SIU Director’s Report - Case # 20-PCI-004
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 the injuries that a 21-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.
Notification of the SIUOn January 7, 2020, at 10:20 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s injury.
According to the OPP, on January 6, 2020, at approximately 8:05 p.m., the Complainant was in the area of Ripley Street, Ripley, Huron-Kinloss Township. At that time, the Complainant apparently approached a vehicle and became involved in a physical confrontation with the driver. Several bystanders called 911 and stepped in and restrained the Complainant while waiting for police officers [now known to be Witness Officer (WO) #4, WO #1, and WO #3] to attend. Upon the police officers’ arrival, the Complainant was arrested, handcuffed, and placed in a police cruiser. He reportedly began banging his head against the cruiser’s security screen, causing some bleeding.
Police officers transported the Complainant to the South Bruce Grey Health Centre’s Kincardine District Hospital in Kincardine. The Complainant was admitted to hospital overnight for observation due to his level of intoxication. On the morning of January 7, 2020, he was diagnosed with a fractured hand. The Complainant was treated and discharged from the hospital into police custody pending a bail hearing.
The TeamNumber of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
ComplainantsComplainant: 21-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
Witness OfficersWO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
The SceneThere was no scene of any probative value specific to the arrest of the Complainant. The area where the initial police contact with the Complainant was made by WO #4 was at the front of and on the snow-covered residential property of CW #3 and another civilian on Ripley Street.
In addition, this was a scheduled response to an incident that occurred in the evening of January 6, 2020, with the diagnosis of the Complainant’s serious injury not made until January 7, 2020, sometime between 8:20 a.m., when the radiologist’s interpretation of the diagnostic imaging of the Complainant’s right hand occurred, and 10:10 a.m., when a physician’s discharge diagnoses were made.
Video/Audio/Photographic EvidenceThe SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence, and was able to locate the following sources:
- OPP detachment cells closed-circuit television (CCTV) data.
OPP Detachment Cells CCTV Data
There was nothing in the CCTV data indicating that the Complainant sustained his serious injury at the detachment.
Materials obtained from Police ServiceUpon request the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the OPP:
- Notes from all WOs;
- Occurrence report and witness statements; and
- OPP Detachment cells area CCTV data.
Materials obtained from Other SourcesThe following documents were also received and reviewed from other parties:
- The Complainant’s medical record.
A short time later, the Complainant made his way to premises located on Ripley Street. While there, without any provocation, he punched CW #1. CW #1 defended himself against the Complainant’s attack and the two struggled for a period, in the course of which blows were exchanged between the two. CW #3, the resident of the premises on Ripley Street, came to CW #1’s aid. In due course, CW #3 and CW #1 were able to pin the Complainant on the ground and managed to keep him in that position while awaiting the arrival of the police.
WO #4 was the first to arrive on scene at about 8:20 p.m. He was able to roll the Complainant over onto his front and handcuff him without incident. WO #3 and WO #1 arrived shortly thereafter and assisted WO #4 in escorting the Complainant to WO #4’s cruiser and lodging him in the rear seat.
Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to the detachment and lodged in cells for a period before an ambulance was summoned and transported him to hospital. The following morning, the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured right hand.
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 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 Complainant had just assaulted CW #5 and CW #1; he was clearly subject to lawful arrest at the hands of WO #4, WO #3 and WO #1. By all accounts, the arrest was uneventful as far as the officers were concerned. While the Complainant certainly did not make things easy for the officers as they took him into custody and then escorted him to WO #4’s cruiser, there is no suggestion that they resorted to anything more than minimal force to place him inside the police vehicle. No punches or strikes of any kind were delivered by the officers. Nor is there any indication of any force being used by the police throughout the Complainant’s time in police custody.
It would appear that the Complainant fractured his right hand prior to the officers’ arrival on Ripley Street when he repeatedly struck the windshield of CW #5’s vehicle or engaged in fisticuffs with CW #1. Be that as it may, there is no evidence that WO #4, WO #1, and/or WO #3 acted other than professionally throughout their dealings with the Complainant. Accordingly, there is no basis to proceed with criminal charges against any police officer in this case and the file is closed.
Date: April 28, 2020
Electronically approved 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.