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 serious injury a 38-year-old woman (the “Complainant”) suffered.

Notification of the SIU

On June 25, 2022, at 3:43 p.m., the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 25, 2022, at 11:45 a.m., HPS received a call to check on the well-being of the Complainant. HPS officers arrived at her address in Hamilton and the Complainant came outside her apartment into a narrow hallway. The Complainant grabbed Witness Official (WO) #1 by her hair. The Subject Official (SO) intervened and the Complainant bit him on the finger. The SO punched the Complainant in the face and placed her under arrest. At the HPS station, it was discovered that the Complainant’s two front teeth were missing. HPS officers went back to the scene and located them. The Complainant was taken to St. Joseph’s Hospital for treatment. Her teeth had been knocked out from the root.

The SO also attended the hospital for medical care.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 06/25/2022 at 5:29 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 06/25/2022 at 6:20 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

The Scene

The scene was an apartment in a building in the area of King Street East and Gage Avenue in Hamilton.

On June 25, 2022, a SIU forensic investigator attended at the apartment. There was a small pool of blood in the hallway in front of the apartment that was directly across from the Complainant’s apartment.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

Video Recordings

No HPS officers were equipped with body-worn cameras, and there were no cameras in the hallway of the Complainant’s residence.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the late morning of June 25, 2022, the SO, a member of the HPS Mobile Crisis Rapid Response Unit, was dispatched to an apartment near King Street East and Gage Avenue to check on the welfare of the Complainant. A former partner of the Complainant’s – the CW – who had been with the Complainant the night before, had contacted police concerned with the Complainant’s mental health. She had been agitated through the night, not slept, and was threatening to set the sofa on fire. The SO was usually paired with a mental health professional on such calls, but that person had called in sick that day, so he was operating solo. Dispatched with him was WO #1 (female officer) – the CW, in conversation with the SO prior to the officer’s arrival at the unit, had suggested the presence of a female officer to assist in dealing with the Complainant.

The officers knocked on the Complainant’s door. She eventually opened the door and immediately pushed the SO in the chest, knocking him backwards. The Complainant and WO #1 then physically engaged each other. The Complainant was pulling the officer’s hair when the SO, having collected himself, attempted to pry her off his colleague using his left arm. The Complainant reacted by biting the SO’s arm and the officer, in turn, reacted by punching the Complainant once in the face. Shortly thereafter, the officers forced the Complainant to the floor, after which she was handcuffed.

The Complainant was transported to the police station and, from there, to the hospital when it was noticed that two of her front teeth had been knocked out.

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 seriously injured in the course of her arrest by HPS officers on June 25, 2022. One of the arresting 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 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 SO and WO #1 were lawfully placed throughout their dealings with the Complainant. Having been dispatched to check on her well-being following a call to police expressing concerns for her welfare, the officers were duty bound to attend her address to ensure her safety. Thereafter, when the Complainant pushed the SO as soon as she opened the door to the officers, she was also subject to arrest for assault.

With respect to the force used by the officers, namely, a punch delivered by the SO and a takedown performed by both officers, I am satisfied that it was legally justified. The punch was an instant reaction by the SO to being bitten, and constituted a proportionate use of force given the need to have the Complainant release her bite and deter any further aggression. That is precisely what occurred. Following the punch, it would appear the takedown by the officers was also a tactic reasonably available to the officers. The Complainant had been physically aggressive from the moment she opened the door and the officers were within their rights in taking action to place her at a positional disadvantage in order to better manage any continued hostilities. There is a version of events proffered in the evidence suggesting the Complainant was dealt with harshly in the force used to bring her to ground, and that, in fact, that is when she lost her teeth. And further it is alleged that she was kicked in the lower back and stomach by one or more of the officers once on the floor. I am unable to make a finding to that effect, however, given the countervailing evidence of the SO and WO #1, neither of whom describe any such excessive force.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant lost her teeth in the punch or the takedown to the ground, or some combination of both, I am not satisfied on reasonable grounds that her injury was the result of unlawful conduct on the part of the officers. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: October 21, 2022