle.
At 10:08 a.m., the officer advised dispatch he was in the ambulance and was en route to the BCH.
Materials Obtained from Police ServiceUpon request, the SIU received the following materials from PRP between March 10 and 28, 2022:
- Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
- Booking video;
- Incident History;
- Video Footage (243 Queen Street East);
- Video Footage (247 Queen Street East);
- Notes-WO #4;
- Notes-WO #3;
- Notes-WO #2;
- Notes-WO #1;
- Occurrence Reports;
- Communications recordings;
- Cell video;
- PRP Directive - Incident Response;
- PRP Emails-Vehicle Maintenance; and
- Police Vehicle Operations Training – the SO.
Materials Obtained from Other SourcesThe SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:
- Peel EMS - Ambulance Call Report.
In the morning of March 9, 2022, the Complainant, while operating a stolen Hyundai Tucson, brought his vehicle to a stop in front of a north facing wall of the business at 243 Queen Street East, Brampton. As he sat in the driver’s seat of the vehicle, a black SUV approached and struck the Hyundai’s rear end, pinning it against the wall. A police officer emerged from the passenger aside of the SUV holding a rifle and directing the Complainant to exit with his hands up. The Complainant opened the driver’s door and ran eastward across the parking lot onto the driveway of an adjacent business at 245 Queen Street East.
The officer who had emerged from the SUV – WO #1 – was the leader of a TRU team that had been deployed that morning to effect the Complainant’s arrest. He and his team had received information from the PRP Robbery Unit that the Complainant was wanted for robbery offences, armed with a crowbar, and driving a stolen vehicle. Having tracked the Complainant to the address at 243 Queen Street East, the plan was for WO #1’s SUV, driven by WO #4, to immobilize the Hyundai against the wall and thereafter to effect a gunpoint arrest. Another pair of TRU officers – WO #3 and WO #2 – would follow in their SUV.
Once onto the driveway of the business at 245 Queen Street East, the Complainant turned left and ran northward as WO #3 and WO #1 pursued him on foot. Before he could reach the road, an unmarked police vehicle drove up along his right side and nudged him off stride. Seeing the Complainant take flight, the SO, among the Robbery Unit investigators who had discretely staged in the area, drove towards the Complainant to assist in the apprehension. The contact sent the Complainant tumbling to the ground. He quickly picked himself up, took several additional strides and again fell to the ground on the south sidewalk of Queen Street East.
WO #3 and WO #1 were quickly on the Complainant - the former using his body weight to maintain the Complainant pinned to the ground; the latter delivering a short kick and punch to the upper body of the Complainant. The officers were soon joined by other officers, including WO #2. The Complainant struggled against the officers’ efforts to control his arms. He was eventually handcuffed after WO #2 deployed her CEW against the back of his legs.
Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured right ankle.
Section 25(1), Criminal Code -- Protection of persons acting under authority
(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,
Analysis and Director's Decision
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. The TRU officers had reason to believe that the Complainant had participated in several robbery offences and had confirmed the fact that the vehicle he was operating had been stolen prior to their engagement.
I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO was legally justified. While the use of a motor vehicle as an interdiction mechanism is inherently dangerous, I am unable to conclude it was an unreasonable maneuver in the circumstances. The Complainant was in full flight at the time seeking to avoid arrest - it was apparent that he had no intention of stopping and there was a real risk that he would make good his escape had not the SO intervened as he did. The balance of competing interests was also not such as to make the tactic prohibitive. The Complainant was being pursued for serious crimes of violence and the officers were entitled to adopt a more aggressive posture to ensure his capture in the interests of public safety. Finally, it is evident on the video footage that the SO approached the Complainant at moderate speeds and made only so much contact with him as was necessary to cause him to lose his balance.
Additional force was applied to the Complainant after he fell for a second time, including a kick by WO #1 and a CEW discharge by WO #2, but here too the evidence fails to reasonably make out a case for excessive force. The officers who dealt with the Complainant at this time described him as struggling, refusing to release his arms and attempting to stand up. The Complainant did not provide any countervailing evidence and the video footage, taken at a distance, was unhelpful with respect to the details of what was transpiring on the ground. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the force used by the officers was disproportionate to the nature and extent of the Complainant’s reported resistance.
In the final analysis, though it remains unclear precisely when the Complainant’s ankle was broken during his interaction with the police, I am satisfied on reasonable grounds that his injury is not attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the involved officers. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: July 7, 2022
Electronically approved by
Special Investigations Unit
- 1) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]
The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.