SIU Director’s Report - Case # 21-OFI-400
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 for a 43-year-old man (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 for a 43-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On November 24, 2021, at 12:15 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU to advise that on November 23, 2021, at about 11:00 p.m., the Complainant had gone to the emergency department of the Trillium Health Partners (THP) Mississauga Hospital, located at 100 The Queensway. The Complainant told staff that he had a bomb and a flashing red light was seen on his ankle. PRP responded and the emergency department was evacuated. When the Complainant exited THP Mississauga Hospital for a cigarette, he was struck by multiple Anti-Riot Weapon ENfield (ARWEN) discharges from PRP tactical officers and by conducted energy weapon (CEW) discharges. The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 11/24/2021 at 1:32 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 11/24/2021 at 2:12 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
43-year-old male interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on November 26, 2021.
Subject Officials
SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right The subject official was interviewed on December 10, 2021.
Witness Officials
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on November 24, 2021.
Evidence
The Scene
On November 24, 2021, a SIU forensic investigator arrived at the scene at 2:12 a.m. The SIU forensic investigator photographed the scene and collected four ARWEN projectiles and cartridge cases, as well as probes from CEW discharges.
Forensic Evidence
The SIU forensic investigator checked the CEW discharges and determined both were discharged for ten seconds. Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]
Communications Recordings
On November 29, 2021, at 11:11 a.m., the SIU received a copy of the relevant PRP communications recordings. The following is a summary of the recordings.On November 23, 2021, at 10:37 p.m., THP Mississauga Hospital contacted PRP via 911 reporting that the Complainant had told staff he had a bomb. The Complainant then lay on his back near the front vestibule. Hospital security watched the Complainant on video and were unable to determine if he had a bomb. Triage was cleared.
At 10:48 p.m., the Tactical Rescue Unit (TRU) was notified as well as the Explosive Disposal Unit. The Fire Department was notified to stage in the parking lot.
At 11:03 p.m., hospital security notified PRP of a red flashing light on the Complainant’s ankle.
At 11:16 p.m., PRP TRU officers saw the Complainant outside the emergency department.
At 11:28 p.m., the Complainant was said to be in custody.
Video from THP Mississauga Hospital
Numerous efforts were undertaken to obtain the security video footage from THP Mississauga Hospital without success, as they required a Production Order. An agreement was made to allow an SIU investigator to view the video and make notes.On November 26, 2021, at 3:45 p.m., a SIU investigator attended THP Mississauga Hospital to review two exterior video clips approved by the Privacy Office.
On November 23, 2021, at 11:16 p.m., video from an external camera showed the Complainant exit the emergency department vestibule via the automated glass sliding doors. He was holding a piece of paper [believed to be a note/letter requesting a negative COVID-19 test result] in his left hand and stood in the area outside the glass doors. Eighteen seconds later, two PRP TRU officers positioned near designated ambulance parking spots pointed their firearms at the Complainant. Two additional PRP TRU officers were positioned near the north emergency department vestibule between the pillars. The SO, positioned near the ambulance parking spots, discharged his ARWEN three times in quick succession, striking the Complainant in the area of his stomach. Each discharge was seen on video in puffs of smoke.
The Complainant appeared to fold over and drop to his knees as the PRP TRU officers began to approach him. Six seconds later, a fourth ARWEN discharge could be seen. The Complainant was then face down on the ground and PRP TRU officers approached. After about 41 seconds, the Complainant put his arms out and to the side like an airplane. PRP TRU officers arrived with a ballistic shield.
The recording from the second external camera showed the event similar to that described from the first camera footage, except it showed that the ARWEN was discharged at 11:16:21 p.m. and then, a second later, two further rounds were discharged. Two PRP TRU officers subsequently moved in and, six seconds later, the fourth round was discharged.
The video clips did not capture the blinking light on the Complainant’s ankle and did not capture the CEW discharges.
Figure 2 - Photograph of the runner’s light that was blinking red and an ARWEN projectile.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the PRP:- Communications recordings;
- Event Chronology;
- Notes of WOs;
- Person Details Report - the Complainant;
- Prisoner Details Report – the Complainant; and
- Occurrence Details.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU reviewed the following records from the following other sources: - Video from THP Mississauga Hospital (viewed, but not obtained).
Incident Narrative
The material events in question are clear on the evidence gathered by the SIU, which included video footage from a security camera that captured the incident in part, and may briefly be summarized.
In the evening of November 23, 2021, PRP tactical officers made their way to the Trillium Hospital – Mississauga Site at 100 The Queensway, Mississauga, following reports that a man was in the emergency department claiming to have a bomb. The SO was the team leader of the PRP TRU team that arrived at the hospital. His team included WO #1, WO #2 and a third officer. A member of the Explosive Disposal Unit was also dispatched.
The man in question was the Complainant. The Complainant suffered from mental illness and was of unsound mind at the time. He had arrived at the hospital at about 10:30 p.m. seeking a COVID-19 screening form. The Complainant spoke to a nurse in the emergency department about having a bomb. Lending credence to his claim was a red blinking light from a band worn around his left ankle.
Hospital staff and civilians were cleared from the emergency department, leaving only the Complainant behind. He had taken a short nap on the floor when he arose and wandered outside through the emergency doors. The Complainant briefly re-entered the hospital before exiting again. On this occasion, he was struck by projectiles fired from the SO’s ARWEN, subjected to two CEW discharges, and ultimately arrested by the TRU team.
