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 a serious injury to a 55-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On September 28, 2021, at 11:25 a.m., a Civilian Witness (CW) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant, his common-law partner. The Complainant resided at a rural address in Walkerton.

The CW advised that he had called the Walkerton Detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) on February 21 or 22, 2021, between 1:00 and 2:00 a.m., regarding the Complainant suffering a mental health episode at their residence. Three OPP police officers arrived and apprehended the Complainant after a struggle and grounding. The CW alleged that the Complainant’s arm was rotated 360 degrees out of the socket and required surgery to repair. He also mentioned that there were possible fractures. The Complainant had been taken to Hanover and District Hospital where X-rays and surgery were performed.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 09/28/2021 at 12:56 p.m.

Date and time SIU responded: 09/29/2021 at 6:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

55-year-old female interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on October 4, 2021.

Civilian Witnesses

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on December 3, 2021.

Subject Officials

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right. Notes received and reviewed.

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed

WO #1 was interviewed on October 27, 2021. WO #2 was initially designated a Subject Official. He was subsequently re-designated a Witness Official, and interviewed on January 20, 2022.

The Scene

On October 4, 2021, SIU investigators attended the scene at a rural address in Walkerton.

The home presented as it was on February 22, 2021.

The scene was a single-family home. The events in question had begun in the basement area and moved to the main floor kitchen area where the Complainant was eventually apprehended.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

OPP Communications Recordings Summary

On February 22, 2021, at approximately 2:21 a.m., a man called 911 and hung-up stating he did not mean to call.

At 2:22 a.m., OPP dispatch called the number back and spoke with the CW who advised that his wife, the Complainant, had a pocket full of pills and was suicidal.

At 2:37 a.m., the SO, WO #1 and WO #2 arrived at a rural address in Walkerton for a suicidal woman, the Complainant.

At 3:16 a.m., OPP dispatch requested Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for the Complainant, who was complaining of right arm pain.

At 3:49 a.m., the Complainant was transported by ambulance to hospital, in the company of EMS and the SO, arriving four minutes later.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the OPP Walkerton Satellite Office (South Bruce):

• Arrest and Custody Report;
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Record;
• Communications Recordings;
• Notes of the SO and WOs;
• Occurrence Report (Mental Health Act Occurrence)

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

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

• Medical Records of the Complainant.

The following scenario emerges from the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the Complainant, the CW (her common-law spouse) and two officers who participated in the Complainant’s arrest. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the early morning hours of February 22, 2021, the CW called 911 concerned about his spouse’s well-being. The CW feared that she – the Complainant – was suicidal, noting that she had a pocket full of pills. Police officers were dispatched to their address.

The SO, WO #1 and WO #2 arrived at the scene at about 2:40 a.m. With the CW’s assistance, the officers located the Complainant in a room in the basement. The Complainant and the officers spoke for 30 to 40 minutes. The officers noted that they were concerned for her well-being, and the Complainant openly acknowledged that she was having difficulty coping with challenges in her life, including the recent death of her mother. Asked whether she intended to harm herself, the Complainant explained that she did not want to live anymore. The Complainant refused to show the officers the pills in her possession, declined their offers of assistance, and eventually made her way to the main floor of the residence, indicating she wanted to be left alone by the officers.

The officers followed the Complainant into the kitchen. After a further brief period of dialogue, WO #1 advised the Complainant that she was being apprehended under the Mental Health Act and took hold of her left arm as the SO grabbed hold of her right arm. The Complainant objected to her apprehension and began to kick out toward the officers. The officers brought the Complainant to the floor in a prone position. WO #2 wrestled control of the Complainant’s right arm behind her back and secured it in a handcuff, at which point the Complainant yelled out in pain that her arm had been broken. The Complainant’s left hand was then secured in the same handcuffs behind her back.

Immediately after her arrest, the officers noticed that the Complainant’s right arm was deformed. Paramedics were called to the scene.

The Complainant was diagnosed and treated at hospital for a dislocated right elbow. The medical evidence indicated that her elbow, though improved, would not return completely to normal.

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,

The Complainant suffered a serious injury in the course of her arrest by OPP officers in Walkerton on February 22, 2021. One of the arresting officers – the SO – was identified as the subject official for purposes of the SIU investigation, which has now concluded. 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 were required or authorized to do by law.

The Complainant was not of sound mind and at risk of harming herself by a drug overdose when the officers responded to her residence. She was threatening to harm herself and refused, when asked, to show the officers the pills reportedly in her possession. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that officers had a lawful basis to apprehend the Complainant under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.

As for the force used by the officers, including the SO, in effecting the arrest, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was unlawful. The Complainant physically resisted her arrest, first, on her feet by kicking at the officers as they approached to take her into custody, and, second, by refusing to surrender her arms to be handcuffed when she was on the floor. In the circumstances, the officers were entitled to use a measure of force to subdue and control the Complainant. This included forcing her to the ground, which appears to have been a reasonable tactic given the Complainant’s resistance on her feet, and WO #2 wresting control of the Complainant’s right arm on the floor, without resort to strikes of any kind. While I accept that the Complainant’s dislocation occurred in the process of these actions, I am not reasonably persuaded that the force used by the officers was disproportionate to the task at hand.

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds on the aforementioned-record to believe that the SO comported himself other than lawfully in his engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: January 26, 2022


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit