SIU Director’s Report - Case # 19-OCI-020
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 a serious injury sustained by a 42-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
Notification of the SIUOn January 26, 2019, at 10:55 p.m., the Barrie Police Service (BPS) reported the following:
On January 26, 2019, at 7:45 p.m., BPS police officers responded to a Raymond Street address regarding a family dispute. The Complainant had been involved in a domestic dispute with family members and had been jumping on the roof of a car to prevent family members from leaving. Responding police officers deployed a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) and subdued the Complainant. He was taken to the Royal Victoria Hospital (RVH) and diagnosed with a broken arm.
The TeamNumber of SIU Investigators assigned: 2
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
An SIU Forensic Investigator (FI) attended the scene and made a photographic and video record of the scene. The SIU FI photographed the police vehicle of the Subject Officer (SO), the injuries of the Complainant and seized the Complainant’s clothing.
A scene canvass was conducted by SIU investigators with respect to potential witnesses and closed circuit television footage. This resulted in the locating and interviewing of two civilian witnesses. An SIU media release appealing for witnesses was issued with negative results.
Complainant:42-year-old male interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed
Civilian WitnessesCW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
Witness OfficersWO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
Additionally, the notes from five other officers were received and reviewed.
Subject OfficersSO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed
The SceneRaymond Crescent is a two-lane paved roadway that runs east and west in a residential area. At the time of the incident, it was dark with artificial lighting from street lights and the roads and sidewalks were icy and snow covered.
Forensic Evidence The SO’s CEW was seized from the BPS and a download to a pdf file was completed. This download showed the CEW was deployed two times on January 26, 2019: at 7:46:19 p.m. for three seconds; and, at 7:46:42 p.m. for five seconds. The probes and leads from both cartridges of the CEW of the SO were recovered and seized by the SIU FI.
Summary of 911 Recordings
On January 26, 2019, at 7:35:40 p.m., CW #2 contacted police to report what the Complainant was doing to CW #3’s vehicle and request police assistance.
Summary of BPS Communication Recording
7:41:07 p.m.: (Dispatcher) Update: [CW #3] is in a white Honda CRV trying to drive away. The Complainant is hanging onto the vehicle, banging on the windshield and there are three young kids in the vehicle.
7:45:41 p.m.: (The SO) Taser deployed.
7:46:16 p.m.: (Dispatcher) All units 10-3.
7:46:28 p.m.: (The SO) I need a rush.
7:47:25 p.m.: (The SO) I got him in custody.
7:57:14 p.m.: (The SO) Can I have another unit meet me at the RVH; he wants to go there.
7:59:29 p.m.: (The SO) He’s banging his head off the uh partition here.
Summary of BPS Booking/Cell Recordings
Materials obtained from Police ServiceUpon request the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the BPS:
- Appendix-Use of Force Model;
- Arrest and Arrest Booking Report;
- Arrest Booking Report;
- BPS Communications and 911 recordings;
- BPS Booking/cell recordings;
- CAD Event Details;
- CPIC Response Report – the Complainant;
- Custody Summary;
- CEW download;
- Mobile Data Terminal Messages Sent and Received;
- Notes of subject officer, witness officers and five undesignated police officers;
- Occurrence Summary (x2);
- Occurrences History;
- Policing Standards Manual-Training Standard for CEW Users;
- Policing Standards Manual-Training for CEW Trainers;
- Procedure-Use of Force;
- Promise to Appear;
- Radio Transmission Log;
- Roster for January 26, 2019; and
- Training Record-the SO (Training-Qualifications).
Materials obtained from Other SourcesUpon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following items from sources other than the involved police service:
- Patient health records of the Complainant from the RVH, Barrie.
With CW #2 as her front seat passenger and two children in the back of her Honda CRV, CW #3 arrived in front of the home on Raymond Crescent at about 7:30 p.m. CW #2 called the police again to report an altercation with the Complainant. The police were still en route as CW #3 attempted to drive away east along Raymond Crescent. The Complainant launched himself onto the hood of the vehicle. He then pulled a windshield wiper from the vehicle and tried to light its tires on fire with a lighter. The children in the backseat were crying.
The SO arrived at about 7:45 p.m. and parked his cruiser behind CW #3’s vehicle, which had come to a stop along the south curb of Raymond Crescent. He exited the cruiser and immediately confronted the Complainant, who was lying face down on the hood of the Honda. The Complainant came off the hood and approached the SO. He had his left hand in his left front jeans pocket and refused to remove it when asked to by the SO, prompting the officer to train his CEW in the Complainant’s direction. When he was within arm’s reach, the SO grabbed the Complainant by the collar and pinned him against the hood of his cruiser. The Complainant continued to refuse to reveal his left hand and was able to lift himself off the cruiser’s hood and break free from the officer. The SO chased after the Complainant west along Raymond Crescent, discharging his CEW twice at the Complainant. The weapon was ineffective owing to the thick coat the Complainant was wearing. As the pair reached a driveway, the SO caught up to the Complainant and tackled him to the ground. The Complainant resisted the officer’s efforts to control his arms and was met with two or three punches to the head, whereupon he surrendered his arms and was handcuffed by the officer.
With the Complainant now in his custody, the SO assisted him up off the ground and escorted him back to his cruiser. During the short trip, the officer had occasion to knee the Complainant’s left leg as the Complainant tried to body check the officer. When back at the cruiser the Complainant again tried to break free of the SO’s hold, the officer swept his feet out from under him, causing both of them to fall to the ground.
WO #1 was now on scene and approached the parties on the ground. The Complainant was trying to roll over and kicking his legs and feet. WO #1 delivered a knee strike to the Complainant’s right thigh and subsequently assisted the SO in lifting the Complainant and walking him to the rear of the SO’s cruiser. The Complainant struggled against the officers as they attempted to place him in the cruiser, but eventually relented following a kick by WO #1 to the back of his right calf.
Once inside the SO’s cruiser, the Complainant complained that he did not feel well and was taken directly to hospital where his fractured arm was diagnosed and treated.
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 shielded 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. By the time of his altercation with the SO, the Complainant was intoxicated, had threatened harm to CW #3 and her friend, CW #2, and had damaged CW #3’s vehicle. There were ample grounds for his arrest on any number of grounds, including public drunkenness, causing a disturbance and mischief. Thereafter, I am satisfied on reasonable grounds that the SO and, indeed, WO #1 as well, used legally justified force to secure the Complainant in custody. The evidence establishes that the Complainant was out of control. Drunk and infuriated with his estranged partner’s attempts to remove her daughter from his care, the Complainant went on a rampage in which he climbed onto her moving vehicle, damaging it with his bare hands and trying to light it on fire. The Complainant’s combativeness spilled over unabated in his dealings with the police. He managed to break free of the SO’s grasp and take flight, was undeterred by two CEW deployments and strenuously resisted being handcuffed after being tackled to the ground until the SO delivered two to three punches to the head. Thereafter, the SO and WO #1 resort to force – a further grounding beside the SO’s cruiser, two knee strikes and a kick to the Complainant’s right leg - was strictly in answer to the Complainant’s aggressions as he continued to make life difficult for the officers despite being in handcuffs. On this record, I am of the view that the force used to arrest and secure the Complainant was commensurate with the physical challenges the Complainant presented.
In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s left arm was fractured in the course of his dealings with the SO and WO #1, more than likely during one or the other grounding to which he was subjected, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the force used by the officers ran afoul of the latitude prescribed by the criminal law. Accordingly, there are no grounds for proceeding with charges in this case and the file is closed.
Date: October 7, 2019
Original signed by
Special Investigations Unit
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.