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 injuries that a 34-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.

Notification of the SIU

On July 4, 2020, at 8:00 a.m., Waterloo Regional Police Service (WRPS) notified the SIU of the injuries to the Complainant. WRPS reported that on July 4, 2020, at 12:12 a.m., WRPS officers responded to an apartment building in Waterloo following a report of a woman covered in blood and in distress. The woman was from another apartment unit on the same floor and at the same address as the caller. When police officers went to the specified unit, they were met by a naked man, also covered in blood, who refused them entry to the residence. The police officers observed broken glass and other evidence of a violent disturbance and entered the unit. The man [now determined to be the Complainant] headbutted one of the police officers and a struggle ensued in which the Complainant bit a police officer. A conducted energy weapon (CEW) was deployed and the Complainant was brought under control. He was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a broken nose and fractured orbital bone.

No scene was held but WRPS took photographs for their investigation. WRPS found numerous guns in the residence.

WRPS reported that the Complainant was at WRPS Central Division on Frederick Street awaiting a show cause hearing. It was agreed that WRPS would arrange a phone interview for the SIU with the Complainant and WRPS would take photographs of his injuries. 

The Scene

The scene was a two-bedroom apartment located in Waterloo.

Physical Evidence

CEW Download

On July 4, 2020, two CEWs and probes were retrieved from WRPS. One CEW was deployed by WO #4 and one CEW was deployed by SO #1. The CEW data was extracted. One deployed cartridge and one intact cartridge were also received at a later date. The CEWs were test fired.

On July 10, 2020, the cartridges were received by the SIU. The probes and cartridges were photographed.

The CEW used by SO #1 was fired on July 4, 2020 at 1:38:45 a.m. (per CEW’s time stamp) for four seconds. Probes were deployed. At 1:39:28 a.m. the CEW was made safe.

The CEW used by WO #4 was fired on July 4, 2020 at 1:33:44 a.m. for three seconds. The CEW was used in “drive stun” mode. At 1:33:47 a.m., the CEW was made safe.

Photographs taken by WRPS

On July 4, 2020, photographs were taken of injuries to CW #2, the scene, and items seized by WRPS police officers. The photographs were received by the SIU and examined.

Photographs of Complainant’s Injuries

On July 4, 2020, a SIU Forensic Investigator took photographs of the Complainant’s injuries.

Police Communications Recordings

WRPS Communications Recordings

The WRPS communication recordings were obtained and reviewed. 

The following scenario emerges on the weight of the reliable evidence, which included interviews with the Complainant and one of the two subject officers, SO #2. As was his right, SO #1 declined to interview with the SIU. In the early morning hours on July 4, 2020, 911 calls were made by residents of an apartment building in Waterloo. They reported that a woman – CW #2 – was going from unit to unit with blood on her face and saying that she had been assaulted. EMS and police were dispatched to the address.

The paramedics were the first to arrive. Information was provided to paramedics that CW #2’s injuries were the result of a fall down stairs. The paramedics were not convinced, however, and told the responding officers as much.

SO #1, partnered with WO #2, and SO #2, partnered with WO #1, were the first to arrive at the scene. They spoke with the paramedics and then, deciding they needed to ensure CW #2 was alright, made their way to her apartment.

The Complainant’s mother, CW #1, answered the knock on the door. The officers explained that they had received 911 calls expressing concern about CW #2’s welfare and wanted to check on her to make sure everything was okay. CW #1 acknowledged that both CW #2 and her son were in the apartment, but was reluctant to let the officers in. With the door ajar, the officers noticed shards of glass on the hallway floor in from the door and a broken mirror. CW #2 was also seen in a room down the hallway lying in a bed. The officers proceeded to make their way inside.

Once through the door, the Complainant angrily confronted the officers. He yelled at them to get out of the apartment. The officers again explained that they had to check on CW #2. SO #2 entered the bedroom down the hall and spoke with CW #2. As the officer attempted to glean information from her, the Complainant continued to rant and rave at the officers demanding that they leave. The Complainant’s belligerence escalated to the point that SO #1, WO #2 and WO #1 took hold of him to place him under arrest.

