(Toronto, Ontario) The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) has once again concluded that police officers who used extreme levels of force during an arrest committed no crime. According to the SIU’s own summary, the man was Tasered, pepper-sprayed, punched, kicked and kneed by officers before ending up with facial fractures. Yet the agency still determined there were “no reasonable grounds” to charge any officer.
Source: https://siu.on.ca/en/directors_report_details.php?drid=4978
If that sounds familiar, it should. It follows the same pattern seen in countless SIU decisions: a civilian is seriously injured, the force used is described as “significant,” but the officers walk away without consequence.
The Force Used Was Extreme — Even By SIU’s Own Admission
The SIU itself acknowledged that the amount of force used was “significant and subject to legitimate scrutiny.”
That phrase is doing a lot of work.
When a person is Tasered, sprayed with pepper spray, punched, kicked and kneed, the situation has already escalated far beyond basic arrest tactics. Those are multiple levels of force stacked on top of each other — electrical weapon, chemical weapon, and physical strikes — all deployed against the same individual.
And the result?
A man left with broken facial bones.
Yet the conclusion was essentially:
The force looked bad, but we can’t prove it was criminal.
This is the accountability loophole that shields officers in nearly every SIU investigation.
“We Were Scared” — The Universal Justification
The entire structure of use-of-force law heavily favors police testimony. Officers only need to convince investigators that they perceived a threat.
Once that claim is made, almost any level of force can be justified.
In practice, the standard becomes:
- If officers say they feared for their safety
- And the suspect resisted or tried to flee
- Then almost any force becomes legally acceptable
This creates a dangerous dynamic where the officer’s subjective fear becomes the legal shield for whatever happened next.
Broken bones?
Tasers?
Pepper spray?
Repeated strikes?
As long as the officer claims fear, the system often calls it “reasonable.”
The Cooperation Problem — Police Can Refuse to Participate
Another structural flaw rarely discussed is that officers do not have to fully cooperate with SIU investigations.
Under the SIU Act:
- Officers designated as subject officials cannot be compelled to provide interviews.
- They also do not have to submit their notes.
Think about that for a moment.
The very people being investigated for potential crimes are legally allowed to decline to explain their actions.
Imagine a civilian under investigation for assault being told:
“You don’t have to talk to investigators or provide notes.”
That’s exactly the privilege officers receive.
This alone undermines the entire concept of independent oversight.
The SIU’s Impossible Standard
The SIU Director must decide whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a criminal offence occurred.
That is a criminal prosecution standard, not an accountability standard.
In reality, that means officers are only charged when the evidence is overwhelming — usually involving video that makes the conduct impossible to defend.
Anything less, and the default outcome becomes:
Case closed. No charges.
A System That Almost Never Charges Police
The SIU was created in 1990 to restore public confidence in police oversight. But the numbers tell a different story.
Across thousands of investigations involving deaths, shootings and serious injuries, only a small fraction result in charges.
The pattern has become predictable:
- Someone is seriously injured or killed.
- The SIU launches an investigation.
- Months later, a report acknowledges troubling force.
- The conclusion: no criminal charges.
The Real Problem: Structural Immunity
The issue isn’t just this case.
It’s the system.
Police are being investigated by an agency that:
- Cannot force officers to talk
- Cannot compel officers to provide notes
- Must meet a high criminal threshold to lay charges
- Often relies heavily on police testimony about perceived threats
In other words, the system is designed to avoid charges unless the misconduct is undeniable.
Bottom Line
A man suffered serious facial fractures after officers used multiple forms of force — Tasers, pepper spray, punches, kicks and knees.
The SIU itself admits the force was “significant.”
Yet once again, the conclusion is the same one Ontarians have heard for decades:
No charges.
Because when police say they were afraid, the system almost always believes them.
And that’s why public confidence in police oversight continues to erode.