SIU Director’s Report - Case # 20-PCI-068
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 injury that a 38-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.
Notification of the SIUOn March 31, 2020, at 1:02 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) reported an injury to the Complainant of North Bay.
The OPP advised that on March 30, 2020, at 6:37 p.m., the Complainant was arrested on outstanding warrants near his residence. When Subject Officer (SO) #1 attempted to arrest the Complainant, the Complainant fled on foot and was chased by SO #1. The Complainant fell and, as SO #1 attempted to arrest the Complainant, a struggle ensued. The arrest took place at Sixth Street North and Cassells Street in North Bay.
The Complainant was lodged at the North Bay Detachment of the OPP overnight. In the morning, the Complainant complained of a sore shoulder while he was fingerprinted. The Complainant was taken to the North Bay Regional Health Centre (NBRHC) at 11:21 a.m. and diagnosed with a fractured clavicle.
The TeamNumber of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
ComplainantsComplainant: 38-year-old male interviewed
Civilian WitnessesCW Efforts were made to locate the CW without success.
Witness OfficersWO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
Subject OfficersSO #1 Interviewed and notes reviewed
SO #2 Interviewed and notes reviewed
The SceneThe incident took place on the front lawn of 1108 Cassells Street in North Bay, which was on the north side of Cassells Street east of 6th Avenue West.
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:
- Booking and Cell Video.
Booking and Cell Video
Police Communications RecordingsThe communications audio was reviewed and found to have no investigative value regarding the cause of the Complainant’s injury.
Materials obtained from Police ServiceUpon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the OPP:
- Arrest Report;
- Communications Audio;
- General Report;
- Notes-All WOs;
- Notes-Both SOs;
- Cell and Booking Video;
- Prisoner Custody Report-the Complainant;
- Prisoner in Custody Medical Assessment Record-the Complainant;
- Report to Justice-WO #2; and
- Tele-warrant to Search.
Shortly before 6:30 p.m., the Complainant, in the company of a female, exited the home on Percy Street and travelled on foot eastward on the north sidewalk of Cassells Street. As the Complainant did so, he was observed by undercover officers with the CSCU. The team’s supervisor, SO #1, called for the Complainant’s arrest as he crossed 6th Avenue West.
SO #2 pulled up in his vehicle into a driveway east and ahead of the Complainant as SO #1 came to stop in the westbound lanes of Cassells Street behind the Complainant. Following a brief struggle on the ground, the Complainant was handcuffed and taken into custody by the officers. A search of the Complainant’s person at the scene revealed he was in possession of controlled substances.
The following morning, after spending the night in cells at the OPP’s North Bay Detachment, the Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a broken clavicle.
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 authorized or required to do by law. Based on the CDSA search warrant that was obtained and the information in the possession of the CSCU, I accept that SO #1 and SO #2 had lawful grounds to seek the Complainant’s arrest. The real issue is with the propriety of the force used to take the Complainant into custody, an issue made more interesting by the discrepant evidence about the officers’ force that the SIU had to deal with.
One strand of evidence indicates that the Complainant essentially froze when confronted by the officers and was quickly tackled to the ground by one or more of them. For his part, SO #1 says that the Complainant reacted to the officers’ presence by running westward. The Complainant had taken two to three steps, says SO #1, before he fell onto a section of lawn beside the sidewalk. With SO #2’s assistance, SO #1 was able to handcuff the Complainant on the ground following a brief struggle. SO #2 confirms that the Complainant ran away from him upon being confronted, whereupon the officer was able to briefly grab hold of his right arm before he fell. According to SO #2, he too fell, though he was not sure if his tumble occurred simultaneously with the Complainant’s. As with SO #1’s rendition of events, SO #2 says that there was a short struggle on the ground with the Complainant before he was handcuffed. SO #1, SO #2, and the more incriminatory evidence agree that no blows of any kind were struck by SO #1 or SO #2.
In my view, I need not resolve the contest in the evidence as I am prepared to proceed on the basis of the most incriminating evidence. In the moments leading to the takedown, the Complainant had not given the officers any overt reason to believe that his arrest would be violent or contentious. Arguably, his takedown in the circumstances may appear precipitous and heavy-handed. However, this is not the whole story. The officers had reason to believe that the Complainant was in possession of a handgun. In fact, that was precisely the reason they chose to wait the better part of a day to arrest the Complainant when he stepped outside his home where they believed they could better manage the threat of a weapon. Considered in this context, the officers were within their rights in seeking to immediately neutralize that threat by taking the Complainant to the ground as quickly as possible.
In the result, while the Complainant’s fall to the ground in the course of his arrest was the likely cause of his injury, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officers acted other than lawfully throughout this incident. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case and the file is closed.
Date: July 14, 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.