Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.

Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019

Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following: 

Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.

A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.

In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into serious injuries sustained by a 45-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On January 1, 2021, at about 3:44 p.m., Barrie Police Service (BPS) attended an address on Cygnus Crescent, Barrie, in relation to a domestic situation. A man [now known to be the Complainant] refused to leave his girlfriend’s [now known to be Civilian Witness (CW) #2] residence. Upon the arrival of police, the Complainant was on a couch, pretending to be asleep. The police officers saw he had a knife in a sheath, fixed to his belt. They subsequently requested backup.

Once backup police officers arrived, they tried rousing the Complainant, at which time he pulled the knife and became confrontational with police officers. Three police officers deployed their conducted energy weapons (CEWs) at the Complainant; however, they were ineffective. One of the police officers went hands-on and delivered several blows to the Complainant’s face. The police officer was able to take him into custody.

The Complainant was taken to the Royal Victoria Hospital (RVH) and later diagnosed with a fractured cheek and nose.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 01/04/2021 at 11:09 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 01/05/2021 at 1:17 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

45-year-old male interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on January 5, 2021.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between January 5, 2021, and February 3, 2021.

Subject Officials

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

The SO was interviewed on February 5, 2021.

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between January 16, 2021, and March 8, 2021. 

The Scene

The Complainant sustained his injury in a second-story bedroom of residence on Cygnus Crescent, Barrie. The bedroom was approximately 3.6 m X 3.6 m.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Discharges – Summary of Downloaded Data

The SO

The material events in question are clear on the weight of the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the Complainant, the SO and the three other officers who participated in the arrest. In the afternoon of January 1, 2021, the BPS received a call from CW #1. CW #1 indicated that her friend, with whom she had been in communication, was involved in a domestic disturbance with her boyfriend. CW #1 expressed concern for her friend’s safety and noted that the male had refused to leave the residence despite her friend’s wishes that he do so. The male was the Complainant.

WO #2 and WO #5 were dispatched to the residence, arriving at about 3:15 p.m. They knocked on the door and announced their presence as police officers. Receiving no answer, the officers entered the home and eventually located the Complainant lying on a bed in a second-floor bedroom. He was shirtless but wearing pants. On his hip was a leather sheath containing a knife with a long blade. WO #2 and WO #5 called out to the Complainant, but he did not respond. As the Complainant had a knife on him, the officers decided to leave the residence and seek assistance.

The SO and WO #3 responded to the call for help. The four officers met briefly outside to decide how they would approach the situation. It was decided that WO #2, WO #3 and WO #5 would enter the home with their CEWs drawn, and that the SO would have his firearm at the ready.

The four officers entered the residence and made their way to the second-floor bedroom. The Complainant was still lying on the bed but the sheath that had contained the knife was now empty. When the Complainant failed to acknowledge their presence, the SO used his baton to nudge the Complainant in the buttocks. As he did so, the Complainant sat up with the knife in his right hand raised over his head, which he then swung in the officers’ direction.

WO #3 and WO #5 reacted by discharging their CEWS at the Complainant, once each at about the same time. The discharges failed to dispossess the Complainant of the knife in his right hand. Shortly thereafter, the SO, who had holstered his firearm and drawn his CEW, fired his weapon at the Complainant as well. The Complainant dropped the knife, which fell on the bed, and was struck in the face by the SO, who had moved in to engage him physically. Following the strike, the Complainant was grounded from the bed onto the floor where, after a further period of struggle, he was handcuffed with his hands behind his back.

The Complainant was taken to the station and, subsequently, transported from the station to hospital in ambulance. He was diagnosed with a fractured nose and orbital bone.

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,

The Complainant suffered serious injuries while being arrested by BPS officers on January 1, 2021. Among the arresting police officers, the SO was identified as the subject official 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 injuries.

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 authorized or required to do by law. The officers were within their rights in entering the house to arrest the Complainant. The Complainant had refused to leave the residence despite multiple requests that he do so by the homeowner - CW #2. In his recalcitrance, the Complainant had also threatened CW #2. On this record, there appear to have been grounds to apprehend the Complainant on threatening and trespassing charges.

Thereafter, it is apparent that neither the SO nor the other involved officers used excessive force in taking the Complainant into custody. The Complainant reacted to the officers’ presence in the bedroom by brandishing a large knife in their direction. At that moment, the officers’ lives were at immediate risk of death or grievous bodily harm. In the circumstances, I am unable to fault the SO, WO #3 and WO #5 for discharging their CEWs at the Complainant as the weapon had the potential to neutralize the Complainant from a distance without risking the officers having to directly engage an armed individual. It was only with the third and final of these discharges that the Complainant released the knife. However, as it was still on the bed within his reach, the Complainant remained a threat. The SO was entitled, in my view, to deal with that threat in the manner he did, namely, by moving in to take physical hold of the Complainant, delivering a strike to the Complainant’s face in the process. The SO believes that the hand he used to punch the Complainant was empty, whereas WO #3 believes that the Complainant was struck by the butt end of the CEW that was still in the SO’s hand. Either way, given the nature of the threat they were faced with, a lethal threat, I am not satisfied on reasonable grounds that the SO fell afoul of the limits of permissible force. There is no evidence of any other significant force being brought to bear against the Complainant other than what was necessary to wrestle control of his arms so they could be handcuffed once he had been taken to the bedroom floor.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’ injuries were the result of the strike delivered by the SO, I am not satisfied for the foregoing reasons that the SO acted other than lawfully throughout his interaction with the Complainant. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case and the file is closed.


Date: April 29, 2021


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit