SIU Director’s Report - Case # 18-PCI-209
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 serious injuries sustained by a 69-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
Notification of the SIUOn July 16, 2018, at 4:28 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.
The OPP reported that on July 16, 2018, at about 12:00 p.m., the Complainant was involved in a physical altercation with someone in the vicinity of the parking lot associated with 99 Main Street East, in Huntsville.
The subject officer (SO) responded to the parking lot and apprehended the Complainant pursuant to the Mental Health Act (MHA). A struggle ensued in the course of the apprehension and the SO was assisted by three civilians. The Complainant sustained some scrapes and related soft tissue injuries, and was transported by the SO to the Huntsville District Memorial Hospital (HDMH), where he was treated for his soft tissue injuries and admitted to the hospital secondary to Form 1 under the MHA.  In the course of the Complainant's admission or assessment, he complained of rib pain, and at 3:25 p.m., was diagnosed with three rib fractures.
The TeamNumber of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Complainant:69-year-old male interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed
Civilian WitnessesCW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed
CW #6 Interviewed
CW #7 Interviewed
Subject OfficersSO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right
Note: A subject officer is a police officer whose conduct appears, in the Director’s opinion, to have caused the death or serious injury under investigation.
Subject officers are invited, but cannot be legally compelled, to present themselves for an interview with the SIU and they do not have to submit their notes to the SIU pursuant to Ontario Regulation 267/10 of the Police Services Act.]
The SceneA plaza parking lot associated with 99 Main Street East. The plaza consisted of three businesses: Pizza Nova, Tim Hortons coffee shop and Mac’s conveniences store.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence The onsite CCTV cameras did not capture any of the interaction.
Communications RecordingsCivilian Witness (CW) #4 phoned the OPP Communications and reported an altercation in the parking lot of Tim Hortons. A man [now known to be the Complainant] argued violently with CW #2.
The SO made a radio broadcast, informing the Complainant was in custody for assault and would be transported to the hospital for further assessment. The OPP Communications spoke with the Emergency Department, notifying their police officer would be bringing in a man with a mental health problem.
Materials obtained from Police ServiceUpon request the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the OPP:
- General Report;
- InterRAI Brief Mental Health Screener;
- Occurrence Details;
- Occurrence Involvements;
- Occurrence Summary;
- Supplementary Report; and
- Training Record-the SO.
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,
Analysis and Director's Decision
Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are restricted in their use of force to that which is reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they are required or authorized to do by law. The Complainant’s arrest by the SO for assault was clearly lawful in view of the Complainant’s behaviour just prior to the officer’s arrival. I am also satisfied that the SO’s use of force fell within the latitude afforded officers in the circumstances that prevailed. While evidence of the arrest varied to a degree, there was ample evidence that the Complainant resisted throughout his arrest, and at no point was the Complainant punched, kneed or kicked. On this record, it is apparent that the force used by the SO was commensurate with the level of the Complainant’s resistance and, therefore, no more than was reasonably necessary to effect the Complainant’s arrest. Accordingly, while I accept that the Complainant suffered fractured ribs during the arrest, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the SO and the file is closed.
Date: July 24, 2019
Original signed by
Special Investigations Unit
- 1) Application by physician for psychiatric assessment, allows holding a patient for up to 72 hours in order to undergo a psychiatric assessment. [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.