SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OCI-210
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 section 14 (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 of a 26-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).
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 26-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On August 18, 2022, the Kawartha Lakes Police Service (KLPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant. According to the KLPS, on July 10, 2022, the Complainant had attended a laundromat in Lindsay where she was asked to leave after a dispute with an employee. The Complainant refused to leave. KLPS officers were called, and an interaction resulted in the Complainant being handcuffed and removed to a KLPS cruiser. The Complainant alleged an officer smashed her face against a rear portion of the vehicle, prior to her being placed in the rear seat. A short time later, the Complainant was released unconditionally. She attended the Ajax-Pickering Hospital (APH) and was diagnosed with a fractured nose.
The Complainant had filed a complaint with the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD), which, in turn, notified the KLPS on August 18, 2022.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 08/18/2022 at 1:23 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 08/19/2022 at 8:42 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
26-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on August 24, 2022.
Civilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 InterviewedCW #2 Not interviewed; unable to locate
CW #3 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between August 22, 2022, and September 26,
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 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The witness official was interviewed on August 29, 2022.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question occurred in and around a laundromat in Lindsay. Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]
911 Call to the KLPS
On September 6, 2022, at 1:01 p.m., the KLPS provided the SIU a copy of the 911 call to the KLPS by CW #1. Below is a summary of the recording.On July 10, 2022, at 3:19:56 p.m., CW #1 contacted police and requested police attendance for the purpose of removing the Complainant from the premises as she had refused to leave. The Complainant was described as belligerent. She was yelling, had called her names, and was causing a commotion inside the laundromat. CW #1 explained that the Complainant had a cleaning voucher from the Region’s Housing Department, but she could not redeem the full amount as those were the rules.
While talking to the KLPS call-taker, CW #1 was heard telling the Complainant, “Don’t put your laundry in, the police are coming.” CW #1 also told the call-taker that she did not want the Complainant screaming at her because she was simply following the rules nor was she trying to steal any of her money.
Video Footage – KLPS Station
On October 14, 2022, the KLPS provided the SIU a copy of the front entrance and lobby area video recording of relevance to the incident. Below is a summary of the footage.On July 10, 2022, at 4:05 p.m., the Complainant entered the KLPS station with her child and used a wall-mounted telephone to summon assistance. She did not appear to walk with discomfort nor did she show any signs of obvious injury.
At 4:20 p.m., WO #2 entered the lobby, and spoke with the Complainant and her child.
At 4:20:29 p.m., the child’s father entered the lobby, and talked to the Complainant and WO #2.
At 4:29:25 p.m., the father left the KLPS station carrying the child in his arms.
At 4:35:40 p.m., the Complainant departed the KLPS station. It appeared she left with pamphlets for the OIPRD.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the KLPS between August 19, 2022, and October 14, 2022;- Occurrence Report;
- Event Details Report;
- Communications recordings;
- Video footage – KLPS Front Lobby;
- Policy – Arrest, Security and Control of Prisoners, Search of Persons, Prisoner Transportation;
- Policy – Use of Force;
- Notes-WO #2; and
- Notes-WO #1.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources: - OIPRD Complaint; and
- Medical records - Lakeridge Health Corporation – APH.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and civilian eyewitnesses to the events in question, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.
In the afternoon of July 10, 2022, the SO and WO #1 were dispatched to a laundromat in Lindsay following a call to police by a clerk of the business – CW #1. CW #1 requested police assistance with respect to a customer who had been told to leave the premises but was refusing to do so.
The customer was the Complainant. The Complainant had attended at the cleaners with a municipal voucher for cleaning services in the amount of $50.00. Advised by CW #1 that the cleaners could only redeem half of the voucher on that occasion, and that she would have to return another day to use the other half, the Complainant became angry and accused CW #1 of attempting to steal from her. The Complainant refused to leave despite CW #1’s repeated requests, and began to load her laundry in the machines.
Upon their arrival, the officers spoke with CW #1, the Complainant and other customers. They advised the Complainant that she would have to leave and settle her dispute with the owner at some other time. When she refused to leave, and tossed some of her laundry in their direction, the officers took hold of the Complainant and brought her to the floor. The Complainant was handcuffed, lifted to her feet, and escorted outside to the SO’s cruiser.
The Complainant was placed in the rear driver-side seat of the cruiser. Following a period of time, she was released unconditionally at the scene.
Following her release, the Complainant travelled to the police station to complain about how she was treated by the officers. She subsequently attended hospital and was diagnosed with a broken nose.
In the afternoon of July 10, 2022, the SO and WO #1 were dispatched to a laundromat in Lindsay following a call to police by a clerk of the business – CW #1. CW #1 requested police assistance with respect to a customer who had been told to leave the premises but was refusing to do so.
The customer was the Complainant. The Complainant had attended at the cleaners with a municipal voucher for cleaning services in the amount of $50.00. Advised by CW #1 that the cleaners could only redeem half of the voucher on that occasion, and that she would have to return another day to use the other half, the Complainant became angry and accused CW #1 of attempting to steal from her. The Complainant refused to leave despite CW #1’s repeated requests, and began to load her laundry in the machines.
Upon their arrival, the officers spoke with CW #1, the Complainant and other customers. They advised the Complainant that she would have to leave and settle her dispute with the owner at some other time. When she refused to leave, and tossed some of her laundry in their direction, the officers took hold of the Complainant and brought her to the floor. The Complainant was handcuffed, lifted to her feet, and escorted outside to the SO’s cruiser.
The Complainant was placed in the rear driver-side seat of the cruiser. Following a period of time, she was released unconditionally at the scene.
Following her release, the Complainant travelled to the police station to complain about how she was treated by the officers. She subsequently attended hospital and was diagnosed with a broken nose.
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.
Section 9 (1), Trespass to Property Act – Arrest Without Warrant on Premises
9 (1) A police officer, or the occupier of premises, or a person authorized by the occupier may arrest without warrant any person he or she believes on reasonable and probable grounds to be on the premises in contravention of section 2.Analysis and Director's Decision
On August 18, 2022, the KLPS contacted the SIU to report that they were in receipt of information – a complaint filed with the Office of the Independent Police Review Director – in which it was alleged that a police officer – the SO – had broken the nose of a female – the Complainant – in the course of the Complainant’s arrest on July 10, 2022. The SIU initiated an investigation naming 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 SO and WO #1 were within their rights in taking the Complainant into custody. In refusing to leave the cleaners, she was trespassing and subject to arrest under section 9(1) of the Trespass to Property Act.
With respect to the force used by the officers in effecting the Complainant’s arrest, namely, a takedown inside the cleaners, I am satisfied that it was legally justified. The Complainant had made it clear that she did not intend to leave the cleaners of her own volition. Thereafter, when she threw laundry in the direction of the officers, which she told them was infested with bed bugs, the Complainant would have caused the SO and WO #1 to believe that she would resist arrest. In the circumstances, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officers acted with excess in forcing the Complainant to the floor. In that position, they could expect to better manage the Complainant’s belligerence.
It is alleged that the SO grabbed the back of the Complainant’s head and smashed her face into the driver-side pillar between the front and rear of the cruiser before placing her inside. That action was reportedly responsible for breaking her nose.
It would be unwise and unsafe to rest charges on this account of how her nose was broken for various reasons, including conflicting evidence. For instance, WO #1 was beside the SO and the Complainant at the time of the purported assault. The officer says that the Complainant only bumped her face once against the pillar, and that she did it to herself. On this record, I am not reasonably satisfied that the allegation of the Complainant being assaulted by the cruiser is sufficiently cogent to warrant being tested by a court-of-law.
In the final analysis, though it appears the Complainant suffered a broken nose at some point in her dealings with the SO and WO #1 on July 10, 2022, whether because of the takedown inside the cleaners or contact made with the outside of the cruiser following her arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury is attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the SO. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: December 16, 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.
The SO and WO #1 were within their rights in taking the Complainant into custody. In refusing to leave the cleaners, she was trespassing and subject to arrest under section 9(1) of the Trespass to Property Act.
With respect to the force used by the officers in effecting the Complainant’s arrest, namely, a takedown inside the cleaners, I am satisfied that it was legally justified. The Complainant had made it clear that she did not intend to leave the cleaners of her own volition. Thereafter, when she threw laundry in the direction of the officers, which she told them was infested with bed bugs, the Complainant would have caused the SO and WO #1 to believe that she would resist arrest. In the circumstances, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officers acted with excess in forcing the Complainant to the floor. In that position, they could expect to better manage the Complainant’s belligerence.
It is alleged that the SO grabbed the back of the Complainant’s head and smashed her face into the driver-side pillar between the front and rear of the cruiser before placing her inside. That action was reportedly responsible for breaking her nose.
It would be unwise and unsafe to rest charges on this account of how her nose was broken for various reasons, including conflicting evidence. For instance, WO #1 was beside the SO and the Complainant at the time of the purported assault. The officer says that the Complainant only bumped her face once against the pillar, and that she did it to herself. On this record, I am not reasonably satisfied that the allegation of the Complainant being assaulted by the cruiser is sufficiently cogent to warrant being tested by a court-of-law.
In the final analysis, though it appears the Complainant suffered a broken nose at some point in her dealings with the SO and WO #1 on July 10, 2022, whether because of the takedown inside the cleaners or contact made with the outside of the cruiser following her arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury is attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the SO. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: December 16, 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.