What ensued was a violent confrontation between the officers and the Complainant. The Complainant began to punch and kick at the officers as they tried to secure his arms behind his back. SO #2 joined in the fray. The melee made its way into the living room area of the apartment where it was decided that the Complainant should be grounded. From the floor and on his back, the Complainant continued to punch and kick at the officers. As the struggle unfolded, the Complainant managed to bite into WO #1’s left shoulder, maintaining his hold for several seconds before releasing it after multiple punches to the face by SO #2. Following SO #2’s strikes, SO #1 discharged his CEW at the Complainant. The probes found their mark but were of no effect in incapacitating the Complainant. Several minutes into the struggle, the officers were able to roll the Complainant onto his stomach, but still the Complainant’s resistance kept them from handcuffing his arms together. Exhausted by their efforts, the officers decided to simply hold the Complainant down pending the arrival of additional officers.

Within a couple of minutes, additional officers arrived at the apartment, including WO #4. The officer approached the Complainant on the ground, warned him to stop resisting or he would be “tased”, and then proceeded to do so when the Complainant continued to refuse to release his arms. The discharge quelled the Complainant’s fight, allowing the officers to secure his arms and handcuff them behind his back.

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,

On July 4, 2020, the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured left orbital bone and broken nose following his arrest and while in the custody of the WRPS. SO #1 and SO #2 were among the arresting officers and identified as the subject officers for purposes of the SIU investigation. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either officer committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s arrest and injuries.

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. At the time of these events, the Complainant was under conditions to keep the peace and be of good behaviour in relation to CW #2. In light of what they had been told and what they could see from the doorway, the officers had cause to be concerned about CW #2’s welfare and were duty bound, in my view, to investigate what was going on. On this record, I am satisfied that the officers’ entry into the residence was justified under the common law set out in R. v. Godoy, [1999] 1 SCR 311. Thereafter, given the Complainant’s unrelenting belligerence and threatening behaviour as SO #2 was endeavouring to speak with CW #2, the officers, in my view, had grounds to arrest him for obstructing justice. The issue turns to the propriety of the force used in aid of the Complainant’s apprehension.

I accept that the officers used a significant amount of force in arresting the Complainant, but I am also satisfied on reasonable grounds that said force was not excessive in the circumstances. By all accounts, the Complainant violently resisted his arrest, punching and kicking at the officers repeatedly. He was inebriated at the time and incensed that the officers had entered the apartment against his wishes. In the main, the evidence indicates that the officers responded by attempting to wrestle the Complainant into submission. The takedown in the living room was a reasonable tactic. The Complainant had presented a formidable physical challenge to that point and would be better controlled on the floor. The only physical strikes delivered by the officers, as disclosed by the evidence, are attributed to SO #2. I am unable to find fault with the force used by the officer. The punches, three in total and delivered to the Complainant’s head, came as the Complainant had bit into WO #1’s shoulder and was refusing to let go. The first CEW discharge was also reasonable, in my view, coming as it did some time after the officers had the Complainant on the ground but were still unable to wrest control of his arms. By the time of the final CEW discharge, deployed in drive stun mode to the Complainant’s back by a late arriving WO #4, the officers on scene, exhausted by the protracted physical struggle that had taken place, had decided to simply hold the Complainant down pending the arrival of additional police officers. Their decision is telling and speaks of the rigour with which the Complainant resisted arrest. In the circumstances, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the CEW discharge, which was effective in finally subduing the Complainant sufficiently that his arms could be controlled and handcuffed, amounted to unlawful force.

There is a distinct possibility that one or more of the Complainant’s injuries were actually incurred prior to the officers’ arrival at the apartment. There is evidence, for example, that he had been involved in a physical altercation with CW #2 and his left eye was swollen shut when he first confronted the officers. Be that as it may, as I am satisfied that there is insufficient evidence to reasonably believe the officers acted other than lawfully during the encounter in question, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.


Date: February 16, 2021

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit