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 the discharge of a firearm by the police at a 27-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On April 30, 2022, at 12:21 p.m., the Belleville Police Service (BPS) contacted the SIU to report that a police firearm had been discharged at the Complainant.

The Scene

The scene was located on the driveway of a residence near Victoria Avenue and Herchimer Avenue, Belleville.

Physical Evidence

The physical evidence collected included a deployed 40 mm casing and projectile, along with a deployed CEW cartridge, wires, probes and blast doors.

On May 1, 2022, a SIU forensic investigator attended the BPS Headquarters and was presented with a deployed CEW cartridge with fully expended wires wrapped around the cartridge, along with two probes inserted into the cartridge, as well as two blast doors. Also obtained was a CEW model X26P.

A download of the data from the CEW indicated that the weapon had been triggered at 6:08 a.m., on April 30, 2022. The CEW was photographed and returned.

The SIU obtained a discharged 40 mm projectile and cartridge, along with a LMT Defense 40 mm Launcher. The LMT Launcher was photographed and returned.




Figure 1 – Deployed CEW cartridge




Figure 2 – WO #1’s CEW




Figure 3 - LMT Defense 40 mm Launcher




Figure 4 – 40 mm projectile and cartridge

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

The BWC recordings from the SO, WO #1 and WO #2 were obtained from BPS. The following is a summary of the pertinent footage from the SO’s BWC.

The footage commenced at 6:01 a.m. on April 30, 2022. The SO was in the parking lot of a residence. He exited the passenger side of a police vehicle holding a LMT Defense 40 mm Launcher. A woman pointed down the back of a row of townhouses in the direction of the Complainant.

The Complainant saw the SO and started to walk away from the officer along the back of the townhouses. The SO kept calling out to the Complainant using his first name, asking the Complainant to talk to him and to stop. The Complainant turned onto the sidewalk and quickened his pace. The Complainant continually swore at the police officers.

The SO walked onto the roadway and continued in a direction parallel with the Complainant. The SO momentarily turned around and WO #2 was depicted walking on the sidewalk behind the Complainant. WO #2 had what appeared to be a weapon in his hands. Both police officers told the Complainant to stop and get down on the ground. The Complainant walked past several houses, and onto a front lawn and, eventually, the driveway between houses. The Complainant held a knife in his right hand to the left side of his throat. The SO was on the street in front, and to the right side, of the Complainant. WO #2 was on the sidewalk to the left of the SO. WO #2 repeatedly told the Complainant to put the knife down. The Complainant pointed in the direction of WO #2 and said, “You got your gun out, fucking shoot it.”

At 6:03 a.m., the Complainant was struck on his front left side with CEW prongs, which came from the SO’s right side [now known to have been discharged by WO #1]. The sound of the deployment of the CEW could be heard. The Complainant pulled the wire from his left side using his left hand. Fourteen seconds after the deployment of the CEW, the sound of the LMT Defense 40 mm Launcher discharge was heard. The discharge was not captured on video as it was off the top view of the camera, but the strap of the weapon was seen to swing back and forth.

WO #2 approached from the left. The Complainant had turned so his back was to WO #2. WO #2 pulled the Complainant to the ground, and the Complainant landed on his front. WO #2 held onto the Complainant’s left side and WO #1 held onto the Complainant’s right side. The Complainant struggled but was eventually handcuffed with his hands behind his back.

WO #2 arrested the Complainant, and he was searched as he lay on his front. The SO walked over and viewed a kitchen knife, which lay on the driveway between the house and the car.

The Complainant was walked out to the street where a waiting paramedic cut his left sleeve and bandaged his left arm. The Complainant was then placed in the back seat of a BPS vehicle.

Custody Video

The following is a summary of the pertinent footage.

At 10:20 a.m., April 30, 2022, the Complainant was brought into the police station booking room by the SO, WO #1 and WO #2. The Complainant was docile and did not show any signs of injury. A small amount of blood could be seen on his upper left arm, where his left sleeve had been cut by a paramedic at the scene.

The Complainant was asked a number of standard booking questions and he stated he was not on drugs but had consumed alcohol. He did not want to call a lawyer. He made no complaint about any police officer. A pat-down search was conducted of the Complainant.

At 10:24 a.m., the Complainant was led to a cell.

A cell video and cell-block video were also obtained and viewed. They were of no investigative value.

Police Communications Recordings

The following is a summary of the pertinent recordings.

On April 30, 2022, at 5:56 a.m., the Complainant’s ex-partner called 911 and reported that the Complainant was at her residence and that he was subject to conditions not to be there. BPS called her back and she did not pick up the telephone.

At 6:00 a.m., the Complainant’s ex-partner called back and told the call-taker that the Complainant was trying to kill himself with a knife.

The SO, WO #1 and WO #2 were dispatched.

At 6:02 a.m., the SO broadcast that the Complainant was walking down a specified street.

At 6:04 a.m., the SO broadcast that they had one person under arrest.

At 6:05 a.m., WO #1 broadcast that the Complainant was conscious and breathing. The officer requested an ambulance.

At 6:41 a.m., the SO advised that they had read the Complainant his ‘rights to counsel’, and he was arrested for breach of probation x2 and possession of a Schedule 2 drug. The police officers were going to transport the Complainant to BGH to have his elbow checked.
 

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from BPS between May 1 and 5, 2022:

• Arrest Booking Report;
• Arrest Report;
• BWC Footage;
• Event Details Report;
• Communications recordings;
• Custody Video;
• Custody Record;
• Policy-Use of Force;
• Policy-Mental Health Calls or Persons in Crisis;
• Notes-WO #2;
• Notes-WO #1;
• Probation Order;
• Training Records- Emergency Response Team; and
• Training Records-Use of Force- the SO (x2).

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources:

• Ambulance Call Report.

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may be briefly summarized. They were largely captured by the BWCs of the involved officers, including the subject official. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

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,

The Complainant was struck by a less-lethal firearm round fired by a BPS officer on April 30, 2022. The officer who fired the shot – the SO – was identified as the subject official in the ensuing SIU investigation. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the firearm discharge.

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.