SIU clears officers in Markham traffic stop arrest that left driver with fractured arm

By Gene Pereira, Local Journalism Initiative reporter

Ontario’s police watchdog has cleared a York Regional Police (YRP) officer and a Toronto Police Service (TPS) officer of any criminal wrongdoing following a May 2026 arrest in Markham that left a 41-year-old driver with a fractured left arm.

In a decision released on September 3, 2026, Special Investigations Unit (SIU) Director Joseph Martino concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe either officer used excessive force when taking the man into custody following a vehicle stop and brief foot pursuit.

“In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe it is attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the arresting officers,” Martino wrote in the report. “As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.”

According to the report, the following events unfolded on the evening of Saturday, May 16, 2026. At approximately 9:19 p.m., a plainclothes TPS officer (Witness Official No. 1) operating an unmarked SUV spotted a Dodge Journey travelling eastbound on Steeles Avenue East without its headlights or taillights illuminated. A background check of the licence plate revealed the vehicle’s registered owner was bound by a release condition strictly prohibiting him from leaving his residence.

A YRP Service Witness Officer (SWO) working as a special constable also spotted the unlit vehicle, said the report. Lacking the legal authority to execute a traffic stop, the witness officer alerted a YRP officer stationed in a marked cruiser on Conacher Drive.

According to the report, the YRP cruiser pulled onto eastbound Steeles Avenue East behind the Dodge Journey at 9:21 p.m. As the vehicles crossed Bayview Avenue, the YRP officer activated emergency lights. The driver — later identified as the Complainant — pulled over on Steeles Avenue East, along the Toronto-York Region border. Moments later, continued the SIU report, the TPS plainclothes officer pulled his vehicle in front of the Dodge Journey at an angle to block its path.

Less than a minute later, the report notes the 41-year-old driver bolted from the vehicle, running northbound across Steeles Avenue East toward the north sidewalk. Both the TPS officer and the YRP officer pursued him on foot.

After a brief chase along the sidewalk between Bayview Avenue and Old English Lane, the report stated, the officers caught up to the man. A physical struggle ensued as the officers took him to the ground to prevent further flight, explained the report. The  Complainant “actively resisted efforts to secure his arms,” continued the SIU report, prompting the TPS officer to deliver two to three strikes to the man’s left torso. The officers, stated the investigation, successfully put his arms behind his back and placed him in handcuffs. The officers reported the suspect was in custody just two minutes after the chase began.

According to the report, the Complainant was taken to YRP 2 District in Richmond Hill for processing. A YRP booking video recorded at 10:19 p.m. showed the man in “evident distress,” breathing heavily and crying out in pain when an officer touched his left arm while removing the handcuffs, stated the SIU report.

Recognizing the injury, officers requested emergency medical services. York Region EMS arrived and transported the man to Mackenzie Health Hospital in Richmond Hill at 11:10 p.m., where doctors diagnosed him with a fractured left elbow.

YRP notified the SIU of the serious injury early the following morning at 1:46 a.m. on May 17, 2026.

Under Section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, peace officers are protected from criminal liability when using force during the execution of their lawful duties, provided the force used is reasonably necessary under the circumstances.

In his final report, Martino ruled that both officers were acting lawfully when they initiated the stop and subsequently pursued the fleeing suspect.

“I am satisfied that the (officers), for that matter, were in the lawful exercise of their duties when they took part in a traffic stop of the Complainant’s vehicle and then chased him to take him into custody as he fled on foot from the car,” Martino wrote. “Having checked his licence plate against police records, the officers had reason to believe that the Complainant was driving in violation of a release order and, therefore, cause to stop the vehicle to investigate a criminal offence.”

Martino noted that by fleeing the traffic stop, the Complainant subjected himself to an additional charge under Section 129 of the Criminal Code for resisting or obstructing a peace officer. Addressing the physical force used during the grounding and arrest, the SIU Director determined the officers acted within reason, given the suspect’s aggressive pushback.

“As for the force brought to bear by the officers in the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence does not reasonably establish it was unlawful. The takedown made sense in the context of a person fleeing arrest,” Martino stated. “In fact, the Complainant put up a spirited struggle to prevent the officers taking him into custody. He was at points able to lift his body off the ground, despite the combined efforts of the (YRP subject officer) and (the TPS officer) to keep him pinned, and (the Complainant) refused to release his arms to be handcuffed.”

The SIU Director concluded that the physical strikes delivered by the TPS officer were proportionate and ceased as soon as the suspect was subdued.

“On this record, the officers’ efforts to wrestle control of the Complainant’s arms, and the two to three punches by (the TPS officer), were commensurate with the situation at hand. Once the Complainant’s arms were in place behind the back, no further blows were struck,” Martino noted.