SIU Director’s Report - Case # 20-PCI-329
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
Mandate of the SIU
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.
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.
Information Restrictions
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.
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.Mandate Engaged
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 an injury a 22-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.
“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 an injury a 22-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On November 29, 2020, at 1:30 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.The OPP advised that on November 28, 2020, at about 9:55 p.m., OPP police officers attended a residence on Dundas Street East, Quinte West, in relation to a domestic dispute. Upon arrival, the Complainant ran through the residence attempting to evade police. As a result, he tripped and fell to the ground. He was subsequently apprehended by police officers at which time he complained of pain to his foot. He was taken to hospital and diagnosed as having suffered a fractured heel. The Complainant was treated and released back into the custody of police, and was being held for a bail hearing.
The Team
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3 Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Complainant:
22-year-old male, not interviewed [1]Civilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 InterviewedCW #2 Not interviewed [2]
Witness Officers (WO)
WO #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
Subject Officers (SO)
SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed Evidence
The Scene
The scene was located at a residence on Dundas Street East in Trenton. The backyard had a large amount of debris including garbage bags, broken glass and brush. The Complainant was located hiding in the backyard area behind the house among the debris.Police Communication Recordings
911 and Communication Recordings Summary
911 CallThe 911 call was made from CW #1 on November 28, 2020, and commenced at 9:53:23 p.m.
CW #1 says there are two people fighting and there is a lot of banging and yelling. She thinks the Complainant hit CW #2 with a bong and both have fought with knives in the past.
CW #1 tells the 911 operator that it is likely the Complainant will run when police arrive due to previous encounters and his criminal charges.
OPP Communications
CW #1 tells the 911 operator that it is likely the Complainant will run when police arrive due to previous encounters and his criminal charges.
OPP Communications
The communications are from November 28, 2020, commencing at 9:55:13 p.m.
The OPP dispatcher broadcasts the domestic-related call and multiple OPP officers advise they are attending.
OPP police officers broadcast the Complainant has fled the house and the dispatcher broadcasts that the Complainant has multiple flags for drugs, resist arrest, violence and hatred of police.
The SO broadcasts that the Complainant has been located and arrested without incident in the backyard.
Materials obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from OPP:
The OPP dispatcher broadcasts the domestic-related call and multiple OPP officers advise they are attending.
OPP police officers broadcast the Complainant has fled the house and the dispatcher broadcasts that the Complainant has multiple flags for drugs, resist arrest, violence and hatred of police.
The SO broadcasts that the Complainant has been located and arrested without incident in the backyard.
Materials obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from OPP:- Computer-Assisted Dispatch Details;
- Communications recordings;
- WO #4, WO #3, WO #1, WO #2 – Use of Force Letter;
- Notes-WO #2;
- Notes-WO #4;
- Notes-WO #1;
- Notes-WO #3;
- Notes-the SO;
- OPP General Occurrence;
- Student Transcript – WO #2;
- Student Transcript – WO #4;
- Student Transcript – WO #1; and
- Student Transcript – WO #3.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the SO, a civilian witness and several police witnesses. Shortly before 10:00 p.m. of November 28, 2020, officers were dispatched to a residence on Dundas Street West, Trenton. CW #1 had called to report that the Complainant and his girlfriend, CW #2, were quarreling and that the Complainant may have struck CW #2 with a bong.
The SO arrived at the residence with WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4. The Complainant was located in short order hiding behind garbage in the backyard of the residence and arrested without incident.
At the sound of police sirens, the Complainant had attempted to evade police capture by escaping via the back doorway. In so doing, he jumped through the glass pane of a locked door into a room containing the doorway into the backyard, fracturing his right heel in the process. When confronted by police in the backyard, the Complainant delayed for a period when asked to surrender himself but eventually did so uneventfully.
The SO arrived at the residence with WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4. The Complainant was located in short order hiding behind garbage in the backyard of the residence and arrested without incident.
At the sound of police sirens, the Complainant had attempted to evade police capture by escaping via the back doorway. In so doing, he jumped through the glass pane of a locked door into a room containing the doorway into the backyard, fracturing his right heel in the process. When confronted by police in the backyard, the Complainant delayed for a period when asked to surrender himself but eventually did so uneventfully.
Relevant Legislation
Section 25(1), Criminal Code -- Protection of persons acting under authority
25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
(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,
is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.
Analysis and Director's Decision
On November 28, 2020, the Complainant was arrested by OPP officers, taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured right heel. The SO was among the arresting officers and identified as the subject officer for purposes of the SIU 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. The SO was clearly within his rights in taking the Complainant into custody. Given what the officer had been advised at dispatch about the 911 call, which information was essentially confirmed when the officer arrived at the house, the officers had grounds to arrest the Complainant for assault.
Thereafter, aside from laying hands on the Complainant to affix his arms in handcuffs, there is no evidence of any force whatsoever having been brought to bear by the officers. And there is nothing to suggest that the Complainant’s fractured heel was not exactly what he said it was in conversations after the fact with the officers, namely, the result of his jumping through a window to get to the backyard.
In the result, as I am satisfied that the SO conducted himself lawfully throughout his interaction with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the officer and the file is closed.
Date: April 6, 2021
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
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. The SO was clearly within his rights in taking the Complainant into custody. Given what the officer had been advised at dispatch about the 911 call, which information was essentially confirmed when the officer arrived at the house, the officers had grounds to arrest the Complainant for assault.
Thereafter, aside from laying hands on the Complainant to affix his arms in handcuffs, there is no evidence of any force whatsoever having been brought to bear by the officers. And there is nothing to suggest that the Complainant’s fractured heel was not exactly what he said it was in conversations after the fact with the officers, namely, the result of his jumping through a window to get to the backyard.
In the result, as I am satisfied that the SO conducted himself lawfully throughout his interaction with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the officer and the file is closed.
Date: April 6, 2021
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) Numerous attempts were made by SIU investigators to contact the Complainant, but no response was received. [Back to text]
- 2) Numerous attempts were made by SIU investigators to contact this witness, but no response was received. [Back to text]
Note:
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.