The TRU team had set up around the emergency doors, using their truck as cover in the event of an explosion. The SO had his ARWEN at the ready, and WO #1 and WO #2 were equipped with CEWs at their disposal. At the Complainant’s first exit from the hospital, some 45 minutes after their arrival on scene, the officers yelled at him to show his hands and lower himself to the ground. At his second exit seconds later, the SO discharged his ARWEN four times at the Complainant, and WO #1 and WO #2 fired their CEWs once each, after which the Complainant was handcuffed with his hands behind his back.
The Complainant did not, in fact, have a bomb on him. The flashing red light was a runner’s light not associated with an explosive device.
At hospital following his arrest, the Complainant was ultimately diagnosed with a fractured left arm.
In the evening of November 23, 2021, PRP tactical officers made their way to the Trillium Hospital – Mississauga Site at 100 The Queensway, Mississauga, following reports that a man was in the emergency department claiming to have a bomb. The SO was the team leader of the PRP TRU team that arrived at the hospital. His team included WO #1, WO #2 and a third officer. A member of the Explosive Disposal Unit was also dispatched.
The man in question was the Complainant. The Complainant suffered from mental illness and was of unsound mind at the time. He had arrived at the hospital at about 10:30 p.m. seeking a COVID-19 screening form. The Complainant spoke to a nurse in the emergency department about having a bomb. Lending credence to his claim was a red blinking light from a band worn around his left ankle.
Hospital staff and civilians were cleared from the emergency department, leaving only the Complainant behind. He had taken a short nap on the floor when he arose and wandered outside through the emergency doors. The Complainant briefly re-entered the hospital before exiting again. On this occasion, he was struck by projectiles fired from the SO’s ARWEN, subjected to two CEW discharges, and ultimately arrested by the TRU team.
The TRU team had set up around the emergency doors, using their truck as cover in the event of an explosion. The SO had his ARWEN at the ready, and WO #1 and WO #2 were equipped with CEWs at their disposal. At the Complainant’s first exit from the hospital, some 45 minutes after their arrival on scene, the officers yelled at him to show his hands and lower himself to the ground. At his second exit seconds later, the SO discharged his ARWEN four times at the Complainant, and WO #1 and WO #2 fired their CEWs once each, after which the Complainant was handcuffed with his hands behind his back.
The Complainant did not, in fact, have a bomb on him. The flashing red light was a runner’s light not associated with an explosive device.
At hospital following his arrest, the Complainant was ultimately diagnosed with a fractured left arm.
Relevant Legislation
Section 25(1), Criminal Code -- Protection of persons acting under authority
25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
(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,
is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.
Analysis and Director's Decision
The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by PRP officers on November 23, 2021. One of the arresting officers – the SO – was identified as a 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 Complainant had led staff in the emergency department of the Trillium Hospital – Mississauga Site to believe that he was in possession of a bomb. Though not in control of his faculties at the time, there was no reason to take the Complainant’s threat less than seriously. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that he was subject to lawful arrest.
I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO, namely, four ARWEN discharges, were legally justified in aid of the Complainant’s arrest. Needless to say, a bomb threat of any dimension is of the utmost gravity in terms of public safety, and it was absolutely imperative that the Complainant be neutralized as quickly and as safely as possible. That opportunity presented itself when the Complainant emerged from the emergency department doors. A physical engagement would have risked a protracted struggle with an individual in possession of an explosive device and, possibly, a detonator. Accordingly, it made sense to attempt to quickly incapacitate the Complainant from a distance with the use of an ARWEN. If successful, the weapon would sufficiently immobilize the Complainant allowing for the TRU officers to move in and take him into custody. And that is, in essence, what happened. Though the last of the four shots appears to have occurred while the Complainant was on the ground, the SO had cause to be concerned that he remained a serious threat in light of his continued movement and the possibility of a detonator in his possession. [2]
In the result, though I accept that one of the SO’s ARWEN discharges fractured the Complainant’s left arm, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the officer comported himself other than lawfully throughout the engagement.
Date: March 23, 2022
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
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 had led staff in the emergency department of the Trillium Hospital – Mississauga Site to believe that he was in possession of a bomb. Though not in control of his faculties at the time, there was no reason to take the Complainant’s threat less than seriously. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that he was subject to lawful arrest.
I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO, namely, four ARWEN discharges, were legally justified in aid of the Complainant’s arrest. Needless to say, a bomb threat of any dimension is of the utmost gravity in terms of public safety, and it was absolutely imperative that the Complainant be neutralized as quickly and as safely as possible. That opportunity presented itself when the Complainant emerged from the emergency department doors. A physical engagement would have risked a protracted struggle with an individual in possession of an explosive device and, possibly, a detonator. Accordingly, it made sense to attempt to quickly incapacitate the Complainant from a distance with the use of an ARWEN. If successful, the weapon would sufficiently immobilize the Complainant allowing for the TRU officers to move in and take him into custody. And that is, in essence, what happened. Though the last of the four shots appears to have occurred while the Complainant was on the ground, the SO had cause to be concerned that he remained a serious threat in light of his continued movement and the possibility of a detonator in his possession. [2]
In the result, though I accept that one of the SO’s ARWEN discharges fractured the Complainant’s left arm, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the officer comported himself other than lawfully throughout the engagement.
Date: March 23, 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]
- 2) Though not the focus of the investigation, it would also appear that the CEW discharges by WO #1 and WO #2 at this time were legally justified for similar reasons. [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.