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 serious injuries sustained by a 35-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On August 1, 2021, at 9:20 a.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

The YRP advised that on July 31, 2021, at 11:07 p.m., YRP received a call to attend a residence on Ravenshoe Road in Keswick. YRP police officers met with Civilian Witness (CW) #1. As a result of information received, the police officers formed grounds to arrest the Complainant.

The Complainant had gone into the basement and barricaded himself in a room. Police officers kicked the room door open. The Complainant then demanded the police officers shoot him. A Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) was pointed at the Complainant but it was not deployed. A physical fight ensued, and the Complainant was taken to the ground and handcuffed.

While walking the Complainant up the basement stairs, he struggled with the police officers. The Complainant and the police officers fell to the ground.

The Complainant was placed in a cruiser and taken to South Lake Regional Health Care Centre (SLRHCC) for examination. At 5:30 a.m., hospital staff advised police officers at the hospital that the Complainant had two hairline fractures to his ribs on his left side.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 08/01/2021 at 9:40 a.m.

Date and time SIU responded: 08/01/2021 at 9:45 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on August 4, 2021.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on August 3, 2021 and August 9, 2021.

Subject Officials

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
SO #3 Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right.

SO #3 was interviewed on August 12, 2021.



Witness Officials

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

The witness officials were interviewed on August 6, 2021.

The Scene

The scene was in a room in the basement of a single family residence situated at an address on Ravenshoe Road in Keswick. CW #1 was the owner of the residence.

SIU forensic investigative services did not attend the scene and, therefore, no diagram was produced.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

911 Call

On July 31, 2021, a woman called 911. The audio recording of the call was not time stamped. The call lasted six minutes and 40 seconds in its entirety.

The woman requested that police attend an address in Keswick for an assault in progress. She stated three people were fighting. She told the call-taker that the Complainant was pushing CW #1 around. No one was injured and an ambulance was not requested. No weapons were involved, and everyone had been drinking. The woman stated the Complainant had mental health issues, and was possibly bi-polar and not on medication. She told the dispatcher the Complainant could be aggressive towards police. The Complainant and CW #1 were inside the house. The woman advised the situation had calmed down somewhat.

Communications Recordings

The recordings were made on July 31, 2021 and on August 1, 2021. The recordings were not time stamped and showed the following:

At 0:00 minutes, police units were dispatched to an address on Ravenshoe Road in Keswick for an assault in progress.

At 15 seconds, WO #3 advised he was closer and asked to be marked on the call.

At 20 seconds, the dispatcher acknowledged WO #3. The dispatcher broadcast that the police had previously been to the address for numerous domestic incidents involving unwanted parties, injured parties, as well as assault and Mental Health Act apprehensions. There were no injuries and no weapons involved. There was a ‘flag’ on the address indicating that extreme caution should be used when attending the address. It was noted that the Complainant was involved and he hated the police.

At 59 seconds, WO #1 advised she could clear and go to that call if necessary.

At one minute and seven seconds, WO #3 asked if the fight was happening inside the house or outside. The dispatcher advised the fight appeared to be occurring between a mother, a son, and a cousin. An ambulance was being refused, and they were waiting on information as to where the fight was. There were approximately six people on scene, everyone was impaired, the Complainant had mental health issues and was possibly bi-polar with no medications, there were no small children, and a dog on scene would be put away.

At one minute and 42 seconds, the dispatcher advised there were no ‘FACs’ (Firearms Acquisition Certificate) associated with the address, and that everyone was aware police were attending. The Complainant had a positive CNI (Criminal Name Index) for violence, break and enter, theft, drugs, fraud, and other Criminal Code offences. Caution was advised. It was noted that the Complainant was an oxycodone user and subject to 37 charges, most recently - failure to appear in court.

At two minutes and 27 seconds, SO #1 reported he was on scene and police officers were doing okay for the moment.

At two minutes and 32 seconds, SO #1 asked the dispatcher to query a man’s name.

At six minutes and 51 seconds, WO #3 asked to have the Emergency Response Unit (ERU) start making their way to the address, advising that the Complainant was arrestable and had locked himself in the bedroom.

At seven minutes and four seconds, ERU stated they were on the call.

At seven minutes and ten seconds, WO #3 stated they had an arrestable man (the Complainant) for assault, and that he had barricaded himself in the bedroom and locked the door.

At seven minutes and 20 seconds, ERU asked over the air if the Complainant was armed. WO #3 advised that police at scene did not know if the Complainant was armed. ERU advised they were on their way.

At seven minutes and 47 seconds, SO #1 reported they had the Complainant in custody. The dispatcher confirmed the Complainant was in custody and asked if ERU was still needed. SO #1 advised the dispatcher that they were “good”.

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Video

The ICCS recordings were taken on July 31, 2021 and August 1, 2021.
ICCS Video - SO #2’s cruiser
Nothing of evidentiary value was gleaned from the video.

ICCS Video – WO #3’s cruiser
Nothing of evidentiary value was gleaned from the video.

ICCS Video – SO #3’s cruiser
The video began on July 31, 2021, at 11:09 p.m. SO #3’s cruiser was stopped at a stop sign heading to the call. At 11:15 p.m., SO #3’s cruiser arrived on scene. The video stopped at 12:02 a.m. on August 1, 2021. At 12:13 a.m., the view was through the front windshield of the cruiser. The Complainant could be heard in the backseat of the cruiser asking for shoes and a shirt, and complaining about his arrest. At 12:20 a.m., SO #3’s cruiser left the residence.

The cruiser arrived at the police station at 12:29 a.m. and drove into bay D3.

At 3:08 a.m., SO #3’s cruiser was parked in bay D3 of the police station. The Complainant was in the backseat of the cruiser. At 3:10 a.m., SO #3’s cruiser left bay D3 and drove for the hospital. At 3:20 a.m. SO #3 drove through a McDonald’s drive-thru to get food for the Complainant.

At 3:42 a.m., SO #3’s cruiser arrived at SLRHCC.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

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

• Detailed Call Summary;
• 911 Call;
• Communications Recordings;
• ICCS Footage;
• General Occurrence Hardcopy;
• Injured On-duty Report – SO #3;
• Background information for the Complainant;
• Notes of WOs;
• Procedure - Use of Force;
• Procedure - Persons in Crisis; and
• YRP Chronology.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

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

• Medical Records - SLRHCC

The following scenario emerges from the weight of the reliable evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the Complainant, several witnesses who witnessed the events in question in parts, and four officers who were present at the time of the Complainant’s arrest, including SO #3. As was their legal right, neither SO #1 nor SO #2 chose to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of their notes.

On July 31, 2021, shortly after 11:00 p.m., the police received a 911 call from a person at an address in Keswick reporting a domestic disturbance. According to the caller, a number of males at the address had been fighting, as had one of the males – the Complainant – with his mother – CW #1. Police were dispatched to the address.

Officers began to arrive at the address at about 11:15 p.m. CW #1 – the homeowner – told the officers that her son had grabbed and thrown her. She did not want the Complainant arrested, but was adamant that he be removed from the residence and taken to jail. The officers decided there were grounds to arrest the Complainant for assault.

An intoxicated Complainant was inside his basement apartment at the address when officers attended at the apartment door to arrest him. The officers repeatedly knocked on the door and called out to the Complainant with no response. SO #1 kicked the door and was able to break it open on the third attempt.

SO #2 and SO #3 were the first to enter the apartment. They were confronted by the Complainant walking toward them. SO #3 swept the Complainant’s feet out from under him and took him to the floor. The Complainant landed front first in a prone position. He struggled with SO #2 and SO #3 as the officers, one on either side of his body, attempted to wrestle control of his arms. With the help of WO #1 and WO #3, the officers were able to secure the Complainant in handcuffs and lift him to his feet.

SO #2 and WO #3 escorted the Complainant up the stairs to the main level of the home. As they reached the top of the staircase, the Complainant extended a leg against a doorframe and pushed backwards. The officers reacted by pushing forward, resulting in the party of three falling to the floor inside a small sunroom next to the staircase. The Complainant was again assisted to his feet, after which he was taken outside and placed inside a police vehicle.

The Complainant was taken to the police station and, from there, to the hospital. He was diagnosed with a non-displaced fracture of the left ninth rib.

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 529 (1), Criminal Code -- Powers to enter dwelling-houses to carry out arrests

(a) a warrant referred to in this or any other Act of Parliament to arrest or apprehend the person is in force anywhere in Canada;

(b) grounds exist to arrest the person without warrant under paragraph 495(1)(a) or (b) or section 672.91; or

(c) grounds exist to arrest or apprehend without warrant the person under an Act of Parliament, other than this Act.

On August 1, 2021, the Complainant suffered a fractured rib in the course of his arrest in Keswick by YRP officers. Three of the officers involved in his arrest – SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3 – 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 any of the subject officials 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. I am satisfied that the officers had sufficient information to seek to take the Complainant into custody. By the time the officers arrived at his apartment door intending to arrest him, they had spoken to CW #1 and others about the assault he had reportedly perpetrated against his mother.

There is an issue regarding the forced entry into the Complainant’s basement apartment, but I am unable to reasonably conclude on the evidence that the officers comported themselves unlawfully in breaking down the door to effect the Complainant’s arrest. Ordinarily, and absent exigent circumstances or consent, police officers are not authorized to force entry into a dwelling-house without judicial pre-authorization: see R. v. Feeney, [1997] 2 SCR 13; section 529 and 529.1 of the Criminal Code. In the instant case, CW #1 implicitly consented to the police officers entering the basement apartment when she told the police that she wanted her son out of her home. Whether CW #1 had authority to consent to the entry of the basement apartment is a live issue. [2] I am satisfied, however, that section 25 is nevertheless available to the officers because they held an honest and reasonable belief that CW #1 had authority to consent to them entering the basement apartment. [3] The officers were clearly aware that CW #1 was the property owner which, in the normal course, would give rise to an expectation of privacy in the property sufficient to consent to the entry. Furthermore, there is no indication that the officers were aware that CW #1 was in a landlord / tenant relationship with her son. They were told she was his mother and surety but were not told he paid rent. Similarly, there is no indication that they appreciated that the room was an apartment before they breached the door.

As for the force used against the Complainant, namely, the two takedowns, I am satisfied it was legally justified. Once through the basement door, the officers told the Complainant to position himself on the floor. When the Complainant instead advanced on SO #2 and SO #3, the officers were entitled to resort to a measure of force to protect themselves and effect his arrest. A takedown, in the circumstances, would not appear a disproportionate tactic, particularly as the officers had cause to believe the Complainant could be violent given his earlier belligerence. Once on the ground, the Complainant refused to willingly surrender his arms to be handcuffed, but was quickly subdued by the officers’ greater manpower – no blows were struck. The second takedown, at the top of the stairs, was also justified. The Complainant had just attempted to push himself and his escorting officers down the stairs, and the officers were within their rights in moving immediately to place him in a position of disadvantage by forcing him to the floor.

It should be noted that there is some evidence that the Complainant never resisted his arrest, and had his hands up in a surrender position when the officers came through the basement door. However, it would be unwise and unsafe to place credence on this evidence because the source was significantly inebriated at the time, which may explain why they did not advert to the fall at the top of the stairs.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was incurred in one or the other of the two physical altercations with police that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the subject officials comported themselves unlawfully throughout their engagement. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case, and the file is closed.


Date: November 29, 2021


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit