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 37-year-old man (the “Complainant”) sustained.

Notification of the SIU

On September 29, 2021, at 9:14 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of the following.

On September 29, 2021, at 7:45 p.m., the OPP had been called to a family dispute at a residence in Adjala-Tosorontio Township. The Complainant was in the driveway of the residence intoxicated. When police officers went to arrest him for a breach of peace, he pulled away, fell, and broke his ankle.

The Complainant had been taken by an ambulance to the Stevenson Memorial Hospital for treatment.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 09/29/2021 at 9:56 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 09/29/2021 at 10:29 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

The Scene

The scene was the driveway of a residential property in Adjala-Tosorontio Township.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

Police Communication Recordings

The police communications recordings were requested on October 21, 2021, and received by the SIU on October 25, 2021. The following is a summary of the pertinent communications.

911

On September 29, 2021, at 7:40:43 p.m., CW #1 called 911 and reported that the Complainant was trying to drive while drunk. He was agitated and trying to leave, and they needed help stopping him. CW #1 had no idea how much alcohol the Complainant had consumed. CW #2 was trying to calm him down. CW #1 and other family members were at the residence.

Police Radio

Beginning at 7:43:24 p.m., a communication centre dispatcher advised all Nottawasaga units of the possibility that an intoxicated Complainant might be driving away from a residence. People were trying to stop him.

The remainder of the radio communications recordings were not time stamped, but WO #2 said he would head south and patrol from, “Nottawa.” The dispatcher told him he might have to attend the address as CW #2 was speaking with the Complainant, and the situation they were in had been escalating for days. WO #2 told the dispatcher he would see to the detail. The SO told the dispatcher to put him on that call as well and asked if there were any “flags” on the Complainant. The dispatcher broadcasted that the Complainant was a 37-year-old man, violent, and not currently wanted by police.

The SO next broadcasted he was on scene, provided a licence plate number, and said, “The male is out with a female, in front.” His next broadcast was a request for an ambulance, indicating there was a broken ankle. That request was acknowledged but the SO still asked if the dispatcher understood. He clarified the Complainant had a broken left ankle and asked that WO #1 be notified. The dispatcher asked if WO #1 “copied”, and WO #1 answered in the affirmative and asked he be put on the call.

The communications recordings captured WO #2 broadcasting he had arrived to the call, the SO’s broadcasting an ambulance had arrived, and WO #1’s broadcast that he had arrived.

WO #2 next broadcasted that everything was in order, the Complainant was being moved to a stretcher, the injury had been accidental, and WO #1 was there. He then broadcasted he was clearing from the scene to follow the ambulance to the hospital.

The recording captured WO #2’s broadcast that he had arrived at the hospital and the SO’s broadcast of the same. The SO then broadcasted he was leaving the hospital for the detachment before WO #1 broadcasted he was heading to the hospital from the scene.

At 10:27:52 p.m., just before the communications recording concluded, WO #1 broadcasted the instruction that WO #2 release the Complainant unconditionally and leave the hospital.

Police Telephone Conversation Recordings

There were no time stamps on the following telephone conversation recordings.

The first conversation was between two men, one of whom advised the provincial operations centre (POC) that a struggle had ensued when the Complainant tried to jump into a vehicle while impaired. A police officer tried to arrest the Complainant for a breach of the peace, and it was believed the Complainant’s ankle was broken. The caller said more information would be forthcoming when he checked with WO #1, who was on scene.

The next conversation recorded was to WO #1 from the same person who made the POC notification asking for clarification on the matter. WO #1 told the caller he had not arrived at the call and was unsure what had happened.

WO #1 was then recorded when he telephoned the provincial communications centre (OPP Provincial Communications Centre) and was transferred to the man involved in the previous two telephone conversations. WO #1 explained the call specifics and noted that when police officers arrived on scene, the Complainant confronted them and told them, several times, to, “Fuck off,” and leave. The SO grabbed one of the Complainant’s arms and, when he tried to spin him around to handcuff him for a breach of peace, the Complainant fell to the ground and his ankle was definitely broken. The Complainant was going to the hospital for treatment and someone from the POC would be calling WO #1, likely, the SIU liaison officer.

A third conversation was to an inspector from a man who identified himself by first name only. He explained the matter to the inspector, and reiterated that when being arrested for a breach of the peace, after a 911 call to stop him from driving drunk, the Complainant was being turned around to facilitate handcuffing, and fell, breaking his ankle. He further explained WO #1 was holding the scene and awaiting the inspector’s directions with respect to SIU notifications.

Telephone Call by the SO to OPP Provincial Communications Centre

During a telephone call to the OPP Provincial Communications Centre, the SO said the break to the Complainant’s ankle happened while he was being arrested to prevent a breach of the peace. The SO said the Complainant had rushed him, and was being vulgar and aggressive towards him and his own parents. The arrest was effected to prevent the Complainant from fighting with his family members. When he was told he was under arrest to prevent a breach of peace, he twisted his left ankle.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials and documents from the OPP between October 21, 2021 and November 26, 2021:

• General Report;
• Communication Recordings;
• Notes – the SO;
• Notes – WO #1;
• Notes – WO #2;
• Policy – Arrest and Detention; and
• Policy – Use of Force.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU received the following records from other sources on October 29, 2021:

• Medical Records – the Complainant.

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the Complainant, the subject official – the SO, and two civilians who witnessed the incident in parts.

In the evening of September 29, 2021, the OPP received a call from a residence in Adjala-Tosorontio Township. The caller – the Complainant’s mother-in-law – was seeking the assistance of the police to prevent an inebriated Complainant from leaving the property in his vehicle. Officers were dispatched to the address.

At about 8:10 p.m., the SO was the first officer to arrive at the scene. The Complainant was in his garage with his mother at the time. They had been arguing. The officer approached the Complainant, who rose to meet him in the driveway in front of the garage, and explained that he was there following a call to police expressing concern that he was thinking about driving under the influence. The Complainant told the SO he never intended to drive and swore at the officer, demanding that he get off his property. Realizing that his mother had been involved in the call to police, the Complainant became angry with her as well and told her to leave the property too.

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,

On September 29, 2021, the Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by an OPP officer in Adjala-Tosorontio Township. The arresting officer – the SO – was identified as the subject official for purposes of the ensuing SIU investigation. The investigation is 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 evidence establishes that the Complainant reacted with hostility at the SO’s presence. His anger spread to his mother when he realized she was implicated in the call to police expressing concern that he was about to drive while impaired. In the circumstances, when an intoxicated Complainant approached the officer to within an arm’s length, adopted an aggressive posture and clenched his right fist, the officer had cause to believe that he was about to be attacked. That being the case, I am satisfied that the SO had lawful grounds to arrest the Complainant for a breach of the peace.

The evidence indicates that the SO used little if any force to take hold of the Complainant and turn him around to be handcuffed when the Complainant suddenly fell. I am left to conclude that the Complainant, perhaps given his state of impairment at the time, lost his footing on the gravel and dirt driveway as he was being turned, fracturing his left ankle as he fell. On this record, there is no suggestion of any unnecessary force having been brought to bear by the SO.

For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that the SO comported himself lawfully throughout his engagement with the Complainant. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case, and the file is closed.


Date: January 27, 2022

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit