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 apparent serious injuries sustained by a 46-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On October 18, 2020, at 5:40 a.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) reported the following:

On October 17, 2020, at 9:09 p.m., OPS officers responded to the area of Prince of Wales Drive and Barnsdale Road after citizens reported a vehicle being stuck on a curb. The first police officer arrived on scene at 9:22 p.m. and found the Complainant in the vehicle in an intoxicated condition. The Complainant exited the vehicle, fled on foot and was subsequently tackled. Two other police officers arrived, and the Complainant was arrested. He complained of trouble breathing and was taken to Ottawa Civic Hospital via Emergency Medical Services, where it was found he had two fractured ribs. The Complainant was released from hospital and police custody.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Complainant:

46-year-old male interviewed

Civilian Witnesses

CW Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed

Subject Officers

SO #1 Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right.

The Scene

The Complainant was arrested in the area of Prince of Wales Drive and Barnsdale Road. The area was described as having a roundabout roadway that was under construction. The area was poorly lit and had a gravel road with various debris.

Communications Recordings

911 call - October 17, 2020

On October 17, 2020, at 9:07 p.m., the CW contacted the OPS 911 communications centre. He indicated that there was a man [now known to be the Complainant] who appeared to be under the influence and had his vehicle hung up on the traffic circle. The vehicle was located at Prince of Wales Drive and Barnsdale Road, with its chassis sitting on the curb. The tires were spinning, and the Complainant was slurring his words. The CW described the Complainant’s behaviour as a bit odd.

Radio Transmissions - October 17, 2020

NB. There were no time stamps provided on the recordings received by the SIU.

Upon his arrival, WO #2 advised the communications centre that the Complainant had just run from him. Shortly after, he advised that he was on top of the Complainant, who was resisting. WO #2 repeated that the Complainant was resisting and had his hands together. WO #2 was unable to pull his hands apart. The SO arrived and assisted in effecting the arrest of the Complainant.

Materials obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the OPS:

• Computer-assisted dispatch;
• Mobile Data Terminal logs for the SO, WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3;
• Narrative Text of WOs;
• Notes of WOs; and
• History-the Complainant.

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may be summarized briefly. At about 9:07 p.m. of October 17, 2020, a 911 call was received by the OPS reporting a suspected impaired driver. The caller – the CW – had come across the Complainant at the intersection of Prince of Wales Drive and Barnsdale Road. The Complainant’s vehicle was stuck on the curb of the roundabout under construction at the intersection and he was pressing the accelerator in a futile effort to break free. Noticing that the Complainant was acting strangely and suspecting he was drunk, the CW contacted the police.

WO #2 was the first officer to arrive at the scene. As he pulled to a stop behind the Complainant’s vehicle, WO #2 activated his emergency lights and watched as the Complainant exited his vehicle and ran westward across the roundabout. The officer caught up to the Complainant, still on the roundabout, and took hold of him. Told he was under arrest, the Complainant refused to put his arms behind his back and attempted to pull away from WO #2. The officer reacted by grounding the Complainant.

Once on the ground, the Complainant struggled as WO #2 attempted to handcuff him and was met with additional force. The Complainant tucked his arms under his chest and refused to release them, prompting WO #2 to deliver a knee strike to the left side of the Complainant’s torso. The Complainant continued to resist and, at one point, tried to get up onto his knees. WO #2 used his entire body weight to keep him down and radioed for assistance.

The SO heard WO #2’s call for help and responded to the scene. Upon arrival, the officer positioned himself to the right side of the Complainant, who was still lying prone on the ground. When the SO was unable to physically pry the Complainant’s right arm free from under his body, he delivered a knee strike to the right torso. He delivered a second knee strike moments later as the Complainant continued to refuse to surrender his arms. With the second strike, WO #2, who had lifted himself off the Complainant’s body and was by his left side, was able to wrest free the Complainant’s left arm and affix a handcuff. Shortly thereafter, the SO took control of the Complainant’s right arm and brought it around his back, after which it too was secured in the handcuffs.

Following his arrest, and while en route to the station in WO #2’s cruiser, an ambulance was called when the Complainant complained of trouble breathing. He was taken to hospital in ambulance and diagnosed with multiple right-sided rib fractures.

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 October 17, 2020, the Complainant reportedly suffered fractured ribs in the course of his arrest by OPS officers. As the officer most likely to have inflicted the injuries, 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 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 required or authorized to do by law. Given the information he had been provided at dispatch, and his personal observations of the Complainant running away from a vehicle that had inexplicably driven onto a roundabout, I am satisfied WO #2 had grounds to lawfully arrest the Complainant for being in the care or control of a vehicle while impaired.

Thereafter, I am satisfied that WO #2 and the SO used no more than reasonably necessary force in aid of the Complainant’s arrest. On catching up with the Complainant, WO #2 directed him to place his arms behind his back. The Complainant refused and then attempted to physically pull free of the officer’s hold. In light of the circumstances, alone with an apparently impaired individual giving every indication of not submitting to arrest, I am unable to fault WO #2 for taking the Complainant to the ground. In that position, the officer would have the physical advantage to better manage any further resistance by the Complainant. The Complainant continued to struggle against his arrest, refusing to release his arms to be handcuffed, and was subjected to several knee strikes; the first by WO #2, the second two by the SO. As it appears that these blows were methodically struck, one following the other only when it was evident that the Complainant’s fight had not abated, I am unable to conclude that the force used by the officers and, in particular, the knee strikes by the SO that probably caused the Complainant’s injuries, was other than commensurate and proportional to the situation at hand.

In the result, as I am satisfied for the foregoing reasons that the SO and WO #2 comported themselves lawfully throughout the course of the Complainant’s arrest, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case and the file is closed.


Date: April 19, 2021

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit