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 injuries of a 44-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 25, 2025, at 12:50 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 24, 2025, at 2:28 p.m., 51 Division officers responded to a call involving a person with a knife at an encampment at 56 Queen Street East. Subject Official (SO) #2 and SO #1 arrived on bicycles and found the Complainant sitting in a chair. As the officers approached, the Complainant told them his leg was broken, and he was seen to be wearing a cast on his right leg. The Complainant was grounded, arrested, and transported to 51 Division in a marked cruiser by a TPS Constable. He was paraded at 3:15 p.m., and again reported that his leg was broken. At 3:30 p.m., he was taken to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH). At 9:30 p.m., police were advised that the Complainant’s right ankle and right knee were fractured and that the fractures might be new.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/07/25 at 7:30 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/07/25 at 9:35 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

Not interviewed (declined)

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the front, exterior grounds of the Metropolitan United Church, 56 Queen Street East, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Custody Footage

On July 24, 2025, starting at about 3:15 p.m., a police officer – Officer #1 – was captured standing at the open front passenger door of a fully marked TPS cruiser. SO #2 stood at the open rear passenger door, and SO #1 stood at the open door to the police station. SO #2 directed a man - the Complainant - to get out of the police vehicle. SO #1 walked towards the rear passenger door and coaxed the Complainant to get up from the seat. The Complainant said, “My ankle’s broken, ah.”

Starting at about 3:16 p.m., the Complainant hobbled from the police vehicle with SO #2 and SO #1 at his sides. The officers assisted him into the booking hall.

Starting at about 3:17 p.m., the Complainant was paraded before the staff sergeant on a charge of assault with a weapon.

Starting at about 3:20 p.m., the staff sergeant asked the Complainant if he had any injuries, and the Complainant told him his ankle was injured. He explained that he had broken his ankle three weeks ago, at which time it was casted. He had recently removed the cast as the injury had been healing. The Complainant asked for an ambulance and reported he had injured his ankle and leg during his arrest when the police officers took him to the ground. He said he had suicidal thoughts every day.

Starting at about 3:21 p.m., the staff sergeant asked to see the Complainant’s right ankle and walked over to him. SO #1 removed the Complainant’s sock, and the staff sergeant looked at the Complainant’s ankle and said: “Well, so you’re going to have to go to the hospital then.”

Starting at about 3:24 p.m., SO #1, SO #2 and Officer #1 assisted the Complainant to a standing position on one foot and escorted him to a wall for a frisk search.

Starting at about 3:28 p.m., officers assisted the Complainant from the booking hall to the rear passenger door of a police vehicle.

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – Officer #1

On July 24, 2025, starting at about 2:39 p.m., SO #2 was captured escorting a man - the Complainant - to the rear passenger side door of a cruiser, after which the officer searched the Complainant’s pockets. The Complainant was directed into the rear passenger seat. He asked for an ambulance and said, “Sir, my ankle is messed up,” as he sat in the seat.

Starting at about 2:42 p.m., Officer #1 entered the driver’s seat of the police vehicle. The Complainant said: “Sir, I need ambulance, please, my ankle popped out. Sir, sir, my ankle popped out of place, (indiscernible) my ankle’s broken now.”

Starting at about 2:46 p.m., the Complainant was in transit en route to 51 Division.

Starting at about 3:03 p.m., Officer #1 asked the Complainant why he needed an ambulance. The Complainant said his ankle was “healing” and the “officer put too much pressure on my leg”.

Starting at about 3:15 p.m., the Complainant was directed out of the rear passenger seat. He immediately groaned and said, “My leg, my leg.”

Starting at about 3:16 p.m., Officer #1 and SO #1 pulled the Complainant from the vehicle. The Complainant cried out in pain and said his ankle was broken. The Complainant stood from the rear passenger seat, flanked by Officer #1 and SO #1, who urged him to stand. The Complainant cried out.

Starting at about 3:28 p.m., the Complainant, hopping on his left foot, was placed into the rear passenger seat of the cruiser.

Starting at about 3:30 p.m., Officer #1 informed the dispatcher that the Complainant had a pre-existing injury and was en route to SMH.

Starting at about 3:44 p.m., Officer #1 assisted the Complainant from the rear passenger seat into a wheelchair.

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - SO #2

On July 24, 2025, starting at about 2:28 p.m., SO #2 and SO #1 were captured riding police bicycles through a park. SO #2 approached an encampment from the east side as SO #1 approached from the west side. A man - the Complainant - sat in a chair. SO #1 dismounted his police bicycle and approached the Complainant from behind on his right side. The Complainant reached forward with his right arm as SO #1 reached forward with his left hand. SO #1 used his right hand to grab the Complainant’s right forearm and used his left hand to grab the Complainant’s upper right biceps, pulling him forward from the chair. SO #1 used both hands to hold the Complainant’s right wrist and shoulder, and told him to put his hands behind the back. SO #2 held onto the Complainant’s left arm as the Complainant moved forward to the right and out of the chair. The Complainant’s right foot was askew from his sandal. The Complainant fell onto his forearms and stomach, his right knee hitting the ground and his upper body continuing forward until his chest hit the ground. SO #1 held the Complainant’s right hand behind his back as SO #2 brought his left arm behind his back.

Starting at about 2:29 p.m., SO #1 told the Complainant he was under arrest for assault with a weapon, and he handcuffed the Complainant’s hands behind the back. SO #2 directed the Complainant to stand, and the Complainant told him he could not. SO #2 searched the Complainant as he laid on his right side. SO #1 read the Complainant his rights to counsel.

Starting at about 2:33 p.m., the Complainant said he wanted to go to the hospital and requested an ambulance three times. SO #2 asked the Complainant why he needed an ambulance. The Complainant said, “Because I got attacked, my ankle’s broken.” He continued, “I got attacked yesterday. I didn’t bother nobody. And I didn’t even assault anybody, everyday there’s fights here.”

Starting at about 2:35 p.m., the Complainant said, “My leg’s fucked up, I did nothing wrong.”

Starting at about 2:36 p.m., SO #1 assisted the Complainant to get up and sit in the chair.

Starting at about 2:38 p.m., Officer #1 directed the Complainant to stand as SO #1 took the Complainant by his right elbow to assist him up. The Complainant said, “My ankle’s broken, my ankle’s broken.” Officer #1 moved to the Complainant’s left side and assisted SO #1 in bringing the Complainant up on his left foot. SO #2 searched bags and jackets around the Complainant’s chair.

Starting at about 2:40 p.m., SO #2 walked towards a fully marked TPS police vehicle where he joined Officer #1 and SO #1 at the open rear passenger door. The Complainant sat in the rear passenger seat.

TPS Communications Recordings

On July 24, 2025, starting at about 2:20 p.m., a man called 911 to request police attend the park at 56 Queen Street East. He had argued with a man, who pulled a switchblade-type knife on him. The 911 caller provided a detailed description of the man he had argued with, including the fact that he was wearing an ankle monitor on his left ankle, and indicated that the man was sitting in a chair under a tree by a tent at the front of the Metropolitan United Church.

Starting at about 2:22 p.m., the dispatcher requested that police officers attend at an incident involving a person with a knife, and relayed the details of the 911 call. SO #2 and SO #1 informed the dispatcher that they had arrived at the church.

Starting at about 2:29 p.m., SO #2 informed the dispatcher that they had a man - the Complainant - in custody who matched the description of the suspect with a knife.

Starting at about 2:46 p.m., Officer #1 reported that the Complainant was in his police vehicle en route to 51 Division with SO #2 and SO #1 following.

Starting at about 3:30 p.m., Officer #1 reported that the Complainant had a previous injury and would be transported to the SMH.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between from July 25, 2025, and August 26, 2025:

• Photograph of the Complainant
• BWC footage
• ICC footage
• Custody footage
• General Occurrence Report
• Booking Report
• Custody History
• Involved Officers List
• TPS policy - Incident Response
• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between July 25, 2025, and August 18, 2025:

• Global Positioning System data regarding the Complainant’s location from Recovery Science Corporation
• Release Order - the Complainant
• Person Details Report regarding the Complainant from Peel Regional Police
• The Complainant’s medical records from SMH

The evidence collected by the SIU, consisting in the main of video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the afternoon of July 24, 2025, SO #2 and SO #1, on patrol riding their police bicycles, made their way to the front grounds of the Metropolitan United Church, 56 Queen Street East. Police had received a call about an assault that had just occurred at an encampment at the location. Reportedly, in the course of an argument between two males, one of them had pulled a knife on the other. The perpetrator was described as wearing an ankle monitor on his left ankle.

The Complainant was sitting in a lawn chair with two other individuals nearby when SO #2 and SO #1 approached and immediately pulled him to the ground in a prone position. He was wearing an ankle monitor and fit the rest of the description provided in the 911 call. The Complainant protested his arrest, saying he had done nothing, but otherwise did not resist. He complained that his right ankle was broken – the result of an attack on him the day before – and requested an ambulance.

The Complainant was helped by the officers to a cruiser that had arrived on scene. He limped en route to the vehicle and again requested an ambulance. The Complainant was transported to 51 Division.

At the police station, the Complainant told the officer-in-charge that his right ankle was broken. He explained that it had been fractured weeks prior, at which time it was casted. The Complainant had recently removed the cast because the injury was healing. He added that his ankle and leg had also been injured during the arrest. The officer-in-charge directed that the Complainant be brought to hospital.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with fractures of the left ankle and right knee.

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 267(a), Criminal Code - Assault with a Weapon or Causing Bodily Harm

267 Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, in committing an assault,

(a) carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation thereof,

(b) causes bodily harm to the complainant, or

(c) chokes, suffocates or strangles the complainant.

The Complainant was diagnosed with fractures of his legs and feet following his arrest by TPS officers on July 24, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming the two arresting officers – SO #2 and SO #1 – 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 injuries.

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.

With information at their disposal that the Complainant fit the description of an individual said to have threatened someone with a knife, SO #2 and SO #1 were within their rights in seeking to arrest the Complainant for assault with a weapon contrary to section 267(a) of the Criminal Code.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the subject officials in the Complainant’s arrest, namely, a takedown, was no more than was reasonably necessary. Though the Complainant did not resist his arrest at any point, the officers had reason to believe that he had recently threatened another person with a knife, and that he could still be in possession of the knife. In the circumstances, it made sense to quickly maneuver him into a position of disadvantage on the ground as doing so would mitigate the risk of the Complainant accessing and using a weapon. The takedown itself, in which the officers took hold of the Complainant’s upper body and pulled him forward off a chair and onto the ground, was not accomplished with undue force.

In the result, while I accept that some or all of the Complainant’s fractures could have resulted from the takedown performed by SO #2 and SO #1, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the injuries are attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the subject officials.

Before closing the file, it should be noted that the service may not have notified the SIU of this incident in a timely fashion, in possible contravention of section 16 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. I will be raising this matter in my reporting letter to the chief of police. Further to the SIU’s legal obligation under section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit act, 2019, I will also be referring the matter to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: November 21, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit