SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OCI-044
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.
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 serious injuries sustained by a 37-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On February 16, 2022, at 7:45 a.m., the Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s injury. According to the NRPS, on February 15, 2022, at approximately 2:47 p.m., two officers responded to a call about an unwanted person, identified as the Complainant, at a detoxication centre in St. Catharines. The officers found the Complainant and had to restrain and handcuff her to escort her out of the facility. Once outside, the police officers removed the handcuffs and unconditionally released the Complainant. The Complainant kicked one of the police officers and ran to return into the building. In pursuit, one of the police officers tripped the Complainant causing her to fall to the ground.
The police officers convinced the Complainant to stay at a shelter [1] and escorted her there before they cleared the call.
On February 16, 2022, at 2:15 p.m., staff from St. Catharines General Hospital telephoned NRPS advising that the Complainant was at the hospital complaining of a sore arm due to being tripped by the police officers. A subsequent diagnosis confirmed that the Complainant had sustained a fractured right radial bone at or near the elbow.
The Complainant was released from the hospital and her whereabouts were unknown at the time of notification.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 02/16/2022 at 11:21 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 02/16/2022 at 12:06 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators
assigned: 3
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
37-year-old female interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed.The Complainant was interviewed on March 31, 2022.
Civilian Witnesses
CW #1 Interviewed CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between February 24, 2022, and March 3, 2022.
Subject Officials
SO Notes received and reviewed but declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right.Evidence
The Scene
As it was not known that the Complainant had sustained an injury in her initial interaction with the SO at the detoxification centre, the scene was not secured. Although no scene examination was conducted, the scene was attended during the investigation.The incident occurred in a narrow corridor in the Withdrawal Management entrance to the building. The corridor was less than 1.2 metres wide with a hard tile surface onto which the Complainant fell.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
NRPS advised the SIU that no in-car camera recording systems or body-worn cameras were in use in connection with the incident.SIU investigators obtained surveillance camera video recordings from the facility.
The Main Parking eye camera captured a view of the Complainant being escorted out of the building by the police officers and having the handcuffs removed. After CW #1 and CW #2 placed bags containing the Complainant’s property on the ground, she appeared uninjured as she picked up the bags and threw several of them at the police officers, striking them.
Immediately thereafter, the Complainant walked to the entrance door that was being held open and re-entered the building. The SO entered behind her, followed by the WO, while CW #2 remained outside. About 25 seconds later, the Complainant exited the building again, escorted by the police officers. Thereafter, she appeared to nurse an injured left arm at times as she moved about keeping the forearm crossed horizontally across her chest.
As the police officers collected her property, the Complainant assisted them as she picked up bags and put on her coat.
The SIU was advised that the interior camera mounted in the corridor where the incident occurred was not operational at the time as the system was in the process of being installed.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials from the NRPS:- Communications recordings;
- Duty Roster - February 15, 2022 – Days – C Platoon;
- Duty Roster - February 15, 2022 – Nights – C Platoon;
- Policy - USE OF FORCE;
- Policy - POWERS OF ARREST;
- Notes-WO;
- Notes-SO; and
- Occurrence Reports (x2).
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the following other sources:- The Complainant’s medical records from Niagara Health – St. Catharines Site; and
- Surveillance camera video footage from the detoxification centre.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may be summarized in short order. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.
In the afternoon of February 15, 2022, the SO was dispatched to a detoxification centre in St. Catharines to assist with the eviction of a client – the Complainant. Told that she had been discharged from the program and had to leave the premises, the Complainant refused, prompting a call to police by centre staff.
The SO arrived at the centre and spoke with the Complainant. He attempted to have her leave the premises of her own volition, but she steadfastly refused. The officer advised the Complainant that she was under arrest for trespassing and radioed the dispatch centre seeking the assistance of another officer.
The WO arrived at the centre in response to the SO’s request. The two placed the Complainant in handcuffs without incident and escorted her outside the building. En route, the Complainant kicked the WO in the legs and the officer reacted by slapping her in the face. [3]
The handcuffs were removed from the Complainant once outside and she was released unconditionally from police custody. The Complainant threw her belongings about the property, which had been brought out by centre staff, and then re-entered the building through an entrance door that was being held open by a centre employee.
The SO followed after the Complainant. He caught up with her in a hallway several steps into the building and tripped her to the floor. The Complainant fractured her right elbow in the process.
The officers again escorted the Complainant out of the building. She was placed in the SO’s cruiser and taken to a shelter.
The Complainant attended hospital later in the day and was diagnosed with her injury.
Relevant Legislation
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 2(1), Trespass to Property Act -- Trespass an offence
(a) without the express permission of the occupier, the proof of which rests on the defendant,
(i) enters on premises when entry is prohibited under this Act, or(ii) engages in an activity on premises when the activity is prohibited under this Act; or
(b) does not leave the premises immediately after he or she is directed to do so by the occupier of the premises or a person authorized by the occupier,
Section 2 and 9, Trespass to Property Act - Trespass an offence
(a) without the express permission of the occupier, the proof of which rests on the defendant,
(i) enters on premises when entry is prohibited under this Act, or(ii) engages in an activity on premises when the activity is prohibited under this Act; or
(b) does not leave the premises immediately after he or she is directed to do so by the occupier of the premises or a person authorized by the occupier,is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000.
Arrest without warrant on premises
Analysis and Director's Decision
The Complainant was seriously injured in an interaction with a NRPS officer on February 15, 2022. The officer – the SO – was identified as the subject official in 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 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 been told to leave the premises of the detoxification centre and given every opportunity to do so. In the circumstances the Complainant was clearly subject to re-arrest by virtue of sections 2 and 9 of the Trespass to Property Act when she re-entered the property after she had just been arrested, escorted outside, and released unconditionally.
The force used by the SO, namely, a trip, though resulting in injury to the Complainant, did not run afoul of the remit of the criminal law. The Complainant had proven dogged in her determination to remain at the detoxification centre, and she was re-entering the building having just been released following her initial arrest. Given her highly agitated state at the time, the SO was reasonably concerned for the safety of staff and clients of the centre should the Complainant’s ingress be allowed to continue for any length of time. In the circumstances, it would appear that a trip fell within the range of reasonable options if the Complainant’s flight was going to be stopped as quickly as possible. While it may well be that the officer had other options at his disposal, perhaps a physical engagement with his arms that left the Complainant on her feet, I am unable to reasonably conclude that a trip was so disproportionate to the exigences of the moment as to constitute excessive force.
For the foregoing reasons, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than lawfully in his dealings with the Complainant. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.
Date: June 14, 2022
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) Out of the Cold Shelter at Silver Spire United Church at 366 St. Paul Street, St. Catharines. [Back to text]
- 2) 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]
- 3) Though not the focus of the SIU investigation, the slap, delivered promptly after the Complainant’s kick, was not executed in an overly forceful manner. As an effort to deter any further assaults from the Complainant, the force would not appear to have been unreasonable in the circumstances. [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.