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 the injury a 42-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.

Notification of the SIU

On July 18, 2020 at 6:10 a.m., the Brantford Police Service (BPS) contacted the SIU to report an injury to the Complainant.

The BPS advised that on July 18, 2020, at about 4:30 a.m., BPS police officers responded to an alarm call at a business on West Street, Brantford. As a police officer [now known to be the Subject Officer (SO)] arrived on scene, the Complainant, who was in front of the premises, ran from the area. The SO exited his police cruiser and pursued the Complainant on foot. At the Market Street bridge, which was about one block away, the Complainant jumped from the bridge and landed on his back, below on West Street. Brant/Brantford Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was contacted and the Complainant was transported to the Brantford General Hospital (BGH), where he was diagnosed with having sustained a fractured skull and possibly a fractured vertebra.

The Scene

The scene was located on the west sidewalk of West Street, Brantford, underneath the West Street Bridge for the Via Rail Station (VRS) railway overpass.

On July 18, 2020, at 8:30 a.m., an SIU Forensic Investigator arrived at the scene of the incident on West Street at Market Street in Brantford. There was an overpass at this location that carried railway tracks over West Street. There were sidewalks on either side of West Street that were elevated above the road level and ran under the overpass. On the west sidewalk just below the north edge of the overpass there was an area with blood and personal items, which included a jacket, a fanny pack, a hammer and a screwdriver. The VRS was just west of the overpass. The scene was photographed. Measurements were taken from the top of the overpass to the sidewalk. There was a railing at the top of the overpass above West Street. From the top of the railing to the sidewalk the distance was measured as 6 metres. The railing at that point was 1.1 metres high.




Figure 1 – Scene of the Complainant’s fall from the West Street Bridge

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence, and was able to locate the following sources:

• Video from a business on West Street; and
• Video from the VRS.

Video from a Business on West Street

The video footage was from a business on West Street that received a notification from their alarm company at 4:10 a.m., on July 18, 2020. The cameras did not have a view of the Market Street overpass.

At 4:17 [1] a.m., a man, believed to be the Complainant, was seen near the front entrance of the business. He appeared to look around, and then he ran down the street and hid in a small alcove. He carried what appeared to be a hammer [2] in his left hand. Twenty seconds after the beginning of the clip, a BPS SUV was seen to travel on West Street. It came from the direction that the Complainant had been previously looking. After 62 seconds, the Complainant exited the alcove and walked towards the VRS parking lot. The Complainant wore a toque, a blue jacket, black sneakers with white bottoms, and some type of coat or blanket in his left hand. At 4:19 a.m., he crossed the street and sat on the curb of the VRS parking lot. A BPS SUV slowly drove past on West Street about 60 metres away. As the BPS SUV went out of sight, the Complainant got up and quickly ran away from West Street down Wadsworth Street. The BPS SUV turned around and the driver [now known to be the SO] accelerated into the VRS parking lot.

Video from the VRS

The video clips showed the unmanned VRS, the parking lot and the edge of the railway tracks. The video came in two parts, now labelled as Via Rail One, which was ten seconds in length, and Via Rail Two, which was 32 seconds in length. There was no date and time stamp on either video.

In Via Rail One, the VRS ran in an east west direction along Wadsworth Street. The camera was situated underneath the middle section of the roof and covered some of the parking lot and the northwest corner of the smaller building of the VRS. The camera was labelled parking lot. A man [now known to be the Complainant] came into view and ran north at the west end of the property. A BPS marked SUV drove along the face of the structure toward the Complainant. No emergency lights on the SUV were activated and the Complainant disappeared behind the building.

In Via Rail Two, the camera was situated on the north side of the smaller building, and covered a corner of the building and some of the parking spots beyond. It also covered the platform, from the closest railway track to the platform. Headlights were seen to illuminate the metal guard rail. The Complainant ran north across the platform and onto the tracks out of sight. He headed on an angle, which would have him cross all tracks as he ran toward the Market Street Bridge. The SO was about four seconds behind and chased the Complainant. A second police officer walked across the platform with his flashlight in hand, and the light of his flashlight could be seen to illuminate the tracks.

Police Communication Recordings

At about 4:12 a.m., on July 18, 2020, a security company called BPS dispatch about an alarm at an address on West Street regarding a business premises. The front hall motion alarm went off at about 4:06 a.m. The owner was contacted and requested police be dispatched. There were transmissions by a BPS police officer and dispatch at about 4:18 a.m., but the transmissions were indiscernible. [3] At about 4:18 a.m., a BPS police officer [now known to be the SO] stated that he saw a man taking off from him in the railway parking lot. BPS dispatch acknowledged and asked for any other units to attend the area.

At about 4:19 a.m., an out of breath SO broadcasted, “He’s running down the tracks.” BPS dispatch spoke to another BPS police officer, believed to be WO #1, who indicated he could assist on the call. The SO broadcasted, “Blue shirt, jeans and a hat on, baseball cap.” Dispatch acknowledged and asked if there were any weapons visible. The SO said negative, while still running, and provided his location. BPS units acknowledged heading to the call. The SO said, “Male just jumped off the roof,” but he was out of breath and the rest of the transmission was not clear. The SO then broadcasted, “Market Street Bridge, underneath, he fell off the top.” BPS dispatch contacted the EMS and Brantford Fire Service. A further request by BPS police officers on scene was made of BPS dispatch to contact EMS to “step it up”.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Photographs;
• Communications Audio;
• Crown Brief Synopsis;
• Event Details;
• Notes-WO #1;
• Notes-WO #3;
• Notes-WO #4;
• Notes-WO #2;
• Notes-WO #5;
• Will State/General Report-SO;
• Policy- Arrest, Security, Prisoner Care and Control;
• Policy- Use of Force; and
• Supplementary Occurrence Report-WO #5.

Materials obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from non-police sources:

• Brant/Brantford Paramedic Ambulance Call Report;
• Medical Record – BGH;
• Medical Records – Hamilton General Hospital (HGH);
• Video recordings from Via Rail; and
• Video from a business on West Street.

The following scenario emerges on the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the Complainant and the SO. The investigation also benefitted from video recordings of parts of the incident captured by cameras in the area. At 4:12 a.m. on July 18, 2020, a call was received by police from a security company reporting that an alarm had been set off at the business premises on West Street. The SO responded to the scene driving on West Street toward Wadsworth Street. As he neared the intersection, the SO observed the Complainant in the area. He was on the grass boulevard on the northwest corner of the intersection.

The Complainant saw the officer as well. When the cruiser performed a U-turn to return to the intersection, the Complainant entered into the parking lot of the train station just north of his location and began to run westward.

The SO entered the parking lot from West Street and followed the Complainant in his cruiser. Arriving at the west end of the train station, the SO stopped his cruiser, exited and continued to chase after the Complainant on foot. The Complainant was now running toward a series of train tracks.

With the officer several metres behind, the Complainant traversed the train tracks and then made his way eastward along a chain link metal fence toward the Market Street Bridge, which served as a railway bridge over West Street. Arriving at the bridge, the Complainant grabbed hold of the metal railing on the north side of the bridge and was head first hanging on to the railing on the outer side when the SO managed to grab hold of his left leg. The Complainant kicked at the officer with his right leg, striking the SO in the upper thigh/groin area, causing the officer to recoil and lose his hold.

The Complainant fell about six metres onto the west sidewalk of West Street. The SO immediately made a request for an ambulance and then made his way to the street below to tend to the Complainant.

With the arrival of paramedics, the Complainant was taken to BGH and, from there, to HGH given the severity of his injuries. He had suffered serious head injuries and a pulmonary contusion.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code -- Criminal negligence causing bodily harm

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

221 Every one who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years

The Complainant was seriously injured when he fell from the Market Street Bridge in Brantford. As he was being chased by a BPS officer at time, who had actually managed to grab hold of the Complainant just before he fell, the SIU was notified and commenced an investigation. The officer in question – the SO – was identified as the 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 injuries.

As it is apparent that the SO did not apply any force to the Complainant other than trying to hold onto his leg to keep him from falling, the only issue is whether there was any want of care on the part of the officer that contributed to the Complainant’s injuries. In this context, the only offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. Liability for the offence is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the circumstances.

I am unable to reasonably conclude on the evidence gathered by the SIU that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. I am satisfied that the SO was in the execution of his lawful duties as he chased after the Complainant. Arriving in the area of a reported break and enter to find the Complainant in the vicinity and fleeing at the sight of the cruiser, I am satisfied that there were grounds to lawfully detain the Complainant for further investigation. I am also satisfied that the SO did what he could to prevent the Complainant’s fall as the latter vaulted himself over the metal railing of the Market Street Bridge. He grabbed on to the Complainant’s left leg and was only forced to let go as the Complainant kicked him with his right leg.

On the aforementioned-record, as there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the SO failed to conduct himself with due care and regard for the Complainant’s safety in the context of a very brief engagement lasting not much longer than a minute, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the officer. The file is closed.

Date: February 16, 2021
Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit