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 39-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 31, 2025, at 7:02 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At approximately midnight, an allegedly impaired driver rear-ended a motor vehicle operated by an off-duty TPS officer travelling northbound on Highway 400. The driver [subsequently identified as the Complainant] fled on foot and was chased by the officer and another off-duty TPS officer, who witnessed the incident while also on his way home. The officers caught the male in a parking lot at Highway 400 and Rutherford Road. He was grounded and apprehended. There was a deposit of blood in the parking lot where the apprehension occurred. At 6:00 a.m., that morning, the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured nose.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/07/31 at 8:49 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/07/31 at 9:25 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 31, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on August 5, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject officials were interviewed on August 26, 2025.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness official was interviewed on August 8, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the parking lot of Tuscany Place, 3255 Rutherford Road, Vaughan.

Figure 1 - Scene

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

YRP Communications Recordings – 911 Call

The CW informed the call-taker of a motor vehicle collision on Highway 400, and of a man involved in the collision running from the scene. The CW explained he was in a plaza [now known to be Tuscany Place, in front of the B & T Food Centre] where a man [now known to be the Complainant] was on the ground being held down by two men [now known to be the SO and WO #1]. The Complainant had fled from the scene of the collision and had fallen. The SO took the CW’s phone and identified himself and WO #1 to the call-taker as off-duty officers with the TPS. The SO said the Complainant had been involved in a collision and fled the scene, and that he and WO #1 were holding him down. The Complainant was said to be fighting, and the SO requested assistance.

YRP Communications Recordings – Radio

Several YRP police vehicles were dispatched to attend 3255 Rutherford Road, regarding a dispute. A driver involved in a collision on Highway 400 at Rutherford Road had fled the scene and was being held by two off-duty officers from the TPS.

At 12:16:00 a.m., July 31, 2025, a YRP police officer notified the dispatcher that the Complainant was in custody, and he requested an ambulance. At 12:55 a.m., the ambulance arrived.

YRP In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

On July 31, 2025, at 12:15:49 a.m., a YRP vehicle stopped in a parking lot at 3255 Rutherford Road. On the ground, WO #2 struggled with the Complainant. The SO, dressed in civilian attire, grabbed the Complainant by the right arm, and placed it behind his back.

Between about 0016:03 hrs and 00:31:27 a.m., the SO was relieved by a YRP constable and stepped back from the Complainant. The Complainant was escorted to a police vehicle and placed into the back seat. The Complainant was subsequently removed from the police vehicle and examined by paramedics. The Complainant was placed onto a stretcher, loaded into an ambulance, and transported to CVH.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between August 2, 2025, and August 20, 2025:

• Use of Force training records – WO #1
• Use of Force training records – the SO
• Notes – WO #1 and the SO

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between August 1, 2025, and September 12, 2025:

• Correspondence involving blood kit from the OPP
• General Occurrence Report from OPP
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report from OPP
• General Occurrence Report from YRP
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report from YRP
• Communications recordings from YRP
• ICC footage from YRP
• Vaughan Mills video footage from YRP
• The CW’s statement from YRP
• Notes of WO #2 and WO #3 from YRP
• Scene photos from YRP
• The Complainant’s medical records from Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital (CVH)
• Ambulance Call Report from York Emergency Medical Services
• Correspondence relating to blood results from the OPP

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, and an additional police and non-police eyewitness, gives rise to the following scenario.

At around midnight of July 31, 2025, WO #1, an off-duty police officer, was driving home northbound on Highway 400 when he was involved in a collision just south of Rutherford Road. The Complainant had caused the accident when his northbound van rear-ended another vehicle. The officer pulled over and brought his vehicle to a stop. The Complainant moved from the driver side of the van to the passenger side, exited and began to make his way to a fence past the Rutherford Road off-ramp that bordered the parking lot of Tuscany Place, a retail district just north of Vaughan Mills mall. WO #1 followed the Complainant intending to arrest him for impaired driving.

The Complainant was inebriated at the time. He struggled to climb the fence but eventually made it over, falling from the top of the fence onto the parking lot side. The Complainant picked himself up and had travelled about 40 metres east of the fence line into the parking lot when he was forced to the ground by WO #1.

WO #1 had pursued the Complainant over the fence and into the parking lot, directing him to stop. The Complainant attempted to get to his feet as the officer placed weight on his back to keep him down. The SO, whom WO #1 had called for assistance after the accident knowing that he too was off duty and travelling home on the same route, arrived in the parking lot and joined in the struggle. After a period, the SO used a civilian’s phone to speak to YRP, advising that they needed police with respect to an impaired driver.

YRP officers attended the scene and took custody of the Complainant. He was transported to hospital 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.

Section 320.14(1), Criminal Code - Operation While Impaired

320.14 (1) Everyone commits an offence who

(a) operates a conveyance while the person’s ability to operate it is impaired to any degree by alcohol or a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a drug.

The Complainant was seriously injured around the time of his arrest by TPS officers on July 31, 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 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 Complainant was unsteady on his feet, smelled of alcohol and had left the scene of an accident. In the circumstances, he was subject to arrest for drunk driving contrary to section 320.14(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

With respect to the force used in the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was unlawful. The takedown performed by WO #1 was a reasonable tactic. The Complainant had fled from the crash site and pulled away from the officer when WO #1 caught up to him. Taking him to the ground would assist in establishing control of the Complainant by better positioning WO #1 to deal with any continuing resistance. There is evidence in which it is alleged the Complainant was punched in the face three to four times by an officer before he was taken to the ground. The weight of the evidence, however, suggests that he was not struck until after he was on the ground, and that it was the SO who delivered the blows. According to the officer, he kicked the Complainant once in the torso and punched him three to five times in the head. He did so, he says, to counteract the Complainant’s resistance as he attempted to lift himself up and refused to surrender his arms from underneath his body. Once his arms were controlled behind the back, no further strikes were administered. On this record, the force used by the SO would not appear a disproportionate response to the Complainant’s combativeness.

It remains unclear when precisely the Complainant broke his nose. It could have happened during the motor vehicle collision, the Complainant’s fall from the fence, WO #1’s takedown or the punches struck by the SO. Be that as it may, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury is attributable to any unlawful conduct on the part of the TPS officers. The file is closed.

Date: November 19, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit