SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-TCI-283
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
Mandate of the SIU
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.
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.
Information Restrictions
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 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.
- 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.Mandate Engaged
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 41-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
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 41-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On July 24, 2023, at 8:58 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.According to the TPS, at 3:30 a.m., police officers from the TPS Major Crime Unit (MCU) were in the area of Finch Avenue West and Humberline Drive when they observed the Complainant running. The Complainant attempted to enter a motor vehicle, and officers physically removed him to effect his arrest. After complaining of pain to his arm, the Complainant was transported to the Humber River Hospital (HRH). He was diagnosed with a fractured left arm, which was confirmed to be an old injury. The Complainant was further diagnosed with a newly fractured nasal bone.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2023/07/24 at 11:48 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/07/24 at 12:59 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
41-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on July 24, 2023.
Subject Officials (SO)
SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed SO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
SO #3 Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
SO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The subject officials were interviewed between July 24, 2023, and September 14, 2023.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 InterviewedWO #2 Not interviewed; body-worn camera (BWC) footage and notes reviewed, and interview deemed not necessary
WO #3 Not interviewed; BWC footage and notes reviewed, and interview deemed not necessary
The witness official was interviewed on August 4, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in and around an Acura that was parked on a roadway in the area of Finch Avenue West and Humberline Drive, Toronto.Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
BWC and In-car Camera (ICC) Footage
On July 27, 2023, TPS provided the SIU with the BWC and ICC footage from WO #3 and WO #2. The footage was date and time-stamped, and of good quality. Starting at about 2:34 a.m., July 24, 2023, the Complainant was captured standing next to a vehicle with his hands handcuffed behind his back. Multiple plain-clothed officers were standing near him and a male officer was heard advising the Complainant of his rights. Two officers then walked the Complainant to the rear of a marked police vehicle. Blood was observed on the Complainant’s forehead.
The Complainant complained of pain to his left arm. He told the officers he had injured it at work and he thought it was broken.
Emergency Medical Services arrived at about 2:51 a.m. The Complainant was placed in the rear of the ambulance.
Police Communications Recordings
The recording commenced on July 24, 2023, at 2:13:13 a.m., with units advising they were at a location in the area of Finch Avenue West and Humberline Drive. Starting at about 2:30 a.m., SO #4 reported a car parked behind another car.
Starting at about 2:31 a.m. WO #1 reported the Complainant walking on Humberline Drive. A male officer then made the call to apprehend the Complainant out on the street. Another male officer reported the Complainant running. Multiple calls were made reporting directions of travel and locations.
At 2:34 a.m., there was a report of a male in custody.
Starting at about 2:36 a.m., a male officer requested an ambulance for some cuts and bruises.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between July 27, 2023, and August 31, 2023:- Use of Force Policy;
- Arrest Procedures;
- List of involved officers;
- General Occurrence
- BWC footage;
- ICC footage;
- Record of computer-assisted dispatch;
- Communications recordings;
- Scene diagram – SO #2;
- Notes – WO #1;
- Notes - SO #4;
- Notes - SO #2;
- Notes - SO #1;
- Notes - WO #2; and
- Notes - WO #3.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following record from other sources:- The Complainant’s medical records from HRH, received August 1, 2023.
Incident Narrative
The evidence gathered by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and each of the subject officials, gives rise to the following scenario.
In the early morning hours of July 24, 2023, plainclothes officers with the TPS MCU were in the area of Finch Avenue West and Humberline Drive. They had located a suspect in that neighbourhood and were looking to effect his arrest. The suspect was known to be in possession of a stolen vehicle – an Acura.
The Complainant was the suspect. The Complainant was returning to the parked Acura when he was confronted by members of the MCU in unmarked vehicles.
SO #3 and his partner, WO #1, were the first to observe the Complainant walking on Humberline Drive. The officers stopped their vehicle, and WO #1 exited and started chasing the Complainant northward on Woodlot Crescent. SO #3 joined in the foot pursuit, as did SO #2. The latter had driven south on Woodlot Crescent and unsuccessfully attempted to block the Complainant.
The Complainant’s flight led the officers in a zigzag pattern up the roadway, travelling between homes, into backyards, and back onto the roadway. He managed to make it to the Acura and enter the driver’s seat but was unable to drive off.
SO #2 had prevented the Complainant from closing the door and had entered the vehicle lying across the Complainant’s lap. The two struggled for a period and were joined shortly by SO #3 and WO #1. SO #1 arrived within moments and entered the fray. He grabbed the Complainant by the back of the neck and yanked him out of the Acura and onto the road.
The physical altercation continued for a period outside the vehicle – SO #4 arriving and delivering several strikes – before the Complainant was handcuffed.
The Complainant was transported to hospital following his arrest and found to have sustained a broken nose. He was also diagnosed with a fractured left arm – an older injury incurred previously at work.
In the early morning hours of July 24, 2023, plainclothes officers with the TPS MCU were in the area of Finch Avenue West and Humberline Drive. They had located a suspect in that neighbourhood and were looking to effect his arrest. The suspect was known to be in possession of a stolen vehicle – an Acura.
The Complainant was the suspect. The Complainant was returning to the parked Acura when he was confronted by members of the MCU in unmarked vehicles.
SO #3 and his partner, WO #1, were the first to observe the Complainant walking on Humberline Drive. The officers stopped their vehicle, and WO #1 exited and started chasing the Complainant northward on Woodlot Crescent. SO #3 joined in the foot pursuit, as did SO #2. The latter had driven south on Woodlot Crescent and unsuccessfully attempted to block the Complainant.
The Complainant’s flight led the officers in a zigzag pattern up the roadway, travelling between homes, into backyards, and back onto the roadway. He managed to make it to the Acura and enter the driver’s seat but was unable to drive off.
SO #2 had prevented the Complainant from closing the door and had entered the vehicle lying across the Complainant’s lap. The two struggled for a period and were joined shortly by SO #3 and WO #1. SO #1 arrived within moments and entered the fray. He grabbed the Complainant by the back of the neck and yanked him out of the Acura and onto the road.
The physical altercation continued for a period outside the vehicle – SO #4 arriving and delivering several strikes – before the Complainant was handcuffed.
The Complainant was transported to hospital following his arrest and found to have sustained a broken nose. He was also diagnosed with a fractured left arm – an older injury incurred previously at work.
Relevant Legislation
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.
Analysis and Director's Decision
The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by TPS officers in Toronto on July 24, 2023. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming four TPS officers as subject officials: SO #1, SO #2, SO #3 and SO #4. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the subject officials 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.
The evidence indicates that the Complainant was subject to arrest for being in possession of a stolen vehicle.
With respect to the force used by the officers against the Complainant, there is a conflict in the evidence. There is a version of events that depicts the Complainant as not having resisted arrest while being pulled out from the Acura, and thereafter subjected to multiple kicks, knees and punches on the ground. On the other hand, the story proffered in the accounts of the police officers is one in which the subject officials used only reasonably necessary force to take the Complainant into custody. SO #2 says that he struggled to prevent the Complainant from starting the Acura inside the vehicle and attempted to subdue him with an elbow to the chest. From outside the vehicle, WO #1 and SO #3 punched the Complainant, the latter doing so twice to the left side of the face as he fought with SO #2 inside the vehicle. SO #1 concedes that he forcibly pulled the Complainant onto the roadway from the Acura to prevent him starting the vehicle as SO #2, SO #3 and WO #1 were physically engaged with him. And SO #4 admits to striking the side of the Complainant’s body several times on the ground as officers struggled to control his arms so he could be handcuffed. No further force was brought to bear after the Complainant was handcuffed.
On the aforementioned-record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the account describing the Complainant as cooperative and the subject of unjustified force during his arrest is any closer to the truth than that offered by the officers. In fact, the opposite - there are elements of the incriminating rendition of events that render it less reliable.
In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was the result of the physical altercation that marked his arrest, I am left without a reasonable belief that any of the subject officials comported themselves other than lawfully throughout their engagement. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: November 21, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
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 evidence indicates that the Complainant was subject to arrest for being in possession of a stolen vehicle.
With respect to the force used by the officers against the Complainant, there is a conflict in the evidence. There is a version of events that depicts the Complainant as not having resisted arrest while being pulled out from the Acura, and thereafter subjected to multiple kicks, knees and punches on the ground. On the other hand, the story proffered in the accounts of the police officers is one in which the subject officials used only reasonably necessary force to take the Complainant into custody. SO #2 says that he struggled to prevent the Complainant from starting the Acura inside the vehicle and attempted to subdue him with an elbow to the chest. From outside the vehicle, WO #1 and SO #3 punched the Complainant, the latter doing so twice to the left side of the face as he fought with SO #2 inside the vehicle. SO #1 concedes that he forcibly pulled the Complainant onto the roadway from the Acura to prevent him starting the vehicle as SO #2, SO #3 and WO #1 were physically engaged with him. And SO #4 admits to striking the side of the Complainant’s body several times on the ground as officers struggled to control his arms so he could be handcuffed. No further force was brought to bear after the Complainant was handcuffed.
On the aforementioned-record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the account describing the Complainant as cooperative and the subject of unjustified force during his arrest is any closer to the truth than that offered by the officers. In fact, the opposite - there are elements of the incriminating rendition of events that render it less reliable.
In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was the result of the physical altercation that marked his arrest, I am left without a reasonable belief that any of the subject officials comported themselves other than lawfully throughout their engagement. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: November 21, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) The information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s finding of facts following its investigation. [Back to text]
- 2) 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]
Note:
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.