SIU Director’s Report - Case # 21-OCI-380
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.
- 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 a serious injury sustained by a 26-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).
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 sustained by a 26-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On November 6, 2021, at 11:37 a.m., the Barrie Police Service (BPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.On November 6, 2021, police officers [now known to be the Subject Official (SO) and Witness Official (WO)] had responded to an address on Georgian Drive in relation to a fight involving three men. They left after it was established the fight was unsubstantiated. Police officers later re-attended an address on Georgian Drive. During the investigation, as they began a search of the residence, a woman [now known to be the Complainant] jumped out of the window. Her boyfriend, who had been hiding, was located. Both had court-ordered conditions to not communicate with one another.
The Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured pelvis and taken to St. Michael’s Hospital.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 11/08/2021 at 11:34 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 11/08/2021 at 12:51 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
26-year-old female interviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on November 19, 2021.
Civilian Witnesses
CW Interviewed The civilian witness was interviewed on November 10, 2021.
Subject Officials
SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed The subject official was interviewed on December 1, 2021.
Witness Officials
WO Interviewed The witness official was interviewed on November 23, 2021.
Evidence
The Scene
The Complainant jumped from a window of a building on Georgian Drive, and injured herself seriously upon impact with the ground. Police officers described the Complainant on the ground, face down, with broken limbs and bleeding profusely from her face.Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]
The SIU searched for and obtained audio, video and/or photographic records of relevance, as set out below.
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage from the SO and WO
The footage was requested verbally on November 6, 2021, and received on November 16, 2021. The following is a summary of the footage.The SO verbally announced the presence of the police at 9:54:29 a.m., and again at 9:54:41 a.m. He then knocked loudly on the door at 9:54:45 a.m. The SO opened the door with a key fob at 9:54:51 a.m.
Neither camera captured the Complainant jump out of her window because of the angle of the cameras at the time the SO accessed the door to the Complainant’s unit.
The SO and the WO exited the building and made their way to the exterior walkway below the window, where they found the Complainant laying on the ground injured and bleeding.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the BPS:- BPS Email with Subject Official’s Schedule;
- Event Details Report;
- Communications recordings;
- General report and witness information;
- Notes of the SO and WO;
- BWC footage;
- Officer Witness list;
- Procedure - Arrest; and
- Procedure - Mental Illness, Emotionally Disturbed and Developmental Disability.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, and may be briefly summarized.
In the morning of November 6, 2021, the SO and WO were dispatched to a housing complex on Georgian Drive, Barrie, following reports of a domestic disturbance. The officers met with the property manager in the parking lot east of the building at an address on Georgian Drive. The property manager confirmed reports of the disturbance and indicated that the Complainant was one of the involved parties.
The officers travelled with the property manager to the front of the building to access a unit. They were going to check on the Complainant’s well-being before proceeding further with the investigation. The property manager let the officers into the unit – a common area consisting of a kitchen / living room area - and then also provided them a key fob to access the Complainant’s room. The officers announced their presence and searched for the Complainant. Arriving on the Complainant’s floor, they opened the Complainant’s room.
The Complainant, hearing the officers at the door, cut through the screen of a bedroom window, and jumped out just as the door was opening. The time was about 9:54 a.m.
The SO had caught a glimpse of a person jumping from the window as he opened the door. He rushed outside to the area where the Complainant had landed and found her crumpled on the ground, bleeding from the face, badly injured and crying in pain. Paramedics, who had also arrived in response to the disturbance call and were waiting in the parking lot, attended to care for the Complainant.
The Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with multiple injuries, including a brain bleed and fractures of her pelvis and femur.
In the morning of November 6, 2021, the SO and WO were dispatched to a housing complex on Georgian Drive, Barrie, following reports of a domestic disturbance. The officers met with the property manager in the parking lot east of the building at an address on Georgian Drive. The property manager confirmed reports of the disturbance and indicated that the Complainant was one of the involved parties.
The officers travelled with the property manager to the front of the building to access a unit. They were going to check on the Complainant’s well-being before proceeding further with the investigation. The property manager let the officers into the unit – a common area consisting of a kitchen / living room area - and then also provided them a key fob to access the Complainant’s room. The officers announced their presence and searched for the Complainant. Arriving on the Complainant’s floor, they opened the Complainant’s room.
The Complainant, hearing the officers at the door, cut through the screen of a bedroom window, and jumped out just as the door was opening. The time was about 9:54 a.m.
The SO had caught a glimpse of a person jumping from the window as he opened the door. He rushed outside to the area where the Complainant had landed and found her crumpled on the ground, bleeding from the face, badly injured and crying in pain. Paramedics, who had also arrived in response to the disturbance call and were waiting in the parking lot, attended to care for the Complainant.
The Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with multiple injuries, including a brain bleed and fractures of her pelvis and femur.
Relevant Legislation
Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code -- Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm
219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Analysis and Director's Decision
The Complainant suffered serious injuries when she fell from the bedroom window of a building on November 6, 2021. As police officers were in the vicinity looking for the Complainant at the time of her fall, the SIU was contacted and initiated an investigation. One of the officers – the SO – was identified as a subject official. 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 fall and injuries.
The only offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. Simple negligence is not enough to give rise to liability. Rather, what is required, in part, is conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial 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 was any want of care in the manner in which the SO conducted himself, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that contributed to the Complainant’s fall and resulting injuries. In my view, there was not.
The officer was lawfully placed throughout the series of events leading to his entry into the Complainant’s room. He had been called to the scene based on information suggesting a violent disturbance and possible injuries, information which was confirmed for him personally by the building’s property manager upon his arrival. As he approached the unit in which he had reason to believe the Complainant was an occupant, and then found his way to her bedroom, the SO observed broken furniture, other manner of debris, and, most disconcertingly, bloodstains. The officers had announced their presence and received no response. On this record, the officers, including the SO, were duty bound, and authorized on the basis of exigent circumstances, to enter into the unit and the Complainant’s bedroom to check on her well-being.
Moreover, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the SO failed to comport himself with due care and regard for public safety. He had no particular reason to believe that the Complainant, for example, was prepared to jump from a window to evade the police. To reiterate, the officers had properly announced their presence and there is no indication of any imprudent conduct that might have acted to precipitate the Complainant’s ill-fated decision to jump through the window. Finally, the SO acted quickly to secure medical attention for the Complainant after her fall.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law throughout the events that culminated in the Complainant’s fall and injuries, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. Accordingly, the file is closed.
Date: March 2, 2022
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
The only offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. Simple negligence is not enough to give rise to liability. Rather, what is required, in part, is conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial 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 was any want of care in the manner in which the SO conducted himself, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that contributed to the Complainant’s fall and resulting injuries. In my view, there was not.
The officer was lawfully placed throughout the series of events leading to his entry into the Complainant’s room. He had been called to the scene based on information suggesting a violent disturbance and possible injuries, information which was confirmed for him personally by the building’s property manager upon his arrival. As he approached the unit in which he had reason to believe the Complainant was an occupant, and then found his way to her bedroom, the SO observed broken furniture, other manner of debris, and, most disconcertingly, bloodstains. The officers had announced their presence and received no response. On this record, the officers, including the SO, were duty bound, and authorized on the basis of exigent circumstances, to enter into the unit and the Complainant’s bedroom to check on her well-being.
Moreover, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the SO failed to comport himself with due care and regard for public safety. He had no particular reason to believe that the Complainant, for example, was prepared to jump from a window to evade the police. To reiterate, the officers had properly announced their presence and there is no indication of any imprudent conduct that might have acted to precipitate the Complainant’s ill-fated decision to jump through the window. Finally, the SO acted quickly to secure medical attention for the Complainant after her fall.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law throughout the events that culminated in the Complainant’s fall and injuries, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. Accordingly, the file is closed.
Date: March 2, 2022
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.