Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving police officers where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. The Unit’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

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. 

Pursuant to section 21 of FIPPA (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this document. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• 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.

Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (“PHIPA”)

Pursuant to PHIPA, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information 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.

The Unit’s investigative jurisdiction is limited to those incidents where there is a serious injury (including sexual assault allegations) or death in cases involving the police.

“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 a serious injury sustained by a 24-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On October 5, 2020, at 7:57 p.m., the Peterborough Police Service (PPS) reported the following. On October 5, 2020, at about 7:40 p.m., the PRP was called regarding a female causing problems and lying on a ramp at 170 Simcoe Street. Officers arrived and decided to apprehend the Complainant under the authority of the Mental Health Act (MHA). While doing so, an officer heard a popping sound in her arm. She was taken to the hospital and diagnosed with a fractured humerus. 

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

Summary of Go Transit Video

The PPS obtained and provided the SIU with a copy of the security video from the Go Transit Bus Depot at 190 Simcoe Street in Peterborough. The following is a summary of the salient portions of the video:

• At 5:14:59 p.m., two male officers from the PPS are speaking with a female [believed to be the Complainant], who is sitting on a concrete base on Simcoe Street. One of the officers appears to have arrived on a bicycle, which is parked nearby. He is wearing a yellow jacket, police uniform pants, and a bicycle helmet. The other officer is in uniform with a short-sleeved shirt and no hat. The officer on the bicycle was later identified as WO #1. The other officer was believed to be the SO;
• At 5:23:29 p.m., the Complainant sits on the sidewalk, and the officers talk with her;
• At 5:25:30 p.m., the Complainant moves from a seated position and lies down on the sidewalk as the officers continue to speak with her;
• At 5:30:42 p.m., a marked PPS patrol vehicle, operated by WO #2, arrives and parks facing eastbound on Simcoe Street. WO #2 walks to where the Complainant is laying down;
• At 5:32:07 p.m., the three officers bend over and appear to be attempting to handcuff the Complainant. A struggle ensues;
• At 5:32:35 p.m., the struggle appears to be over and it is presumed that the Complainant has been handcuffed. Although difficult to determine what happened, there does not appear to be any overt kicks or punches to the Complainant by any of the involved officers;
• At 5:41:29 p.m., an ambulance arrives with two male paramedics. They park nearby and walk over to the location where the Complainant is now seated on the sidewalk;
• At 5:42:26 p.m., the paramedics are seen interacting with the Complainant;
• At 5:53:50 p.m., the Complainant is brought to her feet by the paramedics. She walks over to the stretcher and sits on it; and
• At 5:53:59 p.m., the video ends.

Police Communications Recordings

• The PPS 911 system received a call from a man. He reported a black woman with a purple sweater and sandals, who was laying on the parking garage ramp at 170 Simcoe Street, the Turnbull Medical building;
• The Emergency Medical Services was requested to attend near the bus terminal at 190 Simcoe Street for a lady with a broken arm;
• Internal radio communications to a staff sergeant, advising officers physically engaged with a female and her arm was broken. The sergeant sought confirmation of the injury before the Duty Inspector or SIU were notified;
• There was a telephone call from WO #2 to a staff sergeant reporting an injury and that the SO was likely the subject officer and WO #1, a witness officer. The incident was said to have involved a struggle during a mental health apprehension. It was further noted that an undesignated officer was being sent to the hospital; and
• The staff sergeant called the duty inspector and discussed the situation, noting that the SO and WO #1 were involved as well as WO #2.

Materials obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the PPS:

• Computer Aided Dispatch Report;
• Driver Photo, the Complainant;
• Notes of WOs;
• OPP Photograph, the Complainant; and
• Policies for Arrest. Emotionally Disturbed Persons, and Prison Care and Control.

The following scenario emerges on the weight of the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with two witness officers, one of whom participated in the Complainant’s arrest, and a video recording from a security camera that captured the incident. As was his right, the SO declined to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes. In addition, the Complainant could not be located for an interview despite repeated efforts by the SIU.

In the afternoon of the day in question, PPS officers were dispatched to the area of the Go Bus terminal on Simcoe Street, Peterborough. The police had received a call about a woman – the Complainant – lying on a ramp to some underground parking.

The SO and WO #1 were the first officers on scene. As the officers attempted to speak with the Complainant, seated on the concrete base of a sign, it became apparent that she was of unsound mind. As the talks continued, the Complainant went from a seated position on the base to sitting on the sidewalk with her back against the base and then laying on her left side, close to a live lane of motor vehicle traffic.

When their repeated efforts to have the Complainant vacate the area went unheeded, the officers decided to apprehend her under the Mental Health Act. The SO and WO #1 picked the Complainant up but then placed her on the ground again when she became limp and refused or was unable to stand on her own power. The Complainant was prone on the ground and refusing to release her arms out from under her torso to be handcuffed. WO #1 took hold of the Complainant’s left arm and was able to bring it around her back. The SO attempted to do the same with her right arm; however, as he brought it behind her back, a loud popping sound was heard.

Suspecting that the Complainant’s arm had been fractured, the officers called for an ambulance. Paramedics arrived at the scene and transported the Complainant to hospital, where she was diagnosed with a broken right arm.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code -- Protection of persons acting under authority

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

Section 17, Mental Health Act -- Action by police officer

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

On October 5, 2020, the Complainant was injured in the process of being apprehended by PPS officers. The SO was among the arresting officers and identified as the subject officer for purposes of the investigation. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s arrest and injury.

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law. I am unable to reasonably conclude on the evidence that the SO and WO #1 did not have lawful grounds to apprehend the Complainant under section 17 of the Mental Health Act. The Complainant’s irrational answers to their questions and unusual conduct, including laying down beside a live lane of motor vehicle traffic, gave the officers reason to believe that she was at that moment incapable of taking care of herself because of mental impairment.

Nor is there sufficient evidence to reasonably believe that the SO used unlawful force in taking the Complainant into custody. Indeed, aside from lifting the Complainant off the ground and then placing her carefully back there, the extent of the force used by the officers involved taking hold of the Complainant’s arms and positioning them behind her back. While it appears the Complainant resisted the officers’ efforts to a degree, the evidence indicates that the SO and WO #1 had little difficulty in taking control of her arms and used only minimal force in the process. In the circumstances, one would be hard-pressed to characterize the force used by the officers as excessive or unreasonable.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s right arm was fractured as the SO grabbed hold of it to bring it around her back, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that her injury was the result of unlawful force on the part of the officer. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case, and the file is closed.


Date: March 22, 2021

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit