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 62-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 16, 2025, at 8:50 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 16, 2025, at 12:56 a.m., TPS officers responded to the area of Woodbine Avenue and Danforth Avenue following a report of a man with a gun. They located four men and placed them under investigative detention. One of the men [now known to be the Complainant] was intoxicated and did not comply with verbal commands. He was grounded and suffered a cut above his eye. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) attended the scene and transported the Complainant to Michael Garron Hospital (MGH). At 8:36 a.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with a nasal bone fracture.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/07/16 at 9:54 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/07/16 at 10:30 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 24, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Official / Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

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

WO #6 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between July 25, 2025, and July 26, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the sidewalk and roadway in front of an establishment in the area of Woodbine Avenue and Danforth Avenue, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Communications Recordings – Radio

On July 16, 2025, at 12:55:12 a.m., TPS dispatch requested that police attend the area of Woodbine Avenue and Danforth Avenue. Crime Stoppers had received a voice message tip at 12:49 a.m., about a man outside an establishment in the area. The man had a black handgun tucked into his waistband. He was described as Caucasian, 5’10” in height with dark hair, wearing jeans and a T-shirt, and of unknown weight and age. Three or four other men without descriptions were seen with the man.

At 1:01:12 a.m., six people were reportedly in custody.

At 1:01:55 a.m., WO #1 reported that a man in custody was bleeding from the face, and that the circumstances of the injury were unknown.

At 1:02:15 a.m., EMS was requested for the Complainant.

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - Officer #1, the SO, WO #1, WO #2, WO #6, WO #5, Officer #2, WO #4, WO #3, Officer #3 and Officer #4

On July 16, 2025, between 12:59 a.m., and 1:45 a.m., multiple TPS officers attended the area of Danforth Avenue, in response to a Crime Stoppers tip regarding a man reportedly in possession of a firearm and accompanied by three to four other men. Upon arrival, officers observed a group of six individuals, including the Complainant. The SO, WO #4, Officer #3, WO #2, Officer #1, WO #3 and WO #5 drew their firearms and issued verbal commands at the group to lay prone on the sidewalk. The Complainant was positioned alone near the rear of a parked vehicle, holding a red LCBO bag. He initially responded verbally to commands but did not immediately comply to get on the ground. The SO pulled the Complainant to the ground. The Complainant’s face impacted the asphalt ground in the process. The Complainant repeatedly stated that he had done nothing and identified himself as the owner of a local establishment. The SO and WO #4 handcuffed him and conducted a search for weapons, which revealed none. Following the takedown, a pool of blood became visible on the pavement, and the Complainant’s facial injury became apparent [later diagnosed as a fractured nose]. Officers, including WO #6 and WO #5, assisted him off the ground and ensured that medical attention was provided. Paramedics arrived on scene. They transported the Complainant to MGH, accompanied by WO #4 and Officer #3.

The other five individuals were detained, searched and released unconditionally.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS on July 28, 2025.

• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• General Occurrence Report
• Involved Officers List
• Policies – Use of Force; Crime Stoppers
• BWC footage - Officer #1, the SO, WO #1, WO #2, WO #6, WO #5, Officer #2, WO #4, WO #3, Officer #3, and Officer #4

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from MGH on July 24, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the early morning of July 16, 2025, TPS officers, including the SO, quickly made their way to an address on Danforth Avenue. The service had received a Crime Stoppers tip about a male in the area, together with three to four other males, with a gun tucked in his waistband.

At about the same time, the Complainant, the owner of a local business, had closed the establishment and was leaving for the night. The Complainant was in front of his establishment loading some things in his vehicle when he was confronted by several officers. He and a group of five passersby in the vicinity were ordered to the ground by the officers at gunpoint. The Complainant did not readily lower himself despite repeated directions, and was forced to the ground by an officer.

The officer was the SO. He grabbed a hold of the Complainant’s shirt by the right shoulder and pulled him to the ground in a prone position. The Complainant was handcuffed behind the back and searched. When no firearms were found on his person, the handcuffs were removed. The same was true of the passersby, each of whom had complied with the orders to get down.

The Complainant was transported to hospital from the scene and diagnosed with a broken nose.

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 detention by TPS officers on July 16, 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 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.

There were clearly no grounds to arrest the Complainant based on the tip about a male with a gun. He did not fit the description of the male suspect and was located some distance from the address reported by the tipster. The question, however, is whether there were grounds to temporarily detain the Complainant for investigative purposes, a power authorized in law as long as the detaining officer has reasonable grounds to suspect the detainee is involved in criminal activity,[3] a lower standard than that required for an arrest, namely, reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed. On the one hand, the Complainant was, in fact, an innocent bystander just going about his business when he was detained. And, to reiterate, he neither matched the description of the male suspect, nor was located where the suspect had last been seen. On the other hand, the Complainant was in proximity to a group of persons not too far away from the reported scene, and about where they might be expected had they walked from the scene during the time it took the officers to respond – about 200 metres away. Moreover, that group of persons included an individual who did fit the description of the male suspect. These circumstances could have given rise to a reasonable suspicion that the Complainant was associated with that individual and implicated in a possible firearm offence. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude with any confidence that the SO was not vested with the necessary grounds to detain the Complainant for investigation.

With respect to the force brought to bear by the SO against the Complainant, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was unlawful. With cause to suspect that a firearm was present in the group of persons they were detaining, it was reasonable for the officers to want to place the individuals in a position of disadvantage, at least until such time as they could be searched for weapons. A takedown made sense in the circumstances, especially when the Complainant did not promptly lower himself to the ground. The tactic itself would not appear to have been executed with undue force, albeit it did result in the Complainant landing awkwardly and forcefully on his face.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s broken nose was incurred in the takedown performed by the SO, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the injury was the result of unlawful conduct on the part of the officer. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: November 13, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit