SIU Director’s Report - Case # 20-OCI-247
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Mandate of the SIU
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.
Freedom of Information and Protection of 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.
- 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.
Pursuant to PHIPA, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.
Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (“PHIPA”)
Other proceedings, processes, and investigationsInformation 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.
“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.
This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the injuries that a 23-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.
Notification of the SIUOn October 1, 2020 at 8:25 p.m., the London Police Service (LPS) notified the SIU of injuries to the Complainant. LPS reported that on October 1, 2020 at approximately 5:00 p.m., members of the LPS Guns Drug Unit were doing a project at the White Oaks Mall located at 1105 Wellington Road South in London. While inside the mall, the officers spotted a well-known drug dealer, the Complainant. He recognized the plainclothes officers from previous arrests and fled the mall.
The officers gave chase. The Complainant jumped several fences into a residential area and lost both his shoes. He was apprehended a short distance from the mall. Upon being searched, the Complainant was found to be in possession of a loaded handgun and had a quantity of fentanyl. The Complainant complained of having pain in his foot and was taken to the London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) – Victoria Hospital, where he was diagnosed as having suffered two fractured metatarsals and a dislocated big toe.
While at the hospital, the Complainant was showing symptoms of mental illness and was eventually formed under the Mental Health Act (MHA).
The TeamNumber of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Complainant:23-year-old male interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed
Civilian WitnessesCW Interviewed
Witness OfficersWO #1 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed.
WO #2 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed.
WO #3 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed.
WO #4 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed.
WO #5 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed.
Subject OfficersSO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right.
The SO provided a typed copy of his narrative report for the general occurrence.
The SceneThe events that occurred at the White Oaks Parking lot are related to the south entrance of the Hudson Bay store. The east entrance faced Wellington Road. From the south exit to the most southern portion of the White Oaks Mall is a parking lot. The mall property is divided from residential property by about a two-metre-high wooden fence. On the other side of the fence was a small 1.5 to 2-metre-foot slope in the grass, which was about 6.1 metres in width, and then a 1.2-metre chain-link fence. The area between the fences allows pedestrians to walk without trespassing on an individual’s property and gain access to the parking lot at a small man-made gap in the wooden fence.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence, but was not able to locate any. The White Oaks Mall did not have CCTV video that covered the parking lot.
Police Communications RecordingsThe LPS communications, which were not time stamped, indicated the Complainant was running through the parking lot by the H & M entrance toward the houses. The Complainant’s description was given out. WO #2 then reported that the Complainant was arrested and would be brought back over the fence.
Materials obtained from Police ServiceUpon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from LPS:
- LPS involved officers;
- Communications recordings;
- Computer-assisted Dispatch report;
- Email from LPS-Disclosure and Case Information-2020-10-08;
- Notes-WO #3;
- Notes-WO #1;
- Notes-WO #5;
- Notes-WO #2;
- Notes-WO #4;
- Narrative Typed Statement – SO; and
- Recognizance of Bail - 2019. 
Materials obtained from Other Sources
- Medical records of the Complainant from the LHSC.
After a period inside the mall shopping, the Complainant and the CW exited and approached their vehicle. The officers, who had been waiting for the two to return, quickly converged on their vehicle with their own vehicles and on foot. At the sight of the officers, the Complainant dropped a satchel he was carrying and fled from the scene southward in the south parking lot of the mall. As he did so, his loose-fitting shoes came off leaving him in sock feet. The Complainant was chased by the SO and WO #1 of the Guns and Gangs team.
Arriving at a wooden fence bordering the south end of the parking lot and the rear of properties on Piers Crescent, the Complainant scaled the fence and continued toward a smaller metal chain-link fence, which he also tried to climb. His first effort at doing so was unsuccessful as his left big toe became wedged in the fence and was injured. The Complainant continued a further distance west, and again tried to climb over the fence, this time making it across.
The SO caught up with the Complainant just as he made it over the metal fence, grabbed his shoulders, and arrested him for a breach of his conditions.
Following his arrest, the Complainant complained that his left foot was sore. He was taken to hospital and diagnosed with injuries to his left foot.
Analysis and Director's Decision
It is apparent that the SO acted lawfully throughout his dealings with the Complainant. The Complainant was in breach of a recognizance by being with the CW and the officers were within their rights in seeking to arrest him. Regrettably, the Complainant chose to flee his arrest and was chased by the SO and WO #1, injuring his foot in the process as he attempted to climb a metal chain-link fence. On the aforementioned-record, it is clear that the Complainant is alone responsible for his injuries. More specifically, there is no question of any force used by police in taking the Complainant into custody, nor is there any evidence of any unreasonable act or omission on the part of the officers that contributed to the Complainant’s misfortune.
In the result, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the SO, and the file is closed.
Date: January 11, 2021
Electronically approved by
Special Investigations Unit
- 1) Contains condition not to associate or communicate with the CW, which was in effect. [Back to text]
The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.