Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving police officers where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. The Unit’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

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. 

Pursuant to section 21 of FIPPA (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this document. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• 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.

Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (“PHIPA”)

Pursuant to PHIPA, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information 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.

The Unit’s investigative jurisdiction is limited to those incidents where there is a serious injury (including sexual assault allegations) or death in cases involving the police.

“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 SIU

On July 1, 2020, at 7:50 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) reported to the SIU that the Complainant had sustained an injury. The PRP indicated that on July 1, 2020, at 2:26 a.m., PRP officers responded to an address on Queen Street, Brampton, regarding a barricaded male. PRP officers, the Subject Officer (SO), Witness Officer (WO) #1, WO #2 and WO #3 successfully negotiated with the Complainant who agreed to exit his room. The officers apprehended the Complainant under the Mental Health Act (MHA). However, when they approached the police vehicle, he became enraged. The officers struggled to get him under control. Once the Complainant was calm, the officers attempted to place him into the back seat of the police vehicle, but he kicked the side panel of the vehicle. The Complainant was taken to Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH) where he was diagnosed with an avulsion fracture in his foot. A doctor admitted the Complainant under the authority of the MHA to BCH for a psychological assessment. 

The Scene

The scene was an address located on Queen Street East in the city of Brampton. No SIU forensic investigator was assigned to forensically examine the scene. However, PRP provided SIU with forensic photographs taken of the scene and of a marked PRP police vehicle with a black footwear impression on the back-passenger side panel of the vehicle.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

Surveillance Video

The address on Queen Street East, Brampton, was equipped with a Closed-circuit Television (CCTV) camera system that recorded events relevant to this investigation.

Beginning at 2:47:52 a.m. on July 1, 2020, the video footage captured images of four PRP officers walking with the Complainant outside the address toward two parked PRP police vehicles. The Complainant was handcuffed with his hands behind his back.

In a segment of the video, four officers were captured struggling with the Complainant as he moved back and forth, stalling their movements toward the parked police vehicles. At a distance, the video captured the officers continuing to struggle with the Complainant in the parking lot as they moved toward a second police vehicle. The officers were knocked off balance while trying to maintain control of the Complainant. At this interval, the video suggests the Complainant kicked the police vehicle, and the momentum of that kick caused the officers to lose their balance. It was shortly after this segment of the video that the officers were captured placing the Complainant on his stomach in the parking lot. There was no video evidence to suggest the involved officers utilized any type of use of force options on the Complainant while they maneuvered him to the ground.

An officer (believed to be WO #3) was captured returning to the first police vehicle to retrieve a backpack. The video footage showed the officers restraining the Complainant on the ground.

The remainder of the video evidence was of little value to the investigation with the exception of images captured at a distance showing the Complainant laying on his stomach, with three officers situated in kneeling positions around him. One of those officers (believed to be the SO) was situated at the Complainant’s feet with a fourth officer standing above the kneeling officers.

Police Communications Recordings

PRP Communications Recordings and 911 Call

Per the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Report, a 911 call came into police from the address on Queen Street at about 2:18 a.m. indicating that a resident had barricaded himself inside his room and there was concern for his well-being. At about 2:52 a.m., the officers on scene report that the Complainant is in custody and that they are awaiting an ambulance for sedation.

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the PRP:

• Audio Copy Report-Phone;
• Audio Copy Report-Radio;
• CAD Report
• Disclosure Log-Delivered August 25, 2020;
• Witness Officers’ notes;
• PRP-Directive-Incident Response Use of Force Options;
• PRP Directive-Criminal Investigations;
• PRP Occurrence Report; and
• PRP Photographs-Scene and Police Vehicle.

Materials obtained from Other Sources

The SIU also obtained a copy of video footage from the address on Queen Street.

The material events in question are largely clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, which included statements from the Complainant, three witness officers who were involved in the arrest, and a civilian eyewitness. The investigation also benefitted from a video recording of parts of the interaction between police and the Complainant captured by a surveillance camera. As was his legal right, the SO declined to interview with the SIU or consent to the release of his notes.

