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 34-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 27, 2024, at 9:02 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the TPS, on July 26, 2024, at approximately 3:00 p.m., the TPS were called to a residence near Sherbourne Street and Wellesley Street East, Toronto. A caller to 911 reported a person, who was under conditions not attend the residence, had entered the residence. The TPS dispatched two officers, who located the Complainant in the backyard. The Complainant reported he had a previously sustained “shattered” right arm. The TPS officers arrested him for breaches of his release conditions, and they handcuffed him without issue. The Complainant then started struggling and threw himself onto the ground. The officers picked the Complainant up by his arms, and he began to yell his arm was injured. Paramedics attended the address, and the Complainant was transported by ambulance to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH). On July 27, 2024, at approximately 6:00 a.m., he was diagnosed with a fractured shoulder. The Complainant was released from the hospital, and transported to the TPS 51 Division station and lodged in a cell.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/07/27 at 9:39 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/27 at 11:03 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 27, 2024.

Subject Official

SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject officials were interviewed on August 28, 2024.

Investigative Delay

There was a delay in the SIU receiving medical records related to this incident. At the time this report was submitted, the records had not been received from SMH.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around residences near Sherbourne Street and Wellesley Street East, Toronto. The residences were comprised of a series of connected properties.

The backyard of the building was a shared space that was accessible from hallways in any of the residential buildings.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) and In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

On July 26, 2024, at 2:26 p.m., SO #1 and SO #2 arrived at an address near Sherbourne Street and Wellesley Street East. SO #2 spoke to a man (Civilian #1) who reported the Complainant was in the backyard of the premise. Civilian #1 told SO #2 the property management was unaware of the Complainant’s release conditions, so they were unable to determine if he was allowed on the property. SO #2 responded that the Complainant signed his release conditions, so he should know his conditions.

At 2:28 p.m., Civilian #1 led SO #2 and SO #1 to the backyard and pointed out the Complainant, who was lying on a picnic table. SO #2 approached the Complainant and told him he was being arrested. The Complainant immediately started to protest there were multiple addresses related to the backyard [believing his release conditions banned him from only some of those addresses].

SO #2 handcuffed the Complainant’s hands behind his back. SO #2 informed the Complainant he was being arrested for failing to comply with a release order, and the Complainant argued he was not at the specific address. He denied he had entered someone’s room.

At 2:31 p.m., the Complainant commented, “My right arm is shattered,” and he complained he was being arrested in his own backyard. At 2:32 p.m., one of the officers commented there was something in the Complainant’s rear pocket, and SO #2 tried to lift the Complainant, who became irate. SO #2 told the Complainant to stop screaming, and SO #1 offered to provide the Complainant a cigarette once the search was concluded. The Complainant again denied he was in someone’s room, and he provided the address for his house.

At 2:34 p.m., the officers tried to lift the Complainant from the picnic table but he became obstreperous. He screamed and ranted but made no mention of shoulder pain. He remained seated on the picnic table.

SO #2 asked Civilian #1 what the easiest route would be to remove the Complainant from the backyard, and Civilian #1 suggested a route.

At 2:35 p.m., the Complainant repeatedly yelled out, “You want to hurt me,” and he mentioned his right shoulder. The officers tried to lift the Complainant to his feet but he resisted. He repeatedly screamed, “I’m not going!”

SO #1 and SO #2 then dragged the Complainant into an interior hallway. The officers tried to carry him, with SO #1 at his shoulders and SO #2 at his feet, but the effort failed. Both officers then took hold of a bicep and they started to drag him through the hallway. The officers again tried to lift the Complainant, and he screamed out. The Complainant was placed onto the hallway floor so SO #1 could pull up the Complainant’s pants, which had fallen while being dragged.

At 2:37:50 p.m., the Complainant again mentioned his right arm, as SO #2 was pulling on his right bicep. SO #1 commented to SO #2, “His right arm.”

At 2:38 p.m., with the Complainant on his left side on the hallway floor, SO #2 grabbed his left bicep and SO #1 took hold of his right bicep, and they lifted him, trying to get him to his feet. The Complainant repeatedly cried out, “My arm is broke,” and he was lowered back to the floor.

SO #2 told the Complainant they would help him stand and they would get him a cigarette. SO #2 repeatedly used the offer of cigarettes to coax the Complainant to cooperate. At 2:40 p.m. the officers lifted the Complainant to his feet. SO #1 was holding his right bicep. There was no indication of pain from the Complainant. The Complainant was then escorted out of the residence.

Once at the police vehicle the Complainant asked for a cigarette. SO #2 replied they would provide him a cigarette once they completed a search. SO #2 asked the Complainant if he had an injury or needed an ambulance, and the Complainant replied his right shoulder hurt. SO #2 asked what else was hurting, and the Complainant said his chest and bones hurt. The Complainant then told SO #2 a car had driven over his right shoulder. SO #2 asked the Complainant what the problem with his arm was, as paramedics would need to know, and the Complainant explained he was in so much pain, and a bone was shattered above his right shoulder. He then repeatedly asked for a cigarette. At 2:46 p.m., the Complainant was provided a cigarette.

A bystander asked SO #1 and SO #2 if they were taking the Complainant to jail and he suggested it would be better to take the Complainant to CAMH. That bystander later told SO #2 that the Complainant had just spent the previous week at the Toronto South Detention Centre. He suggested the officers take the Complainant to CAMH, as CAMH took care of him.

At 2:57 p.m., SO #2 spoke to Civilian #1, and they discussed an earlier incident with the Complainant. SO #2 mentioned Civilian #1 filed a police report regarding that incident and as a result the Complainant was banned from returning to the property.

At 3:06 p.m., the Complainant told the officers he was released from custody the day prior, and he returned to the residence to speak to the landlord, who told him to wait in the backyard while they tried to arrange another apartment for the Complainant. He explained he was banned from two properties, so the landlord discussed a room in a third property. The Complainant then contradicted himself, telling the officers he was banned from the third property. He denied he went there, claiming he accessed the backyard through a different property.

At 3:10 p.m., SO #1 asked the Complainant how his shoulder was, and the Complainant stated he was in pain. At 3:11 p.m., paramedics arrived on scene.

The paramedics spoke to the Complainant, who asked to be taken to CAMH. The paramedics asked the Complainant why he wanted to go to CAMH, and he explained the officers dragged him from the backyard. He stated his hand was broken and his shoulder was “dead”. He cried out for the paramedics not to touch him because his shoulder was broken. He begged to be taken to CAMH, but the paramedic told him CAMH could not fix his shoulder. After speaking to the Complainant, the paramedics departed the scene.

At 3:29 p.m., SO #1 and SO #2 departed the address.

At 3:33 p.m., while on the way to the hospital, SO #2 telephoned a staff sergeant and explained the situation. He explained Civilian #1 told them the Complainant was not supposed to be at the residence, but he was there during the night and was in someone’s room at 3:00 a.m. In the morning he was eating in the dining room. SO #2 explained they arrested the Complainant in the backyard of the premise, so he was clearly in violation, but people had let him into the residence because they were unaware of his conditions not to be there. SO #2 reported he obtained a statement from a resident [Civilian #1] who reported he was sleeping at 3:00 a.m. when the Complainant entered his room. The caller had called 51 Division but was told to call the non-emergency TPS telephone number. In the morning the Complainant was eating breakfast with staff. SO #2 explained they arrived at 2:30 p.m. and the Complainant was in the backyard smoking a cigarette and lying on the ground. He reported the Complainant has a mental health condition and was cared for by staff at CAMH. SO #2 stated the Complainant was not really complaining about his arm, it was one of his friends who stated the Complainant had a bad arm. When they requested an ambulance, the Complainant told them he was previously run over by a vehicle. Paramedics attended and did not detect an injury, but the paramedics suggested the Complainant be examined, so they were transporting him to SMH.

At 3:39 p.m., the police vehicle arrived at SMH. While trying to exit the police vehicle, the Complainant was crying out in pain. He was placed in a wheelchair and taken into the hospital.

Video Footage – Residences near Sherbourne Street and Wellesley Street East

On August 12, 2024, a SIU investigator attended the residence to obtain a copy of the video recording. The residence manager informed the investigator the USB feature of their recording device was malfunctioning, so the investigator would have to record the monitor image using their cellular telephone camera.

The camera recording was from a camera mounted on the front of the residence.

At 2:58 p.m., SO #1 and SO #2 escorted the Complainant from the residence to their police vehicle, and they searched him at the side of the vehicle. At 3:01 p.m., the officers seated the Complainant in the rear seat, with door remaining open.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between July 26 and August 9, 2024:

• Arrest Report;
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
• General Occurrence Report;
• Involved Officer List;
• TPS Known Offender record for the Complainant;
• BWC footage - SO #1;
• BWC footage - SO #2;
• BWC footage - TPS Constable;
• ICC footage from the vehicle operated by SO #1 and SO #2;
• ICC footage from a vehicle operated by a TPS Constable transporting the Complainant from SMH to 51 Division;
• Five text messages sent from Civilian #1 to SO #2; and
• Six photograph attachments from the text messages sent by Civilian #1 to SO #2.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained video footage from the residences near Sherbourne Street and Wellesley Street East on August 12, 2024.

The events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized.

In the afternoon of July 26, 2024, SO #1 and SO #2 arrived at an address located near Sherbourne Street and Wellesley Street East, Toronto. A resident of the address had called police to report that the Complainant, who was barred from the residence as a condition of a court order, was present at the address.

The Complainant was lying on a picnic table in the rear yard of the residence when he was approached by the officers and told he was under arrest. The Complainant protested his arrest but was handcuffed without incident. However, he resisted the officers’ efforts to search him in the backyard and remove him from the residence by dropping his weight and refusing to walk on his own power.

SO #1 and SO #2 encouraged him to cooperate and eventually used force to remove him from the property. While being dragged along the hallway towards the front of the residence, the Complainant complained of right arm pain and said his arm was broken. The officers again encouraged him to stand and cooperate. With the promise of a cigarette, the Complainant allowed himself to be lifted to his feet, whereupon he was escorted from the house on foot.

The Complainant was assessed at the scene by paramedics and then taken to hospital by the officers where he was diagnosed with a fracture of the right shoulder.

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 diagnosed with a serious injury following his arrest by TPS officers on July 26, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming SO #1 and SO #2 the subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official 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 subject officials had reasonable grounds to believe the Complainant had violated a court order prohibiting his presence at the property based on information received from the resident, and was subject to arrest on that basis by the subject officials.

With respect to the force used by the officers in their dealings with the Complainant, I am satisfied that neither SO #1 nor SO #2 used unlawful force. Following the application of the handcuffs, which was uneventful, the Complainant refused to be searched by, and go willingly with, the officers. This left the officers little choice but to use some force to accomplish their lawful objectives. That force, consisting of the officers forcing the Complainant to his feet, and dragging him a distance towards their cruiser, was proportionate to the task at hand. No strikes of any kind were delivered by the officers, who were ultimately successful in coaxing the Complainant to cooperate.

It remains unclear whether the Complainant’s injury, a right shoulder fracture, was an injury that pre-existed his encounter with the police on July 26, 2024, an entirely new fracture caused by one or both of the subject officials, or some combination of the two. Be that as it may, there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the injury is attributable to any unlawful conduct on the part of the subject officials. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: November 18, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit