SIU Director’s Report - Case # 21-PVI-209
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
Mandate of the SIU
The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.
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.
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.
Information Restrictions
Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019
Pursuant 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 Act
Pursuant 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, 2004
Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.Other proceedings, processes, and investigations
Information 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.Mandate Engaged
Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.
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 42-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.
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 42-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On July 5, 2021, at 5:35 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) West Region contacted the SIU to report the Complainant’s injury.The OPP advised that on July 5, 2021, at 11:18 a.m., the Norfolk OPP Detachment received a report of a stolen farm tractor. Shortly after 11:18 a.m., the OPP received a complaint that a tractor was being driven erratically inside Turkey Point Provincial Park. OPP police officers located the tractor mobile on Lakeshore Road. One police officer, who was stopped at the side of the road, activated her emergency lights and directed the driver to stop the tractor. The driver of the tractor drove off the road, into a farmer’s field. The driver of the tractor attempted to come back out of the field a distance up the road but ended up rolling the tractor. The driver of the tractor, later identified as the Complainant, got up and attempted to flee on foot, but was apprehended and arrested by police officers wearing Body-worn Cameras (BWCs).
The Complainant complained of a pre-existing sore wrist. Norfolk County Paramedic Services (NCPS) responded and transported the Complainant to the Tillsonburg District Memorial Hospital. He admitted to being on a six-day drug binge. Doctors located an “Air-Gap” in his chest, which they advised was common with heavy drug users. Doctors advised they were going to keep the Complainant for observation and re-evaluate him in the morning.
The Complainant was in no condition to be interviewed at the time as he was slipping in and out of responsiveness.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 07/05/2021 at 7:10 p.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 07/05/2021 at 8:45 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
42-year-old male, not interviewedThe Complainant declined to provide an interview or to consent to obtain his medical records.
Civilian Witness (CW)
CW InterviewedThe civilian witness was interviewed on July 8, 2021.
Subject Officials (SO)
SO #1 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right. Notes received and reviewed.
SO #2 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right. Notes received and reviewed.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed between July 13 and 27, 2021.
Evidence
The Scene
At 8:45 p.m., on July 5, 2021, an SIU Forensic Investigator arrived at the scene, which was located at the southwest corner of Norfolk County Road 23 and Lakeshore Road, Norfolk County. The OPP advised that police vehicles involved in the incident had been removed from the scene, and taken to OPP Norfolk County Detachment and secured pending examination. Lakeshore Road travelled east/west with Norfolk County Road 23 intersecting from the north at a T-intersection. Norfolk County Road 23 was controlled by a stop sign with Lakeshore Road having the right of way.
At the southwest corner of the intersection was a John Deere farm tractor. The tractor was orientated west in the south ditch of Lakeshore Road slightly west of the intersection. This vehicle had rolled over and was lying on its left side in the ditch. Tire marks on the roadway near the collision suggested that the tractor had travelled south on Norfolk County Road 23 and attempted a right turn onto Lakeshore Road to travel west.
The scene was photographed and mapped.
An SIU Forensic Investigator attended the OPP Norfolk Detachment, where three police vehicles were examined and photographed. There was no collision damage to any of these three vehicles that could be attributed to the incident.
Figure 1 – The tractor.
Scene Diagram
Forensic Evidence
Global Positioning System (GPS) Data for SO #1’s OPP Vehicle
The GPS data points from SO #1’s police vehicle were recorded about every two seconds. At 11:29 a.m., SO #1 turned left and travelled eastbound on Lakeshore Road, accelerating to about a maximum speed of 63 km/h in what appeared to be an 80 km/h zone. SO #1 then executed a U-turn and travelled westbound on Lakeshore Road.
At 11:30 a.m., SO #1 turned left into the driveway of 2004 Lakeshore Road, and then turned right into a field. She drove westbound in the field, south of a row of trees on the south side of Lakeshore Road, for about 100 metres at a maximum speed of about 35 km/h. SO #1 then executed a U-turn in the field and travelled eastbound back to the driveway at a maximum speed of about 40 km/h, after which she turned left onto Lakeshore Road to travel westbound. She accelerated to a maximum speed of about 105 km/h, and drove about 450 metres westbound on Lakeshore Road, through the intersection of Lakeshore Road and Gore Road.
At 11:32 a.m., SO #1 turned right and travelled northbound on Norfolk County Road 23.
At 11:46 a.m., SO #1 drove southbound on Norfolk County Road 23 at a maximum speed of about 55 km/h. Her police vehicle stopped and remained at the intersection of Norfolk County Road 23 and Lakeshore Road.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]
911 Call and Communications Recordings
At 11:01 a.m., the OPP received a 911 call from the CW regarding his observations of a tractor being driven erratically.At 11:05 a.m., WO #1 and SO #1 were dispatched, and the dispatcher provided updates as to the location of the tractor. SO #2 and WO #2 asked the dispatcher to put them on the call.
At 11:17 a.m., the CW called 911 and advised the tractor was being driven westbound towards Clear Creek.
At 11:26 a.m., SO #1 broadcast that the tractor was possibly stolen and, at 11:29 a.m., that she had a tractor coming down Lakeshore Road near 2004. Shortly afterwards, she said, “He’s not stopping.”
At 11:30 a.m., through a series of transmissions, police officers indicated the Complainant was westbound in a field near the bluffs and he was coming up to a choke point. The tractor was traveling at about 20 km/h to 30 km/h westbound on Lakeshore Road. The Complainant then drove northbound on Norfolk County Road 23, and headed east, off the road, on Norfolk County Road 23, near number 70 and 72. The Complainant drove the tractor in the general area of the east side of Norfolk County Road 23, west of Gore Road and north of Lakeshore Road. He was visible at times, and he drove in different directions.
At 11:46 a.m., WO #2 broadcast that the Complainant had been involved in a motor vehicle collision. The Complainant had rolled the tractor, and there were live wires down.
At 11:47 a.m., a police officer broadcast that the Complainant was in custody and requested an ambulance.
Houghton First Baptist Church – Video Footage
The church was located on the south side of Lakeshore Road at the T-intersection with Norfolk County Road 23. On July 5, 2021, the closed-circuit television (CCTV) system recorded activities involving members of the OPP and the Complainant. The activities occurred directly in front of the church between 11:40 a.m. and 12:23 p.m.At 11:43 a.m., an OPP marked sedan was southbound on Norfolk County Road 23 and made a U-turn approximately 500 metres north of Lakeshore Road and went back north.
At 11:44 a.m., an OPP marked Chevrolet Tahoe travelled west on Lakeshore Road and pulled into the parking lot out of sight of the camera.
At 11:45 a.m., a green John Deere tractor, operated by the Complainant, was observed southbound on Norfolk County Road 23, followed by a marked OPP sedan.
At 11:45:23 a.m., the tractor attempted to turn right to go west onto Lakeshore Road without stopping at the stop sign for the T-intersection. SO #2 and WO #2 ran in the direction the tractor was last observed.
At 11:45:45 a.m., an OPP sedan operated by SO #1 pulled up at the intersection, activated its emergency lights and blocked Lakeshore Road at Norfolk County Road 23.
At 11:56 a.m., the Complainant, with his hands handcuffed behind his back, walked from the centre of the intersection towards the front steps of the church escorted by the right arm by WO #2.
At 12:05 p.m., NCPS arrived on scene. After assessing the Complainant, he was loaded onto a stretcher and into the ambulance.
At 12:17 p.m., WO #1 entered the side door of the ambulance, and it departed the scene.
BWC Footage - WO #2
At 11:40 a.m., WO #2 and SO #2 were parked in the parking lot of Houghton First Baptist Church. At 11:41 a.m., WO #2 broadcast that the tractor was eastbound in the field parallel to Lakeshore Road. SO #2 drove a short distance eastbound on Lakeshore Road and the police officers agreed they had lost sight of the tractor in the field.
At 11:44 a.m., SO #1 broadcast the tractor was traveling westbound in the field back towards Norfolk County Road 23. SO #2 and WO #2 spotted the Complainant, westbound in the field.
At 11:45 a.m., SO #1 provided a description of the Complainant and she said he was “doing circles here beside me”. SO #2 drove back into the church parking lot and parked. SO #1 said the Complainant was heading back towards Lakeshore Road, and SO #2 told WO #2 to “get ready to bail” from the police vehicle. WO #2 said if the Complainant hit the police vehicle to, “let him”.
At 11:46 a.m., WO #2 walked to the concrete steps at the front of the church, where he saw the tractor traveling southbound on Norfolk County Road 23, towards the T-intersection. SO #1 followed, a few hundred metres back, in a fully marked police sedan vehicle, without its flashing emergency lights activated. The tractor turned right onto Lakeshore Road without slowing or stopping at the stop sign. The tractor started to roll over as it turned, and it crossed Lakeshore Road and entered the ditch on the southwest corner of the intersection
WO #2 ran with his ARWEN at the low ready position, and motioned and called out to SO #1 to stop and “watch the wires”. The tractor came to rest on the driver’s side facing west in the ditch. There was a broken wooden hydro pole on the south side of Lakeshore Road and wires lay across Lakeshore Road. SO #2 was slightly ahead of WO #2 and to WO #2’s left side, or south of him.
WO #2 advised the Complainant was coming out. WO #2 raised his ARWEN towards the tree line and yelled, “Raise your hands,” after which he stopped about ten metres from the tractor and asked SO #2 if SO #2 could see the Complainant. SO #2 said he could see him moving on the other side and, “Yup, he’s out, he’s out.” WO #2 moved to the south into the corn field, and SO #2 was a few metres ahead of him. The Complainant could be seen ahead of SO #2 as he moved south through the corn field away from the tractor. The Complainant was already in the taller corn stalks about 20 to 30 metres away from SO #2. WO #2 yelled at the Complainant to get down on the ground. WO #2 ran with the ARWEN lowered as it bounced up and down in front of the BWC camera.
At 11:47 a.m., WO #2 reached the location where SO #2 was kneeling over the Complainant. The Complainant was not seen taken to the ground on the camera. SO #2 and WO #2 handcuffed the Complainant with the handcuffs behind his back using WO #2’s handcuffs.
The Complainant complained about his right wrist and said it had previously been shattered. There was fresh blood on the right side of the Complainant’s forehead. The Complainant said he did not injure his wrist during the interaction, and that he had previously had surgery on his wrist.
The Complainant was searched by WO #2. WO #1 arrived and assisted with the search. The Complainant identified himself verbally.
BWC Footage - SO #2
SO #2 drove a police vehicle with WO #2 as his passenger. At 11:29 a.m., SO #2 responded to a radio call regarding a man [now known to be the Complainant] who was driving a tractor while impaired.
At 11:30 a.m., SO #2 and WO #2 arrived on Lakeshore Road, west of Highway 59, and east of Norfolk Country Road 23. SO #2 could see the Complainant traveling westbound in a field on the south side of Lakeshore Road; however, the tractor was not visible on the BWC. SO #2 and WO #2 talked between them of the challenge of stopping a tractor. SO #2 and WO #2 talked about the Complainant coming out of the field.
At 11:32 a.m., a man’s voice on the police radio said the Complainant was traveling at about 20 km/h to 30 km/h.
At 11:33 a.m., a voice on the police radio said the Complainant had turned the tractor northbound onto Norfolk County Road 23. SO #2 and WO #2 talked between themselves of getting “stuff ready in case it turns into anything”. SO #2 turned northbound onto Norfolk County Road 23 and pulled over, and another police vehicle pulled up alongside SO #2. SO #2 told the police officer who pulled up to give the Complainant some space. WO #2 retrieved the ARWEN from the rear of the police vehicle. SO #2 loaded the ARWEN and then handed it to WO #2.
At 11:39 a.m., SO #2 parked in the parking lot of Houghton First Baptist Church.
At 11:44 a.m., SO #1 broadcast that the tractor was traveling westbound in the field back towards Norfolk County Road 23. SO #1 described the Complainant and said he was “doing circles in front of me”.
At 11:46 a.m., SO #2 and WO #2 got out of the police vehicle and looked to the north up Norfolk County Road 23. They saw the tractor traveling southbound towards the intersection of Norfolk County Road 23 and Lakeshore Road West, and directly towards their police vehicle. SO #1 followed the tractor at a distance of a few hundred metres behind without her flashing emergency lights activated. SO #2 ran towards the concrete steps at the front of the church. The tractor reached the intersection and turned right onto Lakeshore Road without slowing or stopping at the stop sign.
The tractor started to rollover as it turned, and it crossed Lakeshore Road and entered the ditch on the southwest corner of the intersection. The tractor came to rest on the driver’s side facing west in the ditch. The tractor broke a wooden pole on the south side of Lakeshore Road and wires lay across Lakeshore Road.
SO #2 ran and stopped about ten metres away from the tractor. He raised his rifle and yelled, “Police. Don’t move. Show me your hands. Gun point arrest.” SO #2 moved to his left into the tree line and towards the corn field, and yelled, “Hey…Stop. Stop now.” The Complainant’s head could be seen as he moved south through the corn field away from the tractor. The Complainant was already in the taller corn stalks about 20 metres to 30 metres away from SO #2.
SO #2 yelled repeatedly at the Complainant to get down and to get on the ground. The Complainant stopped. SO #2 continued to run towards the Complainant with his rifle bouncing around and partially obstructing the BWC camera. The Complainant turned to face SO #2 and raised his left hand. The Complainant’s shoulders and head were visible above the corn. SO #2 ran into the front of the Complainant, and SO #2’s rifle contacted the Complainant’s left upper chest, armpit, and shoulder area. The Complainant fell to the ground on his back. SO #2 reached down and rolled the Complainant onto his right side and then his stomach. They were about 30 metres to 50 metres into the cornfield.
At 11:47 a.m., WO #2 arrived at the arrest scene about five seconds after the Complainant was grounded. SO #2 and WO #2 handcuffed the Complainant behind his back using WO #2’s handcuffs.
The Complainant complained about his right wrist and said it had previously been shattered. There was fresh blood on the right side of the Complainant’s forehead. An ambulance was requested, and the utility company was requested.
The Complainant denied having consumed any alcohol or drugs.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between July 6, 2021 and August 18, 2021:
• BWC Footage-WO #2 (x2 videos);
• BWC Footage-SO #2;
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
• WO #2 BWC Video - Audio Transcripts (x2);
• SO #2 BWC Video - Audio Transcript;
• Notes- SO #2;
• Event Details - Computer-assisted Dispatch Information;
• General Occurrence Report;
• GPS Data (x3 police vehicles);
• Notes-WO #2;
• Notes-WO #1;
• Notes-SO #1;
• Communications Recordings;
• Section 34 O. Reg. 268/10 Request; and
• Incident Summaries (x2).
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The following records were obtained from non-police sources between August 11 and 18, 2021:
• Ambulance Call Report-Norfolk EMS; and
• Houghton Baptist Church Surveillance Video.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question are clear thanks to a review of video footage captured by police BWCs and a security camera, as well as information derived from the police communications recordings and interviews with police officers who witnessed the incident in parts. As was their legal right, neither subject official chose to interview with the SIU. The officers did authorize the release of their notes.
At about 11:00 a.m. of July 5, 2021, the OPP received a 911 call from the CW. The CW was calling to report a farm tractor being operated recklessly westward on Lakeshore Road toward Clear Creek. Officers were dispatched to the area to investigate.
The Complainant was driving the tractor, which had reportedly been stolen. He was impaired by crystal methamphetamine at the time. Police cruisers caught up with the Complainant on Lakeshore Road west of Highway 59, and were led on a protracted slow-speed pursuit as the tractor swerved all over the roadway, entering and exiting adjacent fields.
SO #1 was operating one of the cruisers. At about 11:30 a.m., the officer encountered the tractor driving west toward her and stopped her cruiser, with its emergency lights activated, to block its path. The Complainant failed to stop or slow down as he neared SO #1’s position, prompting the officer to pull onto the south shoulder to avoid a collision. SO #1 drove through a field south of Lakeshore Road back onto the roadway and continued to follow the tractor, which was by then traveling west through a field south of Lakeshore Road. It eventually re-entered the roadway, forcing a third-party civilian vehicle to take evasive action.
With SO #1, and cruisers operated by SO #2 and WO #1, behind him, the Complainant turned to travel north on County Road 23 a short distance before he turned right again into a farmer’s field. He circled the field for a period and eventually re-emerged onto the roadway, traveling south. By this time, SO #2 had parked his cruiser in the parking lot of the Houghton First Baptist Church, located south of Lakeshore Road at its T-intersection with County Road 23. SO #1 was southbound behind the tractor.
The Complainant approached the intersection, disregarded the stop sign for County Road 23 traffic, and attempted a right hand turn onto Lakeshore Road. He lost control of the tractor and entered a ditch on the southwest corner of the intersection, the tractor rolling over and coming to rest on its left (driver’s) side.
SO #2, who had equipped himself with a C8 rifle and taken up a position outside his cruiser as the tractor traveled south toward him, ran to the Complainant, and ordered him to show his hands. The Complainant fled from the collision site southwest into a cornfield. SO #2 gave chase.
The Complainant’s flight on foot was short-lived. He turned to face the officer soon after taking off from the collision site and raised his left arm. SO #2 closed the distance and ran into the Complainant, his C8 rifle contacting the Complainant’s upper chest and shoulder area in the process. The impact sent the Complainant to the ground. Joined within seconds by his partner, WO #2, the officers handcuffed the Complainant without further incident. The time was about 11:45 a.m.
Following his arrest, the Complainant complained about his right wrist, noting that it had previously been injured. He was taken to hospital and diagnosed with an airgap (pneumomediastinum) in his chest.
At about 11:00 a.m. of July 5, 2021, the OPP received a 911 call from the CW. The CW was calling to report a farm tractor being operated recklessly westward on Lakeshore Road toward Clear Creek. Officers were dispatched to the area to investigate.
The Complainant was driving the tractor, which had reportedly been stolen. He was impaired by crystal methamphetamine at the time. Police cruisers caught up with the Complainant on Lakeshore Road west of Highway 59, and were led on a protracted slow-speed pursuit as the tractor swerved all over the roadway, entering and exiting adjacent fields.
SO #1 was operating one of the cruisers. At about 11:30 a.m., the officer encountered the tractor driving west toward her and stopped her cruiser, with its emergency lights activated, to block its path. The Complainant failed to stop or slow down as he neared SO #1’s position, prompting the officer to pull onto the south shoulder to avoid a collision. SO #1 drove through a field south of Lakeshore Road back onto the roadway and continued to follow the tractor, which was by then traveling west through a field south of Lakeshore Road. It eventually re-entered the roadway, forcing a third-party civilian vehicle to take evasive action.
With SO #1, and cruisers operated by SO #2 and WO #1, behind him, the Complainant turned to travel north on County Road 23 a short distance before he turned right again into a farmer’s field. He circled the field for a period and eventually re-emerged onto the roadway, traveling south. By this time, SO #2 had parked his cruiser in the parking lot of the Houghton First Baptist Church, located south of Lakeshore Road at its T-intersection with County Road 23. SO #1 was southbound behind the tractor.
The Complainant approached the intersection, disregarded the stop sign for County Road 23 traffic, and attempted a right hand turn onto Lakeshore Road. He lost control of the tractor and entered a ditch on the southwest corner of the intersection, the tractor rolling over and coming to rest on its left (driver’s) side.
SO #2, who had equipped himself with a C8 rifle and taken up a position outside his cruiser as the tractor traveled south toward him, ran to the Complainant, and ordered him to show his hands. The Complainant fled from the collision site southwest into a cornfield. SO #2 gave chase.
The Complainant’s flight on foot was short-lived. He turned to face the officer soon after taking off from the collision site and raised his left arm. SO #2 closed the distance and ran into the Complainant, his C8 rifle contacting the Complainant’s upper chest and shoulder area in the process. The impact sent the Complainant to the ground. Joined within seconds by his partner, WO #2, the officers handcuffed the Complainant without further incident. The time was about 11:45 a.m.
Following his arrest, the Complainant complained about his right wrist, noting that it had previously been injured. He was taken to hospital and diagnosed with an airgap (pneumomediastinum) in his chest.
Relevant Legislation
Section 25(1), Criminal Code -- Protection of persons acting under authority
25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
(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,
is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.
Section 320.13, Criminal Code – Dangerous operation causing bodily harm
320.13 (1) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public.
(2) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public and, as a result, causes bodily harm to another person.
Analysis and Director's Decision
On July 5, 2021, the Complainant was diagnosed with a serious injury following his arrest by OPP officers in Port Rowan, Norfolk County. Two of the officers involved in the Complainant’s arrest – SO #1 and SO #2 – were identified as subject officials for purposes of the SIU investigation. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s arrest and injury.
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 intoxicated, and had given every indication of being impaired as he recklessly operated a tractor along Lakeshore Road, and then north and south on County Road 23. He was clearly subject to lawful arrest.
With respect to the force used by SO #2, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was excessive or unnecessary. The officer had good reason to be concerned with his own personal welfare as he approached the Complainant in the corn field. The Complainant had spent the last 45 minutes operating a tractor on a public roadway with no regard for the safety of others. In the latter stages of his travels, the Complainant had driven at a police officer and a civilian vehicle, endangering the lives of those motorists. In the circumstances, confronted with a unpredictable and demonstrably dangerous individual in a cornfield with visibility severely compromised, I am unable to fault SO #2 for forcefully taking the Complainant to the ground at the first opportunity. In that position, the officer could better expect to manage any continuing threats that the Complainant might present. In arriving at this conclusion, I note that the Complainant had failed to place himself on the ground, as ordered by the officer, and had only raised one arm in SO #2’s direction. As for the fact that the officer used his C8 rifle to strike the Complainant, this was in a sense unavoidable given he was carrying the weapon and the speed with which events unfolded.
As for SO #1, though she did not use any force against the Complainant in the course of his arrest, the issue arises whether she observed a level of care within the limits prescribed by the criminal law in the course of her pursuit of the tractor. In this regard, the offence that arises for consideration is dangerous driving causing bodily harm contrary to section 320.13(2) of the Criminal Code. Liability under the provision is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the issue is whether there is evidence to suggest that the manner in which SO #1 operated her cruiser caused or contributed to the Complainant’s injury and/or was sufficiently egregious as to attract criminal sanction. In my view, there is not.
To reiterate, there were grounds to believe that the Complainant was committing a criminal offence as he travelled westward in the tractor. SO #1 was consequently within her rights in seeking to stop the Complainant.
Thereafter, there is nothing in the record to indicate that SO #1 constituted a danger on the roadway at any point. On the contrary, I am satisfied that her conduct inured to the benefit of public safety. Given the nature of the vehicle being operated by the Complainant, this was essentially a slow-speed pursuit in which the officer, while actively engaged with the tractor, travelled largely within 55 km/h. There is also no evidence to suggest that SO #1, again, largely because of the slow to moderate speeds, ever pushed the Complainant or denied him a reasonable opportunity to stop what he was doing. There is, however, evidence that the officer judiciously used her emergency lighting to warn passing third-party traffic in the area, particularly on County Road 23, of the presence of the tractor in the area.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that SO #2 and SO #1 used excessive force in arresting the Complainant or transgressed the limits of care as they followed him in the tractor, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: November 2, 2021
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
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 intoxicated, and had given every indication of being impaired as he recklessly operated a tractor along Lakeshore Road, and then north and south on County Road 23. He was clearly subject to lawful arrest.
With respect to the force used by SO #2, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was excessive or unnecessary. The officer had good reason to be concerned with his own personal welfare as he approached the Complainant in the corn field. The Complainant had spent the last 45 minutes operating a tractor on a public roadway with no regard for the safety of others. In the latter stages of his travels, the Complainant had driven at a police officer and a civilian vehicle, endangering the lives of those motorists. In the circumstances, confronted with a unpredictable and demonstrably dangerous individual in a cornfield with visibility severely compromised, I am unable to fault SO #2 for forcefully taking the Complainant to the ground at the first opportunity. In that position, the officer could better expect to manage any continuing threats that the Complainant might present. In arriving at this conclusion, I note that the Complainant had failed to place himself on the ground, as ordered by the officer, and had only raised one arm in SO #2’s direction. As for the fact that the officer used his C8 rifle to strike the Complainant, this was in a sense unavoidable given he was carrying the weapon and the speed with which events unfolded.
As for SO #1, though she did not use any force against the Complainant in the course of his arrest, the issue arises whether she observed a level of care within the limits prescribed by the criminal law in the course of her pursuit of the tractor. In this regard, the offence that arises for consideration is dangerous driving causing bodily harm contrary to section 320.13(2) of the Criminal Code. Liability under the provision is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the issue is whether there is evidence to suggest that the manner in which SO #1 operated her cruiser caused or contributed to the Complainant’s injury and/or was sufficiently egregious as to attract criminal sanction. In my view, there is not.
To reiterate, there were grounds to believe that the Complainant was committing a criminal offence as he travelled westward in the tractor. SO #1 was consequently within her rights in seeking to stop the Complainant.
Thereafter, there is nothing in the record to indicate that SO #1 constituted a danger on the roadway at any point. On the contrary, I am satisfied that her conduct inured to the benefit of public safety. Given the nature of the vehicle being operated by the Complainant, this was essentially a slow-speed pursuit in which the officer, while actively engaged with the tractor, travelled largely within 55 km/h. There is also no evidence to suggest that SO #1, again, largely because of the slow to moderate speeds, ever pushed the Complainant or denied him a reasonable opportunity to stop what he was doing. There is, however, evidence that the officer judiciously used her emergency lighting to warn passing third-party traffic in the area, particularly on County Road 23, of the presence of the tractor in the area.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that SO #2 and SO #1 used excessive force in arresting the Complainant or transgressed the limits of care as they followed him in the tractor, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: November 2, 2021
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 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]
Note:
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.