SIU Report: “The Complainant rode parallel to the north curb as the SO approached from behind and placed his open left hand on the side of his backpack. The Complainant’s bicycle leaned to the left and the Complainant fell onto the boulevard.”
As lawyers for this cyclist, as well as for injured cyclists, and people who have experienced police violence across Ontario, we are deeply concerned by both what happened and the broader implications of the SIU Director’s decision (see video of incident here.)
The SIU’s mandate is to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a police officer committed a criminal offence under s. 15 of the SIU Act. That is not the same as deciding whether force breached police policy, amounted to misconduct, was civilly negligent, or was otherwise appropriate. Yet here, the Director went further, finding that the force used to take our client off a moving bicycle “fell within the range of what was lawful” and was justified.
The SIU’s own findings raise an obvious question: why was this level of physical intervention necessary at all?
This began with an alleged failure to stop. The report identifies no threat posed by our client to the officers, or members of the public before police physically engaged him while he was still riding. The SIU acknowledges that physically engaging a cyclist creates a risk of a fall yet characterizes that risk as merely “moderate.” That is difficult to reconcile with what actually happened: our client immediately lost control, fell and suffered a traumatic brain injury.
The question is not whether police may stop or arrest a cyclist who refuses to stop. They may. The question is whether it was necessary or proportionate to expose a cyclist to a foreseeable risk of serious injury in order to enforce a minor traffic offence.
The SIU has recognized in the context of motor vehicles that police apprehension tactics must be weighed against the danger they create. In one decision, the Director described a PIT maneuver as “inherently dangerous” and questioned its use where the underlying conduct began as a comparatively minor offence. SIU Director’s Report, Case 18-OCI-143
The SIU has also specifically acknowledged the “relative vulnerability of cyclists vis-à-vis motor vehicles.” SIU Director’s Report, Case 24-OCI-444
Ontario has already seen the consequences of escalating an attempt to stop a cyclist. In Woodstock, the SIU charged an officer after his cruiser struck our client during a pursuit, resulting in a seriously fracture ankle. The officer later pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing bodily harm. SIU charge announcement | Woodstock Police disciplinary decision
The concern raised by this decision is therefore not hypothetical. If physically stopping a moving cyclist is accepted as an appropriate response to a minor traffic offence, where is the line?
Toronto cyclists are periodically subjected to intensive police enforcement campaigns. Does this decision now signal that officers may physically take down a cyclist simply because they didn’t have lights on their bike at night?
We warned SIU investigators before this decision was released about the precedent created by approving this kind of intervention. Cyclists should not receive less protection from dangerous police tactics. Their vulnerability should demand greater caution — not justify greater force.
We intend to challenge the SIU Director’s characterization of the force used against our client as appropriate.
The subject officer exercised his statutory right not to be interviewed by the SIU and not to provide his notes. Once the outstanding proceedings against our client have concluded, we intend to file a complaint with the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency so that the allegations of misconduct can be examined through the police accountability process.
Justice for cyclists.
