Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving police officers where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. The Unit’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation. If, after an investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the officer. Alternatively, in all cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director does not lay criminal charges but files a report with the Attorney General communicating the results of an investigation.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”)

Pursuant to section 14 of FIPPA (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 whose release 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 of FIPPA (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this document. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• Subject Officer name(s);
• Witness Officer name(s);
• Civilian Witness name(s);
• 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 (“PHIPA”)

Pursuant to PHIPA, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may have also 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.

The Unit’s investigative jurisdiction is limited to those incidents where there is a serious injury (including sexual assault allegations) or death in cases involving the police.

“Serious injuries” shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. “Serious Injury” shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault. Where a prolonged delay is likely before the seriousness of the injury can be assessed, the Unit should be notified so that it can monitor the situation and decide on the extent of its involvement.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the injury that a 14-year-old male (the “Complainant”) suffered.This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the injury that a 14-year-old male (the “Complainant”) suffered.

Notification of the SIU

On November 16, 2019, at 12:14 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) reported an injury. On November 15, 2019 at 8:10 p.m., three TPS plainclothes officers were in a foot pursuit of the Complainant. The Complainant was tackled and arrested for fail to comply with conditions. He was taken to TPS 43 Division. He complained of a sore shoulder and was taken to Centenary Hospital. At 10:42 p.m., he was diagnosed with a fractured collarbone and returned to TPS 43 Division to wait for his bail hearing the following morning.

The Scene

The scene was located at 400 McCowan Road in an open grassy area adjacent to the rear parking lot.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) Recording from 400 McCowan Road

The SIU retrieved a CCTV recording from the apartment building at 400 McCowan Road dated November 15, 2019. The camera was located on the southwest corner of the building. There was no audio.

At 8:06:39 p.m., a vehicle [now known to be a dark KIA Sportage] drove west into the driveway of 400 McCowan Road. At 8:06:46 p.m. a person in dark clothing [now known to be the Complainant] ran south to a pathway leading to Trudelle Street and a second person [now known to be the SO] ran south to the pathway. At 8:06:54 p.m., the KIA drove a few metres and stopped. Two people got out of the KIA, one person from the driver’s seat [now known to be WO #1] and one person from the rear seat behind the driver [now known to be WO #2]. WO #1 and WO #2 ran to the pathway. At 8:07:04 p.m., the Complainant and the SO ran behind a large tree and WO #2 and WO #1 continued to run on the pathway. At 8:07:09 p.m., WO #2 and WO #1 were out of sight, behind the large tree. Another person [a male civilian] walked in the parking lot and then ran towards the pathway. At 8:08:12 p.m., the civilian returned to the parking lot.

At 8:09:09 p.m., the SO returned to the KIA and entered the driver’s side door. WO #2 and the SO escorted the Complainant from the pathway to the KIA. At 8:10:36 p.m., WO #2 sat the Complainant down on the curb. At 8:11:40 p.m., a police cruiser arrived and parked in front of the KIA. Two uniformed police officers [now known to be WO #3 and WO #4] got out of the cruiser. At 8:12:26 p.m., the Complainant was escorted to the police cruiser by WO #2 and he sat inside. At 8:22:22 p.m., the police cruiser left the scene.

Though the material events in question are disputed, the following appears common ground on the evidence collected by the SIU. In violation of a condition of his recognizance, the Complainant was outside his residence in the area of 400 McCowan Road at about 8:00 p.m. on November 15, 2019. The SO, together with his partners, WO #1 and WO #2, were working in plainclothes and patrolling the area in an unmarked vehicle when they came upon the Complainant. When the SO called out to the Complainant from the front passenger seat of the vehicle, the Complainant ran away to escape apprehension. The SO, followed shortly by the other officers, pursued him on foot.

The foot chase took the parties west along the southern face of the east-most building at 400 McCowan Road and then south through a grassy and treed area toward Trudelle Street. The SO caught up with the Complainant in this area and tackled the Complainant from behind. The Complainant fell face first onto the slushy ground and felt a crack and pain in his right shoulder. The officers handcuffed the Complainant and escorted him back to the parking lot of 400 McCowan Road, where the Complainant was transported to 43 Division in a marked cruiser.

From the police station, the Complainant was taken to hospital in an ambulance where his fractured clavicle was diagnosed.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code -- Protection of persons acting under authority

(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,

In the evening of November 15, 2019, the Complainant was arrested by TPS officers, suffering a fractured clavicle in the process. The SO was among the arresting officers and the likeliest to have inflicted the injury. 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 authorized or required to do by law. Some evidence suggests that the Complainant was needlessly roughed up by an officer or officers after being tackled from behind. Specifically, this incriminating evidence suggests that the Complainant was stomped and kicked two to three times in each of the head and right shoulder. In contrast, on the witness officers’ rendition of events, the Complainant was only struck once on the ground – a punch delivered by the SO in the right rib area. Aside from that, the officers wrestled with the Complainant to control his arms and were eventually able to overpower and secure him in handcuffs.

While contests between evidence are ordinarily to be resolved by a court, I am not satisfied that the incriminatory evidence is sufficiently cogent to warrant being put to the test by a trier-of-fact. The incriminatory evidence minimized any resistance on the Complainant’s part following the takedown. The Complainant’s alleged passivity, however, is undermined by his flight from police which, while short-lived, was dogged on the evidence of the CCTV recordings that captured those moments. In addition, the incriminatory evidence does not identify which officer delivered which kicks. While that is perhaps not surprising, it necessarily renders charges against any particular officer a tenuous proposition.

With respect to what is left of the evidence, namely, the accounts of what occurred proffered by WO #1 and WO #2, there is insufficient reason to believe that the officers used excessive force in arresting the Complainant. The Complainant had made clear his intentions of avoiding arrest and was in full flight from the police on slippery ground conditions when he was tackled by the SO. In the circumstances, the takedown seemed an appropriate tactic; in that position, the officers would be better positioned to deal with any further difficulties from the Complainant. In fact, on the officers’ version of events, the Complainant flailed on the ground and struggled against the officers’ efforts to control his arms. In response, the SO delivered a punch to the torso and the officers, collectively, grappled with the Complainant to overcome his resistance. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officers used needless force to subdue the Complainant and effect his arrest.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant broke his collarbone when he was grounded by the SO, I am not persuaded on reasonable grounds that the officers acted unlawfully in the course of the arrest. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case and the file is closed.


Date: June 8, 2020
Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit