SIU Director’s Report - Case # 21-OCI-182
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Mandate of the SIU
Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.
Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:
- The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person.
- Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault.
- Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person.
- Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.
- Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.
- Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published.
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy ActPursuant to section14 (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 that 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 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:
- The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials;
- 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, 2004Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.
Other proceedings, processes, and investigationsInformation may also have 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.
A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.
In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.
This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injury a 59-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.
Notification of the SIUOn June 9, 2021, at 7:35 p.m., the Kingston Police (KP) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s injury.
KP advised that on June 7, 2021, at 11:57 p.m., the Complainant was reported to be in mental health distress. He was found by police near Princess Street and Alfred Street. The Complainant was told he would be transported to hospital. The Complainant refused to comply and was apprehended under the Mental Health Act (MHA). The Complainant was subsequently placed in a police cruiser and transported to Kingston General Hospital (KGH) where he was diagnosed with a spiral fracture to his right arm.
The TeamDate and time team dispatched: 06/11/2021 at 10:00 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 06/11/2021 at 10:14 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):59-year-old male interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on June 17, 2021.
Subject Officials (SO)SO #1 Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
SO #2 Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
The subject officials were interviewed on July 22, 2021.
Witness Officials (WO)WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on June 22, 2021.
The Scene The scene of the Complainant’s arrest took place at or near 522 Princess Street. This was the address of the Kingston/Frontenac Addiction and Mental Health Services (AMHS-K/F), a non-profit organization delivering community-based mental health, addiction, and housing services to individuals. The area was developed and consisted of commercial enterprises on both the north and south sides of Princess Street. The address was bound by Frontenac Street to the west and Alfred Street to the east.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence 
Closed-circuit Television (CCTV) Video from KGHThe video was taken on June 8, 2021. It began at 12:40:17 a.m. and ended 12:59:17 a.m. The camera faced the street and showed traffic driving past. The camera lens was fogged over. The video was of no evidentiary value to this case.
Police Communications RecordingsThe recordings were made on June 7, 2021 and June 8, 2021, and captured the following.
At 11:57:29 p.m., a person called 911 to report a man [now determined to be the Complainant] punching the windows at AMHS-K/F at the corner of Princess Street and Albert Street;
At 11:59:24 p.m., SO #1 was dispatched to the location;
At 11:59:30 p.m., SO #1 advised he was en route;
At 12:03:37 a.m., SO #1 advised he was on scene;
At 12:06:59 a.m., WO #2 was dispatched to the call;
At 12:08:44 a.m., WO #1 and SO #2 were dispatched to the call;
At 12:09:47 a.m., WO #2 arrived on scene;
At 12:11:38 a.m., SO #1 and WO #2 advised they had the Complainant in custody. The Complainant was apprehended under the MHA;
At 12:15:31 a.m., police on scene requested that an ambulance attend;
At 12:16:01 a.m., police on scene cancelled the ambulance;
At 12:16:59 a.m., WO #3 and WO #4 were dispatched to the location. They had a
cruiser with a full cage; and
At 12:22:31 a.m., the dispatcher notified KGH that the police were inbound with the Complainant.
Materials Obtained from Police ServiceUpon request, the SIU received the following materials and documents from KP between June 21, 2021 and July 2, 2021:
• Call for Service;The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:
• Occurrence Report;
• Communications Recordings;
• Notes-WO #4;
• Notes-WO #3;
• Notes-WO #1;
• Notes-WO #2;
• General Order - Arrest Procedures; and
• General Order - Police Response to Persons Who Are Emotionally Disturbed or Have a Mental Illness or Developmental Disability.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
• CCTV Footage - KGH Exterior;
• Photographs of the Complainant; and
• Medical Records-KGH.
At about 11:57 p.m. of June 7, 2021, the KP received a 911 call reporting a man – the Complainant – was punching the windows of the Addiction and Mental Health Services of Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington building at 522 Princess Street, Kingston.
SO #1 was dispatched to the scene and arrived at about 12:03 a.m. of June 8, 2021. He spoke to the Complainant and determined that he needed to be apprehended under the MHA for his own safety. Initially receptive to his apprehension, the Complainant objected when told by SO #1 that he would be taken to KGH. At SO #1’s request, additional officers were dispatched to assist with the Complainant.
SO #2, and WO #1 and WO #2, arrived on scene shortly before 12:10 a.m. They assisted in the Complainant’s arrest and managed to place him in the rear seat of SO #1’s cruiser despite a level of resistance by the Complainant. Believing it prudent to transport the Complainant in a cruiser with a full prisoner cage in the rear (his cruiser only had a half cage), SO #1 requested such a vehicle to the scene.
WO #3 and WO #4, operating a cruiser of the type requested, arrived on scene at about 12:20 a.m. The Complainant, who had been removed from SO #1’s cruiser, was escorted to WO #3 and WO #4’s cruiser, and placed in the rear.
The Complainant was taken from the scene to KGH, where he was eventually admitted for psychiatric examination. While in hospital, the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured right arm.
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,
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 required or authorized to do by law. The Complainant was evidently in mental distress around midnight of June 8, 2021. His conduct, moreover, was a demonstrable cause for concern. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that his arrest was authorized under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.
Thereafter, though it may well be that the Complainant broke his arm in the course of his interactions with one or more of the officers involved in his apprehension, there is insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that he was the victim of unjustified force. At its highest, the evidence indicates that the officers wrestled with the Complainant to overcome his resistance while placing him in the back seat of a cruiser so he could be taken to hospital.  There is no suggestion that the Complainant was unnecessarily manhandled in this process, nor that he was at the receiving end of strikes of any kind by the officers.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the subject officials comported themselves other than lawfully in their engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: October 7, 2021
Electronically approved by
Special Investigations Unit
- 1) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]
- 2) It should be noted that there was conflicting evidence as to whether the struggle between the parties occurred as the Complainant was being placed in the first cruiser, the second cruiser, or both. [Back to text]
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.