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 47-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On August the 19, 2022, at about 3:10 p.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On August 18, 2022, at about 10:30 p.m., a food delivery vehicle was stolen from an address on King Street in London. The Chevrolet Malibu was left unattended temporarily with the registered owner’s dog inside. The theft was reported and LPS officers were on the lookout for it.

At about 10:38 p.m., the Malibu was located in the area of Richmond Street and Horton Street. It had collided with several marked LPS vehicles. While making attempts to extract and arrest the driver, the Complainant, he was struck several times and then handcuffed.

The Complainant was taken to LPS cells. He complained of rib pain and was taken to London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) Victoria Hospital at 12:13 a.m., August 19, 2022.

The Complainant was assessed and X-rayed at hospital without any evidence of a fracture. The Complainant was returned to LPS cells and lodged in cells.

At 8:15 a.m., the Complainant’s lawyer advised LPS that the Complainant was suffering from abdominal pain. He was transported to LHSC University Hospital where he underwent a splenectomy due to a ruptured spleen.

No scene was held for examination.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 08/20/2022 at 7:02 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 08/20/2022 at 11:30 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the southbound lanes of Richmond Street, south of York Street and underneath a railway overpass.

The scene was not held as the Complainant had not initially been diagnosed with any serious injuries.

Physical Evidence

Vehicle Examination

A SIU forensic investigator examined the LPS SUV driven by SO #3 on August 20, 2022. It was a white Chevrolet SUV canine unit. There was significant damage to it.

Later that day, the SIU forensic investigator attended an auto repair shop and located the stolen Malibu. It had been written off.

Both vehicles were photographed.



Figure 1 – SO #3’s LPS vehicle


Figure 2 – The Chevrolet Malibu

Expert Evidence

Review by SIU Reconstructionist

On August 26, 2022, a SIU reconstructionist was asked to review the materials received from the LPS. The SIU reconstructionist reviewed the Motor Vehicle Collision (MVC) Report, the notes of WO #1, and LPS Scenes of Crime Officer (SOCO) photographs.

The SIU reconstructionist made the following observations.

Regarding the mechanism of injury, the MVC Report [1] reported the speed of the Malibu to be 55 km/h and indicated that the Complainant was wearing his seat belt. In reviewing scene photographs, it was the opinion of the reconstructionist that the Complainant did not, in fact, have his seatbelt on.

The Malibu experienced three impacts in the collision: two with cruisers and one with the bridge support.

There was a fair amount of damage apparent in the photographs but nothing to indicate a significant crash with a lot of change in velocity. The airbags in the Malibu had not gone off, but they did in the LPS SUV driven by SO #3.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

Police Communications Recordings

The SIU received communications recordings from LPS on August 22, 2022. The following is a summary of the pertinent communications.

On August 18, 2022, at 10:30 p.m., an officer advised dispatch that a Chevrolet Malibu vehicle had just been stolen from the area near an address on York Street; the owner’s dog was in the back seat.

LPS officers radioed that they saw the Malibu on different streets within the downtown core.

At 10:38 p.m., a LPS officer advised that the Malibu was going under the train overpass on Richmond Street. SO #3 then updated that his LPS SUV had been rammed by the Malibu.

WO #3 broadcast there was to be no pursuit and ordered other LPS officers to Richmond Street to assist.

Two minutes later, SO #3 broadcast that he, SO #2 and SO #1 were trying to get the Complainant in custody, and a minute later he confirmed that the Complainant was in custody.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, and one of the three subject officials (SO #3), gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, SO #1 and SO #2 declined an interview with the SIU. SO #1 did authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of August 18, 2022, the Complainant stole a Chevrolet Malibu. The vehicle, left running at the time, had been parked momentarily on King Street, London, as its owner was making a food order delivery. The owner notified police. Officers on patrol in the area quickly located the vehicle and began to radio its direction of travel.

SO #3, travelling on Richmond Street, came across the Malibu travelling south on the roadway from York Street. Intending to deploy a spike belt ahead of it, the officer maneuvered his SUV police cruiser across the southbound passing lane underneath the railway overpass, positioning the vehicle so that it was facing southwest. Before SO #3 could exit the cruiser, his vehicle was rammed by the Malibu.

On seeing SO #3’s cruiser in front of him, the Complainant had slowed and then accelerated into the vehicle’s passenger side. He continued southward, pushing the cruiser a distance, before the Malibu’s path was again blocked by another police vehicle. That vehicle was operated by SO #2, also responding to the scene. The Malibu came to a stop and the Complainant was quickly confronted by officers at the driver’s door.

The first of the officers to reach the Malibu was SO #1, who had brought his cruiser to a stop behind the Malibu. SO #1 was joined by SO #3 and SO #2. The Complainant was asked to exit the vehicle but did not do so. After a period of time, SO #1 was able to pry open the driver’s door, which had been damaged in the collision. With the help of SO #3 and SO #2, the Complainant was forced out of the Malibu onto the roadway.

The Complainant continued to resist his arrest while on the ground, refusing to give up his arms, and was met with two punches to the left hip area by SO #3 and a series of knee strikes by SO #1 to the thighs and torso. SO #2 also used a measure of force, the nature and extent of which is unclear on the evidence. The Complainant’s arms were eventually controlled and handcuffed behind the back by the officers.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to the station and then to hospital where medical assessment did not reveal the presence of any serious injury, including fractures. Still not feeling well later into the morning of August 19, 2022, the Complainant again attended hospital. He was diagnosed this time with a ruptured spleen, which was removed in a surgical procedure.

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 diagnosed with a serious injury following his arrest by LPS officers on August 18, 2022. The arresting officers – SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3 – were identified as the 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 any of the subject officials 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 clearly subject to arrest. He had stolen a vehicle, and rammed it into a LPS cruiser intending to escape apprehension.

With respect to the force used by the officers, though a matter of dispute in the evidence, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was excessive. There is a version of events proffered in the evidence that the Complainant exited the Malibu willingly and then did not resist as the officers variously punched him in the face, kicked him in the midsection, and kneed his left side, but I find the opposing evidence distinctly more believable based on the Complainant’s violent efforts at escape mere moments prior. That evidence, provided by SO #3 and SO #1, the latter via his notes, indicates that the Complainant struggled against the officers as soon as they opened the driver’s door. The Complainant first kicked SO #3 as he exited the Malibu, prompting the officer to kick him back, and then refused to surrender his arms on the ground, resulting in punches and knee strikes by SO #3 and SO #1, respectively. To reiterate, it would appear that SO #2 also used a quantum of force, although what that entailed was not revealed by the evidence. The officers had grounds to want to take the Complainant into custody as soon as possible given his erratic and dangerous behaviour in the Malibu, and were within their rights in resorting to physical force to overcome the Complainant’s resistance. Once the Complainant’s arms were secured, no further force was used. On this record, I accept that the force brought to bear was commensurate with the exigencies of the situation.

There is a report in the evidence that the Complainant was also punched by an officer in the ribs, after he was handcuffed and brought to a cruiser. If true, this evidence would certainly amount to an assault. However, in addition to the frailties noted above, the officer in question could not be identified, effectively foreclosing the prospect of any charges.