SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OCI-051
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 the serious injuries a 51-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.
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 injuries a 51-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On February 19, 2022, at 4:45 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant. According to PRP, on February 15, 2022, at 7:48 p.m., PRP officers attended the Peel Family Shelter for an unknown problem that involved the Complainant. During their interaction with the Complainant, a Controlled Energy Weapon (CEW) was discharged and a struggle ensued. The Complainant was subsequently taken to the ground and handcuffed - he immediately complained of pain to his left ribs. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) transported the Complainant to the Trillium Health Partners (THP) Credit Valley Hospital where X-rays revealed he had suffered no broken bones or fractures. The Complainant was later transported to the PRP 11 Division station and held for a Bail Hearing.
On February 18, 2022, the Complainant attended the THP Mississauga Hospital to complain of continued pain to his left ribs. After undergoing an ultrasound examination, five fractured ribs were noted to his left side and he was subsequently admitted to hospital.
On February 19, 2022, the Complainant contacted the PRP to inform of them of his injuries, after which the PRP notified the SIU.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 02/19/2022 at 5:31 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 02/19/2022 at 7:00 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
51-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on February 21, 2022.
Civilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 InterviewedCW #2 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed on February 22, 2022.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal rightWitness Officials (WO)
WO #1 InterviewedWO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
The witness officials were interviewed between February 28, 2022, and March 16, 2022.
Evidence
The Scene
The scene of the initial interaction between the Complainant and PRP officers was the southeast corner of the parking lot at the Peel Family Shelter. Forensic Evidence
The data downloaded from the SO’s CEW revealed that it had been discharged on February 15, 2022, at 7:13 p.m., [1] for a duration of five seconds. Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) and Communications Recordings
On February 22, 2022, the SIU obtained a copy of the PRP communications recordings and the CAD for the interaction that occurred on February 15, 2022, at the Peel Family Shelter. The following is a summary of the pertinent recordings. On February 15, 2022, at 6:16 p.m., the PRP received a 911 call from a staff member at the Peel Family Shelter reporting that a male and female had been arguing inside a room. The male within the room was identified as the Complainant and the female was CW #1. Staff had conducted a well-being check, and CW #1 had run out of the room and yelled for police assistance. The Complainant was described as heavily intoxicated and they wanted him permanently removed because he had been involved in an altercation the evening prior with another resident. The Complainant had been observed to leave the room and walk into the lobby where he caused a disturbance and pushed another resident.
At 6:38 p.m. and 6:39 p.m., WO #1 and the SO arrived, respectively. It was reported that the Complainant had left the property.
At 7:03 p.m., it was reported that the Complainant had returned to the lobby of the Peel Family Shelter.
At 7:13 p.m. a CEW discharge was reported.
At 7:16 p.m., EMS were requested and WO #3 arrived. The Complainant was subsequently transported to the THP Credit Valley Hospital.
At 8:42 p.m., WO #1 advised that he had been relieved by WO #2 at the hospital.
At 10:23 p.m., PRP Communication Bureau was updated that the Complainant had X-rays taken and had refused all other medical procedures.
On February 16, 2022, at 1:11 a.m., a doctor informed the Complainant that they did not see any rib fractures. He departed the THP Credit Valley Hospital for PRP 11 Division station.
Video Footage from the Body-worn Cameras (BWCs) of the SO and WO #1
On February 15, 2022, the SIU obtained copies of the SO’s and WO #1’s BWC video recordings. The footage captured the interaction between the Complainant and the PRP officers at the Peel Family Shelter and the Triage Unit of the THP Credit Valley Hospital. The following is a summary of the footage captured by the cameras. On February 15, 2022, at 7:08 p.m., the Complainant was captured as he exited the Peel Family Shelter, pushing hard on the doors to leave the lobby. Immediately, both PRP officers called out to him by his first name, but he ignored them and walked into the parking lot. Both PRP officers followed and made numerous verbal attempts to engage the Complainant; however, he refused to acknowledge their presence. At one point, WO #1 touched the Complainant’s shoulder and he turned around to face the PRP officers yelling, “Get the fuck away from me.” In response, both PRP officers activated and pointed their CEWs at the Complainant, who turned around and walked away.
Numerous further attempts to verbally engage the Complainant failed to facilitate any acknowledgement.
Both PRP officers informed the Complainant that he had several outstanding arrest warrants from various police services and that they needed to be dealt with. The Complainant continued to walk towards Erin Mills Parkway. At one point, the Complainant pulled out a cigarette. He was asked to stop and smoke his cigarette while talking to the PRP officers; however, he continued to ignore their presence.
WO #1 was then observed to block the Complainant’s path to Erin Mills Parkway. The Complainant yelled, “Get the fuck out from in front of me,” and the SO discharged his CEW. The discharge had no effect as the prongs did not penetrate his clothing. In response, the Complainant yelled, “I’ll knock you the fuck out with that fucking taser. You’re going to get knocked the fuck out. Leave me the fuck alone!” The SO was clearly heard saying, “Buddy, you’re squaring up,” and WO #1 said, “We need to talk to you. We cannot leave you alone.” The Complainant again walked away.
A short time later, WO #1 was seen taking hold of the Complainant’s right shoulder and taking him to the ground. The Complainant yelled and refused to comply with the PRP officers’ demands that he produce his hands for handcuffing. The SO was heard yelling for the Complainant to give his hands on several occasions and he was then observed to deliver two knee strikes to the Complainant’s left side, after which the Complainant’s hands were handcuffed behind his back. The Complainant was walked to a curb where he was sat down. The SO asked him if he was injured and he said his left ribs hurt “where you kicked me”.
The Complainant was subsequently walked back to the PRP cruisers and EMS arrived. The Complainant walked inside the rear of the EMS and the handcuffs were removed and repositioned to the front for purposes of a medical evaluation. A few minutes later, the Complainant exited out the rear of the ambulance and declined any assessment.
The Complainant walked a few steps and then knelt down and complained of pain to his left ribs - he was having difficulty breathing. The Complainant returned inside the ambulance and was transported to the THP Credit Valley Hospital.
Upon arrival at the Triage Unit, the Complainant was observed being aggressive with hospital staff and PRP officers, [3] though he was not assaultive. The Complainant was clearly in pain but he refused medical assessment. A short time later, the Complainant was transferred to the Emergency Department.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from PRP between February 22, 2022, and March 1, 2022:- Activity Log;
- CAD Event Chronology (February 14, 2022);
- CAD Event Chronology (February 15, 2022);
- CAD Event Chronology (February 16, 2022);
- Notes-WO #3;
- Notes-WO #2;
- Notes-WO #1;
- Person Details Report;
- Communications Audio Report;
- Prisoner Details Report;
- Property Report;
- Occurrence Report;
- BWC footage;
- TASER X2 - Pulse Log Graph (the SO);
- TASER X2 - Pulse Log Graph (WO #1);
- TASER X2 – Download Report (the SO); and
- TASER X2 – Download Report (WO #1).
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources: - Peel Region Paramedic Services – Ambulance Call Report (February 15, 2022);
- Medical Records from the THP Credit Valley Hospital; and
- Medical Records from the THP Mississauga Hospital.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may be summarized in short order. The incident was largely captured by the body-worn cameras of the involved officers. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.
In the evening of February 15, 2022, the SO and WO #1 were dispatched to the Peel Family Shelter, 2420 Surveyor Road, Mississauga, following a call to police about a disturbance at the facility. The matter involved a heated argument between a heavily intoxicated Complainant and his spouse, CW #1, both residents of the shelter. Shelter staff made it clear to police that the Complainant was no longer welcome at the facility.
The SO and WO #1 arrived at the shelter and spoke with staff and CW #1 about what had occurred; the Complainant had left the shelter prior to their arrival. The officers ran a check on the Complainant against police records and learned that there were several warrants in effect for his arrest.
On his return to the shelter, the Complainant noticed the officers and decided to leave again. From the front entrance/exit of the facility, he walked south down the shelter parking lot alongside Erin Mills Parkway. The Complainant ignored the officers who walked behind him trying to get his attention.
At one point in their procession south in the parking lot, the Complainant turned to confront the officers after WO #1 touched his left shoulder from behind. He warned the officers to stay away from him. The officers reacted by drawing and pointing their CEWs at him. The Complainant turned again to walk away ignoring the officers’ repeated requests to talk to them about the incident at the shelter and the outstanding arrest warrants.
Concerned that he was about to enter onto the roadway, WO #1 positioned himself in front of the Complainant to block his path. The Complainant yelled at the officer to get out of the way, after which the SO discharged his CEW at him. The discharge had no effect.
Shortly after the CEW deployment, WO #1 grabbed the Complainant and forced him to the ground. There ensued a struggle between the officers and the Complainant, the latter resisting their efforts to secure his arms. Following two knee strikes delivered to the left torso by the SO, the officers wrestled control of the Complainant’s arms and handcuffed them to the back.
The Complainant complained of rib pain after his arrest and was transported in ambulance to hospital. Diagnostic imaging at the time failed to reveal the presence of any fractures. The Complainant left the hospital against medical advice before further medical evaluation could be conducted.
On February 18, 2022, the Complainant re-attended at hospital with persisting pain to the ribs. An ultrasound at the time revealed fractures of five left-sided ribs.
In the evening of February 15, 2022, the SO and WO #1 were dispatched to the Peel Family Shelter, 2420 Surveyor Road, Mississauga, following a call to police about a disturbance at the facility. The matter involved a heated argument between a heavily intoxicated Complainant and his spouse, CW #1, both residents of the shelter. Shelter staff made it clear to police that the Complainant was no longer welcome at the facility.
The SO and WO #1 arrived at the shelter and spoke with staff and CW #1 about what had occurred; the Complainant had left the shelter prior to their arrival. The officers ran a check on the Complainant against police records and learned that there were several warrants in effect for his arrest.
On his return to the shelter, the Complainant noticed the officers and decided to leave again. From the front entrance/exit of the facility, he walked south down the shelter parking lot alongside Erin Mills Parkway. The Complainant ignored the officers who walked behind him trying to get his attention.
At one point in their procession south in the parking lot, the Complainant turned to confront the officers after WO #1 touched his left shoulder from behind. He warned the officers to stay away from him. The officers reacted by drawing and pointing their CEWs at him. The Complainant turned again to walk away ignoring the officers’ repeated requests to talk to them about the incident at the shelter and the outstanding arrest warrants.
Concerned that he was about to enter onto the roadway, WO #1 positioned himself in front of the Complainant to block his path. The Complainant yelled at the officer to get out of the way, after which the SO discharged his CEW at him. The discharge had no effect.
Shortly after the CEW deployment, WO #1 grabbed the Complainant and forced him to the ground. There ensued a struggle between the officers and the Complainant, the latter resisting their efforts to secure his arms. Following two knee strikes delivered to the left torso by the SO, the officers wrestled control of the Complainant’s arms and handcuffed them to the back.
The Complainant complained of rib pain after his arrest and was transported in ambulance to hospital. Diagnostic imaging at the time failed to reveal the presence of any fractures. The Complainant left the hospital against medical advice before further medical evaluation could be conducted.
On February 18, 2022, the Complainant re-attended at hospital with persisting pain to the ribs. An ultrasound at the time revealed fractures of five left-sided ribs.
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 two PRP officers on February 15, 2022. One of the officers – 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 arrest and injuries.
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.
There were a number of arrest warrants by several police services in effect for the Complainant at the time of the incident. Accordingly, the SO and WO #1 were within their rights in seeking to take him into custody.
I am also satisfied that the force used to arrest the Complainant, namely, a CEW discharge, takedown and two knee strikes, was legally justified. The CEW deployment, though it had no effect on the Complainant, would appear to have been a reasonable tactic at the time. In his words and gestures, the Complainant had given the officers cause to believe that he would physically contest his arrest. The parties were also beside a major road in Mississauga - Erin Mills Parkway. In the circumstances, there was a need to quickly neutralize the Complainant without risking a manual engagement that could spill over into traffic. The same could be said for the takedown performed by WO #1. With the Complainant on the ground, the officers could better expect to manage any continuing resistance on his part. Indeed, the Complainant put up a struggle on the ground and was eventually met by two knee strikes by the SO. The strikes, successful in subduing the Complainant, amounted to a reasonable escalation of force in light of the difficulties the officers were having in wrestling control of his arms.
In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s fractures are attributable to the SO’s knee strikes, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either officer comported himself other than lawfully in the altercation that marked the arrest. Consequently, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: June 17, 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.
There were a number of arrest warrants by several police services in effect for the Complainant at the time of the incident. Accordingly, the SO and WO #1 were within their rights in seeking to take him into custody.
I am also satisfied that the force used to arrest the Complainant, namely, a CEW discharge, takedown and two knee strikes, was legally justified. The CEW deployment, though it had no effect on the Complainant, would appear to have been a reasonable tactic at the time. In his words and gestures, the Complainant had given the officers cause to believe that he would physically contest his arrest. The parties were also beside a major road in Mississauga - Erin Mills Parkway. In the circumstances, there was a need to quickly neutralize the Complainant without risking a manual engagement that could spill over into traffic. The same could be said for the takedown performed by WO #1. With the Complainant on the ground, the officers could better expect to manage any continuing resistance on his part. Indeed, the Complainant put up a struggle on the ground and was eventually met by two knee strikes by the SO. The strikes, successful in subduing the Complainant, amounted to a reasonable escalation of force in light of the difficulties the officers were having in wrestling control of his arms.
In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s fractures are attributable to the SO’s knee strikes, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either officer comported himself other than lawfully in the altercation that marked the arrest. Consequently, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: June 17, 2022
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) The time is derived from the weapon’s internal clock, and is not necessarily synchronized with actual time. [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) WO #1 and WO #3. [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.