SIU Director’s Report - Case # 20-OCI-067
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 32-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
Notification of the SIUOn March 27, 2020, at 2:58 p.m., the Thunder Bay Police Service (TBPS) notified the SIU of the following.
The TBPS reported that on March 27, 2020 at 1:35 p.m., the Complainant phoned the police station and indicated he had sustained a right wrist fracture as the result of his hands being handcuffed.
On March 24, 2020, at 10:06 a.m., Witness Officer (WO) #3 had conducted a traffic stop and the Complainant was arrested by the Subject Officer (SO) for breach and traffic offences. WO #1 and WO #2 were also present during the arrest.
Upon his arrest, the Complainant said he had a sore right wrist and that his cast had been taken off recently. The Complainant was taken to the hospital for further assessment and was diagnosed with an old and a new fracture to his wrist.
The TeamNumber of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Complainant:32-year-old male interviewed
Civilian WitnessesCW Interviewed
Witness OfficersWO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary
Subject OfficersSO Declined interview, as is the subject officer’s legal right. Notes received and reviewed.
The SceneThe Complainant was arrested in the parking lot at the Academy Plaza at the northwest side of Beverly Street and Ravenwood Avenue, Thunder Bay.
Police Communications RecordingsThe following is a summary of the radio communications that took place on March 24, 2020, just prior to the arrest of the Complainant:
A male police officer, possibly WO #3, requested a CPIC check on the Complainant, who had been seen on Memorial Avenue. The dispatcher advised that the Complainant had a history of theft over and theft of a vehicle, and that he was not to have contact with the CW. The Complainant had a court date on March 23, 2020, but there were no updates listed from that appearance. The Complainant also had a suspended driver’s licence for a Highway Traffic Act (HTA) racing infraction.
A second male police officer, WO #2, asked the dispatcher to be placed on the call. He noted that he was not driving a marked cruiser.
A third police officer, the SO, was asked to locate him at the “Macs [now known to be the Circle K convenience store] at Beverly Street and Ravenwood Avenue” for a traffic stop on a vehicle [now known to be the Nissan Rogue that the Complainant was driving].
About three minutes later, the SO advised that the Complainant was in the back of his cruiser and that he was in custody for breach. The SO also asked the dispatcher if the vehicle that the Complainant was driving was impoundable. The dispatcher reported back that the vehicle was impoundable under the HTA. The Complainant driver’s licence was suspended due to unpaid fines and for racing.
About seven minutes later, the SO advised that he was on his way to the police station with the Complainant.
TBPS Booking Room Video Summary
At 10:37 a.m., the SO escorted the Complainant into the booking room from the sally port area. The SO directed the Complainant to stand inside a yellow box that was marked on the floor of the room while he took the handcuffs off the Complainant’s hands. At 10:37:52 a.m., as it appeared that the SO was trying to take off the right handcuff, the Complainant began to yell out “Ow, ow, ow,” and then screamed in pain. Once the Complainant’s right hand was released, he brought it up to his face to look at it.
At 10:38:44 a.m., the SO released the Complainant’s left hand from the handcuff and the Complainant could be heard saying something to the effect of “I have a broken hand too.” The SO could be heard saying something to the effect of “How did you manage that?” The The Complainant’s answer was inaudible. At 10:39:25 a.m., the Complainant stretched out his right arm to the SO and said, “That’s where you broke my hand, bro, it’s all fucked up.” As the Complainant walked to get hand sanitizer from the wall dispenser, the SO said something to the effect of, “It wasn’t hard.” The Complainant chuckled and said, “You re-broke my hand, bro. I just got the cast off a week ago… I can’t even make a fist… now I gotta go to the hospital where more people are sick.” While holding onto his right wrist area, the Complainant grunted in pain.
At 10:40 a.m., WO #3, who was leaning over a desk and writing, asked, “Sore wrist?” to which the Complainant answered, “Broken wrist, broken hand. I just got the cast off a week ago, I was supposed to go for another X-ray, but this guy (as he twisted his right wrist to gesture at the SO)…” WO #3 interrupted and stated that it was not broken since he was moving his wrist. The Complainant then said, “Well broken hand and fractured wrist is what I have, and it definitely just re-broke.” The Complainant went on to say the name of his doctor and that he was not on any medication.
Eventually, the Complainant was escorted out of the booking room by the SO and WO #3 and into the cell area.
The Complainant was later escorted out of cell 12 by two uniformed police officers and escorted into the booking room area where he put his shoes back on and was escorted into the sally port. Sometime later, when the Complainant returned into the booking room area, his right arm was in a cast and he was placed back into cell 12.
Materials obtained from Police ServiceUpon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from TBPS:
- Arrest sheet – the Complainant;
- Communication recording;
- Booking Video;
- Email - Disclosure and Involved Officers;
- General Occurrence Report – WO #3;
- Notes of the WOs and SO; and
- Supplementary Report by the SO, WO #1 and WO #2.
Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to the police station, where he complained of pain and indicated that his right hand had been broken in the handcuffing process. He was subsequently transported to hospital, where the injury was reportedly confirmed.
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 on the job provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law. There is no question that the Complainant was subject to lawful arrest for being in breach of a non-communication / no-contact court order with respect to the CW. Nor is there much of a question regarding the propriety of the force that the SO used to place handcuffs on the Complainant. By all accounts, the Complainant cooperated fully with his arrest and, aside from the officer taking hold of the Complainant’s hands and maneuvering them in the handcuffing process, little if any force was used by the officer. Regrettably, while it appears that the Complainant’s right hand was broken at this time, perhaps the result of the same hand being particularly susceptible to injury as it was newly healed from a previous fracture, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO acted with excessive force.
In the result, as I am satisfied that the SO acted lawfully throughout his dealings with the Complainant, there are no grounds to proceed with charges against the officer and the file is closed.
Date: June 8, 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.