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 of a 63-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On August 8, 2022, at 4:41 p.m., the Brantford Police Service (BPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the BPS, on July 19, 2022, the BPS investigated a vehicle collision at the intersection of St. Paul Avenue and Lawrence Street. [1] The Complainant had been driving a vehicle and was arrested for impaired driving by the Subject Official (SO). At the time of arrest, the Complainant complained that the handcuffs were too tight. The SO did not loosen the handcuffs. The Complainant was taken to the station for processing. On July 29, 2022, the Complainant returned to the police station and indicated he had medical documentation confirming nerve damage in his left hand.

The BPS indicated that SIU notification was delayed because the BPS staff [2] that took the Complainant's complaint had emailed the inspector who was on vacation, and the information sat for over a week.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 08/09/2022 at 8:42 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 08/09/2022 at 8:49 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

The Scene

Due to the historical nature of the call, the SIU did not attend.

The scene was the intersection of Terrace Hill and St. Paul Street, Brantford, regulated by traffic lights.


Figure 1 – Incident scene

Forensic Evidence

The Certificate of a Qualified Technician and Supplementary Occurrence Report registered the Complainant’s Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) at 2:42 p.m. and 2:52 p.m. as 240 mg/100 mL and 230 mg/100 mL, respectively.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

Cell Phone Images

On August 9, 2022, CW #1 provided cellular phone video and photos of the Complainant’s arrest on July 19, 2022.

The Complainant was captured standing near the front driver’s fender of a pick-up truck with a cellular telephone in his left hand.

The photographs depicted the Complainant standing at his truck and then walking towards a police cruiser. The SO was holding the Complainant’s right upper arm with his left hand.

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

In the early afternoon of July 19, 2022, the Complainant, while intoxicated and driving a pick-up truck west on Terrace Hill Street, Brantford, rear-ended another westbound vehicle stopped at the St. Paul Avenue intersection. The driver of the other vehicle – CW #1 – contacted police.

The SO arrived at the intersection to investigate the collision. He formed grounds to administer a breath test to the Complainant, and eventually did so. The Complainant failed the test and was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol.

The officer handcuffed the Complainant behind the back, placed him in his cruiser, and transported him to the station. The Complainant was released from custody later in the day.

On July 29, 2022, the Complainant sought medical treatment for a swollen and sore left wrist. On August 18, 2022, he saw a neurologist – CW #2 – and was diagnosed with nerve damage in the wrist. The doctor attributed the injury to the handcuffs that had been placed on the Complainant on July 19, 2022.

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,

On August 8, 2022, the BPS contacted the SIU with information in which it was alleged that a male – the Complainant – had been seriously injured in the course of his arrest on July 19, 2022. The SIU initiated an investigation and named the arresting officer – the SO – as the subject official. 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 Complainant was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and was subject to arrest by the SO.

With respect to the force used by the SO, the Complainant reports that the handcuffs affixed by the officer were unnecessarily tight against his left wrist. When he complained about it and asked that they be loosened, the SO ignored him.

It would be unwise and unsafe to rest charges on the Complainant’s account of the incident. He was significantly inebriated at the time – a condition that would have detracted from his ability to accurately perceive and recall the events in question. Moreover, another witness at the scene indicated that the SO treated the Complainant with kid-gloves – even criticizing the officer for being too gentle in his approach. And the medical evidence must be taken with a grain of salt considering that the doctor attributed the nerve injury to the handcuffing, in part, on the basis of a photograph depicting a swollen left wrist that was, unknown to the doctor, taken ten days after the arrest, a time at which one would not have expected to see that degree of swelling for the type of injury diagnosed.

For his part, the SO says that the Complainant never complained to him that the handcuffs were too tight. In fact, in order to prevent them tightening on the Complainant’s wrist, the SO had double-locked the handcuffs.

In the final analysis, it is not entirely clear that the Complainant’s injury was the result of the handcuffs he was made to wear on July 19, 2022. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than lawfully in his dealings with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: December 6, 2022


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit