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 29-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On December 9, 2021, at 3:23 p.m., the St. Thomas Police Service (STPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

The STPS advised that the Complainant had been involved in a domestic disturbance and police were called. The Complainant fled the residence prior to police arrival, and it was reported he may have taken drugs prior to driving away. The Complainant’s vehicle was spotted but was empty. The Subject Official (SO) watched the vehicle and, when the Complainant returned and got into the vehicle, arrested the Complainant. The Complainant was arrested at 11:54 a.m. for operating a vehicle while impaired by drugs. The Complainant was brought to the police station, booked and given an opportunity to speak to counsel. After speaking to counsel, the Complainant collapsed and paramedics were called. The Complainant was taken to Elgin General Hospital (EGH) and the Intensive Care Unit.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 12/09/2021 at 4:10 p.m.

Date and time SIU responded: 12/09/2021 at 4:16 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

The Scene

On December 9, 2021, at 10:10 p.m., a SIU forensic investigator attended the police station to examine the involved police officer’s cruiser. The forensic investigator also examined and photographed the Complainant’s pickup truck.

The forensic investigator examined the police cruiser and various areas of interest of the police station, including the sally port, the booking hall, the holding cell area, and a telephone room.

The forensic investigator photographed the involved police cruiser. The rear passenger area of the cruiser was separated into two compartments – passenger and prisoner seats. No visible bodily fluids were found in the rear passenger or prisoner seats and compartments.

At 11:30 p.m., the forensic investigator went into the garage of the police station and photographed the area leading from the garage into the booking hall area. The booking hall area was clean. A large concrete bench was positioned opposite the booking desk. Two holding cells and two interview rooms were close by. One of the interview rooms was used as a telephone room for calls to counsel. Security camera domes were visible near the booking desk, the holding cells, and in the interview room.

Scene Diagram

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

Communications Recordings

The recordings were made on December 9, 2021, and captured the following information.

At 10:41:06 a.m., the CW placed a 911 call. She told the dispatcher that she and her husband, the Complainant, had an argument. The CW stated the Complainant was high on drugs. The Complainant had left their residence in his truck. The dispatcher told the CW that WO #1 would come and meet her.

At 10:42:32 a.m., the dispatcher sent the call-out via police radio communication to police units. The dispatcher indicated that the CW was reporting a domestic disturbance between herself and the Complainant, and that the Complainant had left the residence in a pickup truck with an unknown licence plate.

At 10:49:25 a.m., a police officer reported over the police radio that the disturbance involved verbal argument only. The police officer advised that the Complainant might be under the influence of drugs.

At 11:41:28 a.m., the dispatcher received a phone call from someone at the Redemption Bible Chapel. The caller told the dispatcher they had a truck in their parking lot with a flat tire. It appeared the person in the truck was doing drugs. The caller provided the address.

At 11:46:33 a.m., the dispatcher spoke to the SO and told him someone at the church had called police about a truck with a flat tire. A spare tire was lying near the truck and nobody was around.

At 11:47:24 a.m., the SO reported to dispatch that he saw the Complainant walking.

At 11:50:01 a.m., the SO reported to dispatch that nobody saw the Complainant behind the wheel of his truck.

At 11:52:28 a.m., the SO spoke to WO #1 via police radio and asked WO #1 to find a witness. WO #1 reported back to the SO advising he had found a witness. At the same time the SO reported he had the Complainant in custody.

At 11:54:16 a.m., the SO contacted WO #2 to request another police officer do the DRE [Drug Recognition Expert] test.

At 12:06:28 pm., the SO reported to the dispatcher that police had found a baggy of suspected fentanyl and another container of suspected drugs. The SO was returning to the police station.

At 12:30:10 pm., the SO contacted the dispatcher requesting an ambulance to the police station. The dispatcher called ambulance communications reporting the Complainant was possibly under the influence of fentanyl and cocaine.
At 12:31:43 pm., the SO told the dispatcher to let the ambulance know it was urgent. The dispatcher responded by saying the ambulance was coming lights and sirens.

At 12:31:58 pm., the SO requested that the garage doors be opened for the ambulance.

The events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, and may be briefly summarized. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the morning of December 9, 2021, the Complainant was arrested by the SO for driving while impaired. The officer had located the Complainant and his vehicle in the parking lot of 109 Chestnut Street following a call to police from the Complainant’s partner – the CW. The CW had expressed concern that her husband was driving while high on cocaine and possibly other drugs.

The Complainant was compliant with his arrest. He admitted to the officer that he had consumed a quantity of cocaine, and what appeared to be illegal substances were seized from his vehicle. At the station, the Complainant told WO #2 the same thing, namely, that he had consumed anywhere between 5 and 20 grams of cocaine. Though he whispered when he spoke, the Complainant did not appear to be in any pronounced distress.

At about 12:26 p.m., after returning to the booking area having made a call to a lawyer in a private room, the Complainant began to lose consciousness in a seated position on a bench. The SO immediately radioed for an ambulance. He and other officers tended to the Complainant as he appeared to suffer intermittent seizures, placing him in a recovery position and ensuring he was breathing.

Paramedics arrived on scene at about 12:35 p.m. and assumed the Complainant’s care, transporting him to hospital. The Complainant was placed in a medically-induced coma. He had suffered a multi-drug overdose.

Section 215, Criminal Code - Failure to Provide Necessaries

(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person

(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and

(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.

(b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.

Sections 219 and 220, Criminal Code -- Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

221 Every one who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of 

On December 9, 2021, the STPS contacted the SIU to report that a man – the Complainant – had fallen ill in their custody that day and been taken to hospital. The SIU initiated an investigation, identifying the SO 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 admission to hospital.

There is no indication in the evidence of any want of care on the part of the officers who dealt with the Complainant that might attract scrutiny under sections 215 or 221 of the Criminal Code, setting out the offences of failure to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing bodily harm, respectively. There is no suggestion that the Complainant was unlawfully in the custody of the police. The police had information from his partner that the Complainant was intoxicated and driving a vehicle. Nor is there any suggestion that the SO failed to comport himself with due care and regard for the Complainant’s well-being at any time. He and WO #2, aware that the Complainant was impaired by cocaine use, watched him carefully and promptly called for medical care at the first sign of acute medical distress. In fact, the Complainant had been in the custody of the police for not longer than about 40 minutes – 20 minutes of which were in the police station – before an ambulance was called.

For the foregoing reasons, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the Complainant’s custodians, including the SO, transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case, and the file is closed.


Date: March 30, 2022


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit