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 40-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On August 31, 2022, at 1:40 a.m., the Barrie Police Service (BPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the BPS, on August 30, 2022, at 8:44 p.m., BPS responded to a business near Barrie View Drive and Mapleview Drive West for a man - the Complainant - reportedly causing a disturbance. The Complainant was located in an intoxicated condition and arrested for public intoxication. He resisted and fought with the police. The Complainant was grounded by the officers, his head striking the ground. Emergency Medical Services attended and transported the Complainant to Royal Victoria Hospital. He was examined, diagnosed with a fractured orbital bone, and released by police to the care of the hospital.

The Scene

The scene presented near a dumpster located in an alley behind a building at 27 Caplan Avenue, Barrie.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

911 Call

The audio recording of the 911 call, starting at 8:07:56 p.m., was four minutes and 38 seconds in duration.

The caller said they were calling from a business near Barrie View Drive and Mapleview Drive West. She said there was a man – the Complainant – who was threatening staff and customers with rape and death. The Complainant was heard cursing in the background of the phone call. According to the caller, he was hitting windows. She did not see him with any weapons.

Radio Transmissions

On August 30, 2022, at 8:56 p.m., the SO arrived at the business and subsequently indicated he could not locate the Complainant. At 9:01 p.m., the SO located him behind a building near a dumpster. WO #1 was requested to attend.

The SO advised that the Complainant was intoxicated.

At 9:04 p.m., the SO had the Complainant in custody. The SO requested an ambulance as the Complainant had a head injury.

At 9:07 p.m., the SO requested the ambulance be expedited.

At 9:10 p.m., the Complainant was conscious and breathing; he had a cut to his head.

At 9:16 p.m., WO #4 advised that the Complainant had a cut to his eyebrow and ear. The Complainant was in custody for ‘assault police’.

At 9:20 p.m., the ambulance arrived.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

The police interaction with the Complainant was captured by the BWCs of the SO, WO #2 and WO #1. The pertinent footage is summarized below.

At 9:01 p.m., the SO was captured in a vehicle on a radio communication device. He exited the vehicle and approached the Complainant. The Complainant sat near a dumpster located in an alley behind a building.

The SO asked the Complainant for identification. He responded with his name and gave his date of birth. The SO asked repeatedly if the Complainant had anything to drink and if he had taken any drugs. The Complainant denied being drunk or consuming drugs. He offered marijuana to the SO. The SO said, “I can smell the booze on ya man.”

At 9:03 p.m., the Complainant stood up and said, “You can deal with me all day long and I’ll deal with you.” The SO replied, “What does that mean?” and the Complainant said, “Well you’re not going to hurt me.” The SO replied, “No, I’m not,” and the Complainant said, “And I’m not going to hurt you.”

The SO directed the Complainant to sit down; he did not do so. The Complainant turned his body away from the police officer, placed his hands behind his back, and said, “Here you go.”

At 9:04 p.m., the SO told the Complainant he was under arrest for public intoxication. The SO placed a handcuff on the Complainant left wrist and attempted to place the other handcuff on the Complainant’s right wrist. The Complainant did not appear to follow the officer’s directions during the application of the right handcuff behind his back. The SO told the Complainant, “Relax or you’re gonna get tased.” The Complainant said, “That’s okay.”

The SO took the Complainant towards the police vehicle. The SO’s left hand was on the Complainant’s upper right bicep, and the SO’s right hand was on the Complainant’s right forearm. The Complainant was unsteady. At 9:04 p.m., the Complainant was taken to the ground, and the SO said, “Stop resisting, holy shit dude.” A second police officer – WO #1 - arrived.

At 9:05 p.m., the SO stepped away, and WO #1 took control of the Complainant. He laid in a prone position. The SO said, “He elbowed me in the fucking thigh, kneed me I mean.”

The SO and WO #1 attempted to roll the Complainant into a right lateral position. A pool of blood was seen on the pavement. The SO requested that paramedics attend. At 9:06 p.m., the SO and WO #1 again attempted to roll the Complainant into a right lateral position. The SO said, “He’s out like a light.”

The SO and WO #1 rolled the Complainant into a supine position with his hands still handcuffed behind his back. They supported his head off the ground. Blood was seen on the right side of the Complainant’s face in an area from his right temple to his right ear, over to his right nostril and down to the chin.

At 9:10 p.m., a third police officer – WO #2 - arrived at the scene. He rendered basic first-aid by applying pressure to the Complainant’s forehead with gauze pads. Two additional police officers arrived - WO #3 and WO #4.

At 9:24 p.m., the SO said to WO #1, “I meant to take him down, I didn’t think he was gonna fuckin whack his head that long…or that hard I mean.”

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the BPS between September 2, 2022, and November 16, 2022:

• Computer-assisted Dispatch report;
• Communications recordings;
• BWC footage;
• Notes – WO #2;
• Notes – WO #1;
• Notes – the SO;
• Notes – WO #3;
• Notes – WO #4; and
• Use of Force Policy.

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, including BWC footage that largely captured the incident, and may briefly be summarized.

In the evening of August 30, 2022, the SO was dispatched to a business in the area of Barrie View Drive and Mapleview Drive West, Barrie. An employee had called police to report that a male – the Complainant – had been threatening staff and customers with rape and death. As the Complainant had left the business by the time of the SO’s arrival, the officer patrolled the area attempting to locate him.

The SO located the Complainant a short distance away. He was sitting by a dumpster behind the Mark’s Store at 27 Caplan Avenue. The two spoke briefly and the SO decided to arrest the Complainant for public intoxication. The Complainant turned and surrendered his arms behind his back. The SO handcuffed the Complainant after a brief struggle, after which he began to walk him in the direction of his nearby cruiser. A few steps into the walk, the SO told the Complainant to “relax” and then forced him to the ground. The Complainant had kicked the officer in the knee.

The Complainant’s face struck the pavement in the fall, resulting in facial fractures.

An ambulance arrived on scene and transported the Complainant to hospital where his injuries were diagnosed.

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,

Section 31, Liquor Licence and Control Act -- Intoxication

(a) In a place to which the general public is invited or permitted access; or

(b) In any part of a residence that is used in common by persons occupying more than one dwelling in the residence.

(2) A police officer or conservation officer may arrest without warrant any person who is contravening subsection (1) if, in the opinion of the officer, it is necessary to do so for the safety of any person.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by a BPS officer on August 30, 2022. The officer – 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 Complainant was subject to arrest for public intoxication under section 31 of the Liquor Licence and Control Act. The Complainant had threatened persons at a business and presented with signs of intoxication in his interaction with the SO prior to his arrest – he slurred his words, smelled of alcohol, and spoke nonsensically. Once under arrest, the officer was entitled to restrict the Complainant’s movement to ensure their safety.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO in the course of the Complainant’s custody, namely, a takedown, was legally justified. The Complainant, though in handcuffs, had kicked the officer’s left knee as they were walking to the cruiser. In the circumstances, the SO was entitled to react with a measure of force to protect himself from any further assault. A takedown would accomplish just that at the same time as it would place the officer in position to better manage any continuing resistance on the part of the Complainant. On my review of the BWC footage, it does not appear that the maneuver was accomplished with excessive or reckless force.

In the result, while it is regrettable that the Complainant suffered facial fractures in the takedown following his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injuries are attributable to any unlawful conduct on the part of the SO. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: December 29, 2022

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit