SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OCI-216
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 20-year-old man (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 20-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On August 26, 2022, at 2:21 a.m., the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.According to the HRPS, on August 25, 2022, at 8:10 p.m., the HRPS executed a drug search warrant at the Complainant’s residence. The HRPS Tactical Rescue Unit (TRU) was deployed during the search because of information that the Complainant was armed with a firearm. The Complainant was located in the garage and resisted arrest. A gun was subsequently located in the garage. The Complainant suffered a bloody nose and cut to the forehead. He was taken to Georgetown District Hospital (GDH) and was being held for further testing in the morning. Information received from the hospital indicated he had a fractured nose.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 08/26/2022 at 9:15 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 08/26/2022 at 9:19 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
20-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on August 26, 2022.
Civilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 Interviewed CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed on September 15, 2022.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewedWitness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
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
The witness officials were interviewed between September 2 and 26, 2022.
Evidence
The Scene
The interaction between the Complainant and the HRPS police officers occurred inside the garage of a residence near 8 Line and 10 Side Road, Halton Hills. The scene was photographed by SIU forensic investigators.Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]
The SIU obtained photographic records of relevance, as set out below. - HRPS photographs/Video.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the HRPS between August 26, 2022, and September 30, 2022:- Operational Plan;
- Use of Force Reports;
- Policy - Use of Force;
- Policy - Arrest, Search and Release;
- Communications recordings;
- Supplementary Occurrence Report- the SO;
- Notes- the SO;
- Notes- WO #5;
- Notes- WO #4;
- Notes- WO #3;
- Notes- WO #1;
- Notes- WO #2;
- Notes- WO #6;
- Scene photographs and video;
- Search Warrant; and
- Occurrence Report.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the following other sources: - Medical records from GDH.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and officers who were present at the time of his arrest, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO declined an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.
In the evening of August 25, 2022, a team of HRPS TRU officers entered the open garage of a residence near 8 Line and 10 Side Road, Halton Hills. They did so on the strength of a search warrant that had been issued in support of a drug investigation. The targets of the investigation were named in the warrant – the Complainant and CW #2 – both suspected of trafficking in controlled substances. The TRU team had been enlisted to secure the address ahead of the search in light of information suggesting the possibility that the Complainant and CW #2 were in possession of firearms.
The Complainant and CW #2 were present inside the garage at the time, together with another male – CW #1. The three were standing on one side of the garage that had been furnished with a sofa and a mini-refrigerator.
The SO was the first officer to enter the garage. He was armed with a C-8 rifle at the ready. The officer quickly approached the Complainant and ordered him to the ground, after which he tackled the Complainant off the refrigerator and onto the floor. There followed a short struggle on the ground during which the SO delivered several knee strikes to the Complainant’s right side and back before controlling his arms and handcuffing them behind the back.
The Complainant was taken from the scene to hospital. He was diagnosed with a laceration above the right eye and a fractured nose.
In the evening of August 25, 2022, a team of HRPS TRU officers entered the open garage of a residence near 8 Line and 10 Side Road, Halton Hills. They did so on the strength of a search warrant that had been issued in support of a drug investigation. The targets of the investigation were named in the warrant – the Complainant and CW #2 – both suspected of trafficking in controlled substances. The TRU team had been enlisted to secure the address ahead of the search in light of information suggesting the possibility that the Complainant and CW #2 were in possession of firearms.
The Complainant and CW #2 were present inside the garage at the time, together with another male – CW #1. The three were standing on one side of the garage that had been furnished with a sofa and a mini-refrigerator.
The SO was the first officer to enter the garage. He was armed with a C-8 rifle at the ready. The officer quickly approached the Complainant and ordered him to the ground, after which he tackled the Complainant off the refrigerator and onto the floor. There followed a short struggle on the ground during which the SO delivered several knee strikes to the Complainant’s right side and back before controlling his arms and handcuffing them behind the back.
The Complainant was taken from the scene to hospital. He was diagnosed with a laceration above the right eye and a fractured 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.
Analysis and Director's Decision
The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by HRPS officers on August 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 injuries.
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.
I am satisfied that the SO was proceeding lawfully to arrest the Complainant at the time he first made contact with him. The warrant pursuant to which the TRU team were acting named the Complainant as one of the principal subjects of the drug investigation.
With respect to the force brought to bear by the SO, namely, a takedown and multiple knee strikes, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was excessive. The officers had cause to believe that the Complainant would have access to a firearm. He had recently pled guilty to firearms offences. In the circumstances, it would appear a takedown was within the range of reasonable tactics available to the SO when the Complainant did not go to ground as quickly as the officer would have liked. In that position, the SO could more safely manage the prospect of a weapon on the Complainant’s person. Once on the ground, there is evidence that the Complainant did not surrender his arms as requested by the officer so they could be secured. Once again, given the prospect of weapons in his possession, the use of knee strikes to promptly overcome the Complainant’s resistance seems a reasonable response to the exigencies of the moment.
In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injuries were the result of the force used by the SO – the broken nose likely the result of the tackle or fall to the ground, there are no reasonable grounds to believe they are attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the officer. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: December 22, 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.
I am satisfied that the SO was proceeding lawfully to arrest the Complainant at the time he first made contact with him. The warrant pursuant to which the TRU team were acting named the Complainant as one of the principal subjects of the drug investigation.
With respect to the force brought to bear by the SO, namely, a takedown and multiple knee strikes, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was excessive. The officers had cause to believe that the Complainant would have access to a firearm. He had recently pled guilty to firearms offences. In the circumstances, it would appear a takedown was within the range of reasonable tactics available to the SO when the Complainant did not go to ground as quickly as the officer would have liked. In that position, the SO could more safely manage the prospect of a weapon on the Complainant’s person. Once on the ground, there is evidence that the Complainant did not surrender his arms as requested by the officer so they could be secured. Once again, given the prospect of weapons in his possession, the use of knee strikes to promptly overcome the Complainant’s resistance seems a reasonable response to the exigencies of the moment.
In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injuries were the result of the force used by the SO – the broken nose likely the result of the tackle or fall to the ground, there are no reasonable grounds to believe they are attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the officer. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: December 22, 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.