SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OCI-232
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 37-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 37-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On September 12, 2022, a law firm sent a detailed letter to the SIU regarding a complaint involving their client – the Complainant - and his interaction with the Peel Regional Police (PRP). The letter alleged that on July 15, 2021, between 1:20 a.m. and 1:48 a.m., five PRP officers attended the Complainant’s residence near Bloor Street and Dixie Road and called him out the front door. The Complainant was sleeping in his second-floor bedroom at the time. He complied with the police officers’ commands and walked outside with his empty hands extended, to be handcuffed. One of the PRP officers grabbed him and slammed him to the ground, where he landed on his left shoulder. He was handcuffed behind his back and taken to PRP 22 Division. On July 19, 2021, the Complainant attended Trillium Health Partners (THP), Mississauga Hospital where he was diagnosed with a comminuted fracture of the greater tuberosity of his left shoulder. The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 09/15/2022 at 9:05 a.m.Date and time SIU responded: 09/15/2022 at 9:09 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
37-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on September 19, 2022.
Civilian Witness (CW)
CW InterviewedThe civilian witness was interviewed on September 21, 2022.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal rightWitness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The witness officials were interviewed between October 4 and 28, 2022.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in and around the front doorway of the Complainant’s residence near Bloor Street and Dixie Road, Mississauga.The SIU became aware of the interaction between the Complainant and PRP officers 14 months after it occurred. There was no evidence anticipated to be found at the scene, and no evidentiary value to be gained in photographing it, so investigators did not attend.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]
Custody Video
The PRP 22 Division custody video (no audio) captured footage occurring on July 15, 2021, