SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OCI-123
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 injury a 25-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 injury a 25-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On May 2, 2022, at 9:59 a.m., Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) notified the SIU of a custody-related injury. HRPS reported that HRPS officers were called to Shoppers Drug Mart, 2525 Prince Michael Drive, Oakville, regarding a man [now known to be the Complainant] “passed out” in a vehicle parked in front of the store. As HRPS officers approached the Complainant’s driver side door, the vehicle suddenly reversed and struck a parked HRPS Tactical Rescue Unit (TRU) pick-up truck. It then drove forward and struck the front of the Shoppers Drug Mart storefront. The vehicle reversed again striking the TRU truck a second time before once again driving into and smashing a large storefront window. The Complainant fled out the passenger door and was taken into custody.
The Complainant was taken by ambulance to Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital (OTMH) where he was diagnosed with a fractured mandible.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 05/02/2022 at 11:30 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 05/02/2022 at 1:17 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
25-year-old male; declined an interviewCivilian Witness (CW)
CW Interviewed The civilian witness was interviewed on May 2, 2022.
Subject Officials (SO)
SO #1 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed WO #2 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #4 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #5 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #6 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #7 Interviewed
WO #8 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed between May 7 and 8, 2022.
Evidence
The Scene
On May 2, 2022, at 1:40 p.m., SIU investigators arrived at Shoppers Drug Mart, 2525 Prince Michael Drive, Oakville. The multi-unit commercial plaza was located on the south side of Dundas Street East. The interaction between the Complainant and HRPS officers took place on the west side of Shoppers Drug Mart, in the parking spaces in front of the building to the south of the front doors.
The Complainant’s vehicle was located at Total Roadside Collision, 1092 South Service Road West. There was visible damage to the front and rear bumpers, and both the driver side front and rear windows were smashed. Conducted energy weapon (CEW) probe wire was located draped over the front driver side door.
WO #7’s police vehicle, a marked Chevrolet Tahoe, was located at the Halton Region Southworks Department. It had damage to the front driver side corner and front end. Red paint transfer was visible on the vehicle.
SO #1 and SO #2’s TRU unmarked pick-up truck was also located at the Halton Region Southworks Department. It was found to have slight paint transfer on the driver side tire rim.
Figure 1 – Scene of the incident in the parking area in front of Shoppers Drug Mart
Figure 2 – Front driver side corner of WO #7’s police vehicle
Figure 3 – The Chrysler driven by the Complainant
Scene Diagram
Physical Evidence
CEW probe wires were collected from the parking lot of Shoppers Drug Mart and the Complainant’s vehicle.
Figure 4 - CEW probe wires in parking lot
Forensic Evidence
CEW Downloads
A SIU forensic investigator examined the CEWs of SO #1 and SO #2. There were two discharged cartridges associated with each CEW, which were collected. The data downloads were completed by HRPS and provided to SIU for analysis. The data revealed the following.
SO #1
At 1:27:32 a.m., the CEW was ‘armed’.
At 1:27:33 a.m., the CEW was triggered, and Cartridge #1 was deployed for a duration of five seconds.
At 1:27:45 a.m., the CEW was triggered, and Cartridge #2 was deployed for a duration of nine seconds.
At 1:27:54 a.m., the CEW was triggered, and Cartridge #2 was deployed for a duration of five seconds.
At 1:27:59 a.m., the CEW was rendered ‘safe’.
SO #2
At 1:26:48 a.m. the CEW was ‘armed’.
At 1:26:49 a.m., the CEW was triggered, and Cartridge #1 was deployed for a duration of five seconds.
At 1:26:55 a.m., the CEW was triggered, and Cartridge #2 was deployed for a duration of three seconds.
At 1:26:58 a.m., the weapon was rendered ‘safe’.
Figure 5 – SO #1’s CEW
Figure 6 – SO #2’s CEW
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]
Shoppers Drug Mart Video Footage
The following is a summary of the pertinent footage.The Complainant’s vehicle was parked in the fifth parking space south of the entrance, facing Shoppers Drug Mart.
An unmarked TRU truck containing SO #1 and SO #2 drove east on Dundas Street East, turned south into the parking lot, and stopped behind the Complainant’s vehicle.
WO #7’s marked police vehicle turned south from Dundas Street East into the parking lot and drove past the Complainant’s vehicle.
SO #1 and SO #2 approached the driver’s door of the Complainant’s vehicle.
WO #7’s vehicle was pulling into a parking spot south of the Complainant’s vehicle when the headlights of the Complainant’s vehicle turned on, and the vehicle reversed striking the driver side front quarter panel of the TRU truck.
SO #1 ran to the right side of SO #2, where they both stood outside the Complainant’s driver’s door.
The Complainant’s vehicle accelerated forward and collided with the front wall of Shoppers Drug Mart. WO #7 moved his vehicle and intentionally struck the right rear quarter panel of the Complainant’s vehicle appearing to attempt to pin it.
SO #1 and SO #2 approached the Complainant’s vehicle as it bounced off the wall and reversed into the TRU truck a second time.
The Complainant’s vehicle accelerated forward and drove into the front window of the Shoppers Drug Mart, shattering the glass.
Figure 7 – HRPS photograph of the front end of the Chrysler against the store window
SO #1 and SO #2 approached the driver’s door of the Complainant’s vehicle. WO #7 moved his police vehicle forward where he came into intentional contact with the passenger rear quarter panel of the Complainant’s vehicle, in what appeared to be an attempt to pin it and prevent it from moving.
The Complainant slid over to the passenger side of his vehicle and exited out the front door, falling to the ground.
SO #1 ran behind WO #7’s vehicle to the front passenger door of the Complainant’s vehicle. The Complainant got to his feet as SO #1 approached. SO #1 tackled him to the ground where they both struck the storefront wall.
The Complainant was lying on his back and in a struggle with SO #1. SO #1 was leaning over top of the Complainant, and punched and elbowed the Complainant about eight times.
SO #2 assisted SO #1 with controlling the Complainant.
SO #1 drew his CEW and placed it against the Complainant. The Complainant was rolled onto his back, where SO #1 administered two to three knee strikes appearing to strike the Complainant in the head or upper torso. The Complainant continued to struggle.
WO #8 approached and held the Complainant’s legs while SO #1 and SO #2 continued to control his upper body.
The Complainant was handcuffed behind his back, stood up and taken out of camera view.
911 - Telephone Recordings
On May 2, 2022, at 1:18:25 a.m., the CW called 911 to report finding the Complainant unconscious in his vehicle, which was parked directly in front of the Shoppers Drug Mart. He described it as a red Chrysler. The Complainant was reclined in the driver’s seat. When the CW asked the Complainant if he was okay, the Complainant stated he was okay and then, “Passed out.”The CW soon returned to check on the Complainant, who was sleeping in his vehicle.
Police Radio Recordings
On May 2, 2022, at 1:19:58 a.m., HRPS officers were dispatched to Shoppers Drug Mart. Dispatch advised the license plate of a vehicle returned as stolen.
SO #1 and SO #2 were dispatched to the scene.
WO #1 requested that responding police officers block-in the Complainant’s vehicle.
At 1:27:56 a.m., WO #7 advised that the Complainant was resisting arrest following two collisions, and that the Complainant’s vehicle had collided into Shoppers Drug Mart.
At 2:05:44 a.m., the Complainant was taken to OTMH by ambulance.
In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage
WO #1’s ICCS was reviewed and found to have no evidentiary value to the investigation. HRPS Photographs
HRPS provided photographs of the scene prior to its release. Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from HRPS between May 3 and 30, 2022:- CEW data-SO #2;
- CEW data-SO #1;
- Communications recordings;
- ICCS video footage;
- Computer-assisted Dispatch Summary;
- Crown Brief Synopsis;
- Involved Officers List;
- Involved Witnesses List;
- Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
- Policy-Use of Force;
- Policy-Arrest;
- Notes-WO #6;
- Notes-WO #5;
- Notes-WO #8;
- Notes-SO #1;
- Notes-WO #7;
- Notes-WO #3;
- Notes-WO #2;
- Notes-WO #4;
- Notes-WO #1;
- Occurrence Report;
- Record of Training Courses-SO #1 and SO #2;
- Use of Force Training Records-SO #1 and SO #2; and
- Forensic Identification Service Photographs.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources: - Security camera video from Shoppers Drug Mart.
Incident Narrative
The following scenario emerges from the evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with a police officer and civilian present at the time of the events in question, and security camera video footage that captured the incident in parts. As was their legal right, neither SO #1 nor SO #2 agreed an interview with the SIU. SO #1 did authorize the release of his notes.
In the early morning hours of May 2, 2022, the HRPS received a 911 call reporting the presence of a male “passed out” in the driver’s seat of a red vehicle - a Chrysler 300 - in front of the Shoppers Drug Mart, 2525 Prince Michael Drive, Oakville. A check of the licence plates affixed to the vehicle indicated it had been reported stolen. Officers were dispatched to investigate.
SO #1 and SO #2, members of the HRPS TRU team, were the first to arrive on scene at about 1:30 a.m. They stopped their unmarked pick-up truck behind the Chrysler, which was parked in the row of parking spots directly in front of the Shoppers Drug Mart. Following closely behind the officers was WO #7. He brought his marked SUV around to the passenger side of the Chrysler.
The Complainant was the individual in the driver’s seat of the Chrysler. As SO #1 and SO #2 were making their way on foot to his driver’s door, the Complainant accelerated in reverse and struck the front driver side of the pick-up truck. Immediately thereafter, he accelerated forward, struck and broke a store window, reversed backwards, striking the police pick-up truck once more, and then travelled forwards again, striking and breaking another store window.
As the Complainant was maneuvering the Chrysler, SO #1 broke the rear driver side window, reached in with his firearm and ordered the Complainant to stop. He then broke the front driver’s door window and attempted to apprehend the Complainant. The Complainant, following the second impact with the store, scurried across to the passenger side of the vehicle and exited through the front door. SO #2 appears to have discharged his CEW from the driver side of the Chrysler as this was happening, to no effect.
SO #1 ran around his pick-up truck and WO #7’s SUV, caught up with the Complainant on the passenger side of the Chrysler, and tackled him. There ensued a struggle between the parties in which the officer struck the Complainant about eight times with elbows and punches in the area of the head and upper torso. SO #2 joined the altercation on the ground and attempted to control the Complainant’s lower body. SO #1 proceeded to knee the Complainant two to three times, after which he drew his CEW and discharged it at the Complainant. Again, the CEW discharges appeared to have no effect. Shortly thereafter, assisted by a third officer arriving on scene – WO #8, SO #1 and SO #2 handcuffed the Complainant behind his back.
The Complainant was taken to hospital from the scene and diagnosed with a fractured jaw.
In the early morning hours of May 2, 2022, the HRPS received a 911 call reporting the presence of a male “passed out” in the driver’s seat of a red vehicle - a Chrysler 300 - in front of the Shoppers Drug Mart, 2525 Prince Michael Drive, Oakville. A check of the licence plates affixed to the vehicle indicated it had been reported stolen. Officers were dispatched to investigate.
SO #1 and SO #2, members of the HRPS TRU team, were the first to arrive on scene at about 1:30 a.m. They stopped their unmarked pick-up truck behind the Chrysler, which was parked in the row of parking spots directly in front of the Shoppers Drug Mart. Following closely behind the officers was WO #7. He brought his marked SUV around to the passenger side of the Chrysler.
The Complainant was the individual in the driver’s seat of the Chrysler. As SO #1 and SO #2 were making their way on foot to his driver’s door, the Complainant accelerated in reverse and struck the front driver side of the pick-up truck. Immediately thereafter, he accelerated forward, struck and broke a store window, reversed backwards, striking the police pick-up truck once more, and then travelled forwards again, striking and breaking another store window.
As the Complainant was maneuvering the Chrysler, SO #1 broke the rear driver side window, reached in with his firearm and ordered the Complainant to stop. He then broke the front driver’s door window and attempted to apprehend the Complainant. The Complainant, following the second impact with the store, scurried across to the passenger side of the vehicle and exited through the front door. SO #2 appears to have discharged his CEW from the driver side of the Chrysler as this was happening, to no effect.
SO #1 ran around his pick-up truck and WO #7’s SUV, caught up with the Complainant on the passenger side of the Chrysler, and tackled him. There ensued a struggle between the parties in which the officer struck the Complainant about eight times with elbows and punches in the area of the head and upper torso. SO #2 joined the altercation on the ground and attempted to control the Complainant’s lower body. SO #1 proceeded to knee the Complainant two to three times, after which he drew his CEW and discharged it at the Complainant. Again, the CEW discharges appeared to have no effect. Shortly thereafter, assisted by a third officer arriving on scene – WO #8, SO #1 and SO #2 handcuffed the Complainant behind his back.
The Complainant was taken to hospital from the scene and diagnosed with a fractured jaw.
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 suffered a broken jaw in the course of an interaction with HRPS officers on May 2, 2022. Two of the officers – SO #1 and SO #2 – were identified as subject officials in the ensuing SIU investigation. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official 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.
SO #1 and SO #2 were proceeding to lawfully arrest the Complainant at the time of the physical altercation. Based on information they had received at dispatch, and what they had observed for themselves of the Complainant’s reckless and dangerous attempts to escape police apprehension, there were grounds to take him into custody in relation to his possession and operation of a stolen vehicle.
With respect the quantum of force used against the Complainant in taking him into custody, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was excessive. The Complainant was determined to get away and had operated the Chrysler with wanton disregard for the lives and safety of others in his efforts to do so. More specifically, his driving placed the lives of SO #2 and SO #1, each of whom had exited their truck and were by the driver side of the Chrysler, at risk of grievous bodily harm and death. In the circumstances, they were entitled to resort to a degree of force to bring the Complainant under control as soon as possible. The CEW discharge or discharges while the Complainant was still in the vehicle or attempting to get out amounted to reasonable force in this context as they promised to immediately incapacitate the Complainant without serious injury. When that did not work and the Complainant was able to exit the Chrysler, SO #1 was within his rights in tackling him to the ground to prevent his escape. Thereafter, the strikes delivered by SO #1, while constituting significant force, occurred in the course of what the evidence suggests was a physical struggle on the ground with the Complainant. In particular, the officer says that he reacted to efforts on the part of the Complainant to grab at his CEW and leg-holstered firearm. WO #7 lends credence to this evidence, indicating that he observed the Complainant reaching for SO #1’s waist area while on the ground. And the video was not clear on the point, leaving open the possibility that the Complainant did in fact make contact with SO #1’s weapons, whether intentionally or unintentionally. On this record, it would appear that the officer was justified in seeking to subdue the Complainant as quickly as possible with decisive force. The same may be said of SO #1’s CEW discharges around this time, which did not have their desired effect of immobilizing the Complainant. Once handcuffed, no further force was brought to bear on the Complainant.
It remains unclear precisely how and when the Complainant’s jaw was fractured. There is evidence to suggest the injury might have happened in one or more of the vehicular collisions that proceeded his arrest on the ground. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official comported himself unlawfully in their engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: August 30, 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.
SO #1 and SO #2 were proceeding to lawfully arrest the Complainant at the time of the physical altercation. Based on information they had received at dispatch, and what they had observed for themselves of the Complainant’s reckless and dangerous attempts to escape police apprehension, there were grounds to take him into custody in relation to his possession and operation of a stolen vehicle.
With respect the quantum of force used against the Complainant in taking him into custody, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was excessive. The Complainant was determined to get away and had operated the Chrysler with wanton disregard for the lives and safety of others in his efforts to do so. More specifically, his driving placed the lives of SO #2 and SO #1, each of whom had exited their truck and were by the driver side of the Chrysler, at risk of grievous bodily harm and death. In the circumstances, they were entitled to resort to a degree of force to bring the Complainant under control as soon as possible. The CEW discharge or discharges while the Complainant was still in the vehicle or attempting to get out amounted to reasonable force in this context as they promised to immediately incapacitate the Complainant without serious injury. When that did not work and the Complainant was able to exit the Chrysler, SO #1 was within his rights in tackling him to the ground to prevent his escape. Thereafter, the strikes delivered by SO #1, while constituting significant force, occurred in the course of what the evidence suggests was a physical struggle on the ground with the Complainant. In particular, the officer says that he reacted to efforts on the part of the Complainant to grab at his CEW and leg-holstered firearm. WO #7 lends credence to this evidence, indicating that he observed the Complainant reaching for SO #1’s waist area while on the ground. And the video was not clear on the point, leaving open the possibility that the Complainant did in fact make contact with SO #1’s weapons, whether intentionally or unintentionally. On this record, it would appear that the officer was justified in seeking to subdue the Complainant as quickly as possible with decisive force. The same may be said of SO #1’s CEW discharges around this time, which did not have their desired effect of immobilizing the Complainant. Once handcuffed, no further force was brought to bear on the Complainant.
It remains unclear precisely how and when the Complainant’s jaw was fractured. There is evidence to suggest the injury might have happened in one or more of the vehicular collisions that proceeded his arrest on the ground. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official comported himself unlawfully in their engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: August 30, 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]
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.