At about 2:18 a.m. on July 1, 2020, police were dispatched to an address on Queen Street East, Brampton. The police were called out of concern for the Complainant’s well-being. The Complainant had barricaded himself inside his room by placing a bed against the interior of the door and appeared to be in mental distress.

WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3 arrived at the address and made their way to the Complainant’s room with the CW. The SO remained at ground level to keep an eye out for the Complainant in the event he decided to jump from his second-floor window. From outside the room’s door, the officers assured the Complainant that they were there to ensure his safety and he was not in trouble with the police. After a point, the Complainant opened the door and became confrontational with the CW. He indicated he had no desire to be taken to hospital, but recognized that he was in mental distress and in need of his medication. Following a further period, WO #1 decided to apprehend the Complainant under the MHA. The Complainant peacefully surrendered to his arrest and offered up his hands to be handcuffed.

As the Complainant was being escorted down the stairs to the ground level, his demeanour changed and he began to resist his arrest. He uttered words to the effect that he “liked pain” and began to strike his head against the stairwell wall. Once outside of the building, the Complainant pushed and pulled against the officers as they directed him toward one of the cruisers. Having arrived at the cruiser, the Complainant kicked at the vehicle’s passenger side panel. It was at this point that the officers decided to take the Complainant to the ground.

The Complainant continued to struggle on the ground as the officers attempted to hold him in place pending the arrival of an ambulance. Paramedics had been summoned to the scene with the intention of administering a sedative to the Complainant. The SO was by the Complainant’s legs and feet as the other officers were by the Complainant’s arms and head. The officer had crossed the Complainant’s legs in an attempt to keep them from flailing and kicking out. At one point, the Complainant complained that his ankle was being hurt.

With the arrival of the paramedics, the Complainant was given a sedative, and then placed on a stretcher and loaded into the ambulance. He was taken to hospital from the scene where he was diagnosed with a fractured ankle.

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,

Section 17, Mental Health Act -- Action by police officer

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

On July 1, 2020, the Complainant was in the custody of the PRP when he suffered a fracture to his left ankle. The SO was among the officers who participated in the Complainant’s arrest and identified as the most likely to have caused the injury; he was designated a subject officer for purposes of the SIU investigation. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s injury.

Under 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. There appears to have been a lawful basis for the Complainant’s apprehension. Given the indicia of acute mental distress reported by the officers and the CW, including signs of extreme paranoia and disrupted thinking, I am satisfied that the officers had good cause to take the Complainant into custody pursuant to section 17 of the MHA.

I am further satisfied that the officers used no more force than was reasonably necessary to effect the Complainant’s arrest and maintain him safely in custody pending his transfer to hospital. By all accounts, the Complainant physically resisted as the officers attempted to escort him to a waiting police cruiser. He intentionally struck his head on an interior wall, tussled with the officers as they exited the building, and kicked at the cruiser as they neared the vehicle. In the circumstances, it would appear that taking the Complainant to the ground, which maneuver was done in a controlled fashion, was a reasonable tactic as it would place the officers in a better position to manage the Complainant’s resistance.

Indeed, the Complainant continued to resist on the ground, striking his head on the pavement and flailing his limbs, and was met by what appears to have been a pain compliance technique by the SO, who had hold of the Complainant’s legs in a crossed position. The Complainant reacted to the technique by complaining of pain in his ankle. There is evidence that the SO loosened his grip at this point but that the Complainant continued to struggle against the officers’ efforts. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO used excessive force given the level of the Complainant’s resistance, the need to control his legs and feet, and the short-lived nature of the hold. It should be noted that no strikes of any kind were delivered by any of the officers against the Complainant.

In the final result, whether the SO is responsible for the Complainant’s injury or whether it was incurred when the Complainant forcefully kicked the passenger side of the cruiser, there are no reasonable ground to believe that the subject officer acted unlawfully throughout this incident. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case and the file is closed.


Date: January 6, 2021


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit