Director's Report Details

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.

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: 

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 35-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.

Notification of the SIU

On August 6, 2021, the Sarnia Police Service (SPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

SPS reported that on August 5, 2021, at approximately 11:13 p.m., SPS police officers observed a wanted person, the Complainant, on a bicycle in the area of Talfourd Road and Elsfield Crescent in Sarnia. When they attempted to arrest the Complainant, he fled on his bicycle. The police officers caught the Complainant and he was grounded during the arrest.

The Complainant complained of pain to his right arm and was taken to Bluewater Health Centre (BHC). Doctors discovered two small fractures but advised he would not require surgery.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 08/06/2021 at 11:13 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 08/06/2021 at 12:05 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

35-year-old male interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on August 6, 2021.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on August 6, 2021.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between August 13, 2021 and September 1, 2021.

The Scene

The Complainant was arrested on Elsfield Crescent, a residential street.


Figure 1 – Google Maps screenshot of scene

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

SPS Radio Communications

WO #1 broadcast that he was out with the Complainant. The dispatcher called WO #1 asking for a direction. He responded he was going towards the Shoppers Drug Mart on Indian Road. Dispatch asked for another officer to head to that location. WO #1 broadcast that the Complainant was on Elsfield heading towards Wellington. An officer advised she was in the area and asked for an update. WO #1 responded that the Complainant was in handcuffs. The dispatcher noted the time was 11:15 p.m.

Police Booking Video

The video captured the booking area and began at 11:48:21 p.m., on August 5, 2021. The footage had no audio.

At 11:49:36 p.m., WO #1 and the SO arrived in the booking hall with the Complainant. WO #2 could be seen behind a counter. The Complainant was handcuffed with his arms behind his back. His personal items were placed on the counter by WO #1 while the Complainant remained standing on an “X” marked on the floor.

The Complainant crouched down on the floor and was rubbing his right wrist. He stood up, was searched by the SO, and his belt was removed and placed on the counter. The SO removed the handcuffs from his wrists and the Complainant then removed the string inside his hoodie as well as his footwear, giving them to the SO. The Complainant rolled up the right sleeve of his hoodie showing a red and swollen elbow. The SO and WO #1 observed this action. The Complainant appeared to be speaking to them.

The SO motioned to the Complainant pointing at his neck, at which time the Complainant removed necklaces and his face covering. He gave the items to the SO, who placed them on the counter. The Complainant raised his right elbow, which was visibly swollen, and had a discussion with the SO as WO #1 looked on. The Complainant appeared to speak to WO #2 while showing his right elbow. WO #2 went from behind the counter to inspect the Complainant’s elbow. He gave the Complainant a roll of paper towel. He ripped off a piece and gave it to the Complainant, and then returned behind the counter.

The Complainant was directed by the SO to walk into a room directly adjacent to the counter. The Complainant could be seen with what appeared to be a black telephone. The SO opened the door and the Complainant exited. He was then escorted by the SO and WO #1 off screen to the right.

WO #1 and the SO returned to the booking area. WO #2 and WO #1 were standing at the counter. The SO and WO #1 appeared to engage in a verbal conversation. WO #1 was writing notes in a notebook at the counter while WO #2 was working on an adjacent computer. The SO walked back and forth between the counter and the front door to the room in which the Complainant could be seen through a small glass window in the door. While speaking to WO #1, the SO made a pushing motion with both arms in front of him, and then mimicked running. [2] The SO then made two consecutive swinging motions with his right arm consistent with the movement mimicking a baton strike.

The SO and WO #1 continued their discussion until 12:21:19 a.m., at which time the SO opened the door to the side room to allow the Complainant to exit.

The Complainant was then escorted by the SO and WO #1 off screen to the right.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials and documents from SPS between August 17, 2021 and September 9, 2021:

• Training Records – the SO;
• Notes – WO #1;
• Booking Video;
• Communication Recordings;
• Will State – WO #1;
• Use of Force Report;
• Custody Logs;
• Executed Arrest Warrant;
• Policy – Arrest, Detention, Transportation, Searching and Care of Prisoners; and
• Policy – Use of Force.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the following other sources:

• Closed-circuit television footage from a residence on Elsfield Crescent; and
• Medical Report from BHC.

The following scenario emerges on the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the Complainant, an officer who participated in his arrest – WO #1, and an independent civilian eyewitness. The investigation was also assisted by security camera footage that captured the incident in parts. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of August 5, 2021, the SO and WO #1 were on patrol in a marked police SUV when they came across the Complainant and one of his associates. The pair were on bicycles behind the Shoppers Drug Mart located at the southeast corner of Indian Road South and Talfourd Street. As the Complainant did not appear have a light on his bicycle, the officers approached him to investigate a possible Highway Traffic Act infraction. They were also aware that the Complainant was wanted on an outstanding arrest warrant.

Advised that he was under arrest by WO #1, who had exited the front passenger side of the cruiser by then, the Complainant accelerated away northward on his bicycle. The SO, the driver of the police vehicle, pursued the Complainant east on Talfourd Road and then north on Elsfield Crecent. WO #1 took the Complainant’s associate’s bicycle and gave chase as well.

The Complainant cycled as far north as 312 Elsfield Crescent where he was cut off by the SO’s cruiser, after which he maneuvered around the vehicle and cycled south. The SO exited the cruiser and ran after the Complainant, drawing his baton and extending it in the process. In the area of 306 Elsfield Crescent, the SO swung his baton in the direction of the Complainant’s right side, striking the Complainant in the right elbow. At about the same time, WO #1 had dismounted his bicycle and propelled it in the direction of the Complainant’s bicycle, striking it in the rear.

The Complainant fell from his bicycle and was quickly engaged by WO #1 and the SO. He struggled against the officers’ efforts to take him into custody, but was quickly apprehended and taken into custody.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was lodged in police cells and subsequently taken to hospital where he 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,

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by SPS officers on August 5, 2021. One of the arresting officers – the SO – was identified as a subject official for purposes of the subsequent 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 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 are required or authorized to do by law. In the instant case, there was a warrant out for the Complainant’s arrest on serious charges, including break and enter and assault with a weapon. Consequently, the officers were within their rights in seeking to arrest the Complainant.

I am also satisfied that the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing that the Complainant was subjected to excessive force at the hands of the SO. With respect to the baton strikes, one or both of which made contact with the Complainant, the tactic would seem to have been a rational and proportionate use of force. The Complainant was pedaling as fast as he could away from the SO at the time and might well have made good his escape if the SO had not intervened in the fashion he did. In the circumstances, while it is regrettable that the Complainant suffered a fractured arm in the process, I am unable to reasonably conclude that some lesser use of force would have been more proportionate and less apt to cause injury.

With respect to the force used against the Complainant on the ground, I am also unable to reasonably conclude that it fell afoul of the remit of justifiable force. While the evidence indicates that there was a physical struggle on the ground, the nature and extent of the force used by the officers, aside from a punch delivered to the Complainant’s torso by WO #1, remains unclear. As for the single punch struck by WO #1, I am not satisfied it was excessive in light of the evidence that the Complainant was resisting arrest at the time.

For the foregoing reasons, there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the SO comported himself unlawfully in his dealings with the Complainant. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case, and the file is closed.


Date: November 22, 2021

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit