No charges after man kicked by cop

Watchdog’s investigators couldn’t identify officer who caused broken nose

The province’s police watchdog won’t lay charges after a man was reportedly kicked in the face by an officer because it says its investigators weren’t able to identify the cop.

Toronto police officers entered a home on Oct. 23, 2017 with a search warrant after a man was alleged to have sold narcotics to an undercover officer, the Special Investigations Unit said in its report released Wednesday.

They found the 24-year-old suspect in the hallway and ordered him to get down on the floor. The man complied and was handcuffed, the SIU said.

The man, a university student, was kicked in the face by an unknown officer and suffered a fractured nose, the SIU said. He was taken to Humber River Hospital for treatment.

“The allegation appears credible and the complainant’s injury is otherwise unexplained. Nevertheless, no witness was able to identify the person responsible for the complainant’s injury,” SIU director Tony Loparco said in the report. As emergency responders searched the residence, an officer took custody of the victim and noticed that he had cuts on his face, swelling under his left eye and a bloody nose, the report said.

The SIU said it interviewed the complainant, three civilian witnesses and 26 witness officers, but was not able to identify the cop who kicked the suspect.

Some of the witness officers said that the victim may have hit his face on the wall when he went down on the ground, or that one of them may have accidentally hit his face as the officers stepped over him in the hallway. But that seems unlikely, Loparco said.

“I do not believe the complainant’s injury was caused accidentally because an officer who accidentally contacted the complainant with enough force to fracture his nose would almost certainly have remembered doing so,” Loparco wrote.

“It seems more likely that the injury was caused by an officer kicking the complainant as he alleges, and that the officer did not disclose the kick because it was intentional.”

The SIU’s investigation also found that the use of force in this case would not have been “reasonable or necessary.”

“Nonetheless, although I have ground to believe that some officer committed a criminal offence, I am unable to identify the specific officer who committed the impugned act, Loparco said. “Despite exhaustive efforts, the SIU was unable to identify the police officer responsible for kicking the complainant and no subject officer was ever designated.”

The SIU is an agency that investigates cases involving police in which someone is killed, injured or accused of sex assault.

“I do not believe the complainant’s injury was caused accidentally.” TONY LOPARCO DIRECTOR SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT, IN A REPORT ON THE CASE