Mandate of the SIU

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.

Information restrictions

Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal 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.

Mandate engaged

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.

On March 3, 2016, the complainant in this case was examined at hospital by a doctor. Serious injuries were confirmed.

The investigation

Notification of the SIU

On March 3, 2016 Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the complainant’s injury that occurred while in TPS custody.

The notifying party reported that on March 2, 2016‎ at 11:12 p.m., TPS uniformed officers were dispatched to a domestic dispute between spouses at their residence. The complainant’s spouse was trying to prevent the complainant, who was intoxicated, from leaving in his vehicle.

When the police officers arrived, an argument ensued and the complainant attempted to walk away. The police officers decided to arrest the complainant for care and control of a motor vehicle and a struggle ensued. The complainant was taken to the ground and handcuffed.

When the complainant was taken to the police station, he had a bloody nose and was taken to Toronto East General Hospital (TEGH). He was diagnosed with a fractured nasal bone.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Complainant

Interviewed and medical records reviewed

Civilian witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

WO #5 Interviewed

WO #6 Interviewed

Subject officers

SO #1 Declined interview, as is a subject officer’s right, but notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

SO #3 Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

The evidence

The scene

The scene was on part of the asphalt driveway of the residence. The public sidewalk crossing the asphalt was covered with packed snow from vehicular and pedestrian traffic. There was an area of suspected blood staining in a drip pattern on the boulevard section of the driveway between the sidewalk and the roadway.

Materials obtained from TPS

Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the TPS:

  • CPIC query report
  • communications audio recordings
  • CPIC for the complainant
  • in-car camera system (ICCS) data
  • CPIC - Criminal Record
  • Notes for WO #2, WO #3, WO #4 and WO #5; and
  • Parade Sheet report

Incident narrative

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016, the complainant and his spouse became embroiled in a domestic dispute over the complainant’s drinking and wanting to drive the family vehicle. After the complainant refused to surrender the keys to his spouse, she called 911. As the spouse hung up part way through the call, the call was dispatched as an “unknown trouble” call.

Two cruisers arrived at the residence at approximately the same time. One had SO #1 and SO #2, and the other had SO #3 and WO #6. Upon arrival, the complainant and his spouse were arguing outside. The spouse then entered the residence while the complainant remained outside on the sidewalk. SO #1 and SO #2 approached the complainant. The complainant was confrontational with the officers and it was apparent that he was intoxicated. SO #1 went into the residence to speak with the spouse. Although the complainant had not been violent, the spouse wanted him out because of safety concerns. SO #1 then went back outside to the complainant, who was still belligerent towards the officers. Efforts were made to arrange for the complainant to leave the residence, but the complainant refused. He was loud and aggressive with the officers.

Additional officers arrived. It was decided that the complainant would be arrested for Public Intoxication under the Liquor License Act (LLA). SO #1 informed the complainant that he was under arrest. The complainant immediately resisted efforts to take him into physical custody. When SO #1, SO #2, SO #3 and WO #3 attempted to handcuff the complainant, he resisted and tried to pull away. The complainant was very strong, and was forced to the ground, handcuffed and searched. In the course of grounding the complainant, SO #2’s knee was injured. The complainant remained on his stomach, and continued to shout and thrash on the ground.

At some point, officers noticed blood on the ground near the complainant’s face and that his nose was bleeding. SO #1 radioed for an ambulance. When the paramedics arrived, the complainant continued to kick and shout at the officers. He was transported to TEGH. At the hospital, the complainant was verbally abusive and physically aggressive towards the police and hospital staff. He was placed in a five-point mechanical restraint apparatus in an attempt to control him. At one point, the complainant began violently rocking his stretcher form side to side, and officers had to hold him down to prevent it from falling. He was placed under a Form 1footnote 1 of the Mental Health Act (MHA).

Relevant legislation

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

  1. as a private person,
  2. as a peace officer or public officer,
  3. in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or
  4. 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.

Analysis and Director’s decision

On March 2, 2016 the complainant was involved in an interaction outside his residence with SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3. This interaction left the complainant suffering from a broken nose. The complainant alleges that these officers used excessive force.

Unfortunately, the interaction between the complainant and the subject officers was not directly witnessed by any civilians and there was no CCTV footage of the incident. The only ICCS activated was located in a police vehicle that attended late to the scene. The incident, however, was almost concluded at that time and the recording of the scene was repeatedly obstructed by officers standing in a position in relation to the cruiser blocking it from view. Attempting to extract an exact version of events from all of the conflicting reports - from the complainant, his spouse, WOs and SOs - would be impossible; however, what is clear is that during the interaction with police, the complainant was intoxicated, extremely combative and physically very powerful. It is also clear that, having left his residence prior to police being called, the complainant was in this intoxicated condition in a public place and his apprehension was legally justified.

Turning then to the amount of force used by SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3 in their attempts to subdue the complainant, I am satisfied that the complainant was loudly and actively resisting his arrest by police and, as such, was taken to the ground in order for the officers to gain control and to handcuff him. It is also clear that the complainant’s nose was broken when he went to the ground, as at no time does he allege that he was ever punched, kicked or slapped by any officer and all officers confirm that no one struck the complainant. Unfortunately, each account of the incident, whether from the complainant or the subject officers or witness officers, conflicts in material ways and so it is difficult to determine how many times the complainant was actually taken to the ground or in what manner it happened.

Although I find that the complainant’s injury was caused by the TPS officers going to the ground with him and the complainant landing on his face, I find that pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, the officers involved used no more force than was reasonably necessary in the execution of their lawful duties in apprehending an intoxicated, combative and extremely powerful man. I find that the degree of force with which the complainant’s face struck the ground may have been greater than perceived by the officers as the momentum increased with the officers falling with the complainant. The jurisprudence is clear, officers are not expected to measure the degree of their responsive force to a nicety (R. v. Baxter (1975) 27 C.C.C. (2d) 96 (Ont. C.A.)) nor should they be judged to a standard of perfection (R. v. Nasogaluk [2010] 1 S.C.R. 6.). As such, I am therefore satisfied on reasonable grounds on this record that the actions exercised by the officers fell within the limits prescribed by the criminal law and thus there are no grounds to believe they committed a criminal offence and no charges will issue.

Date: June 21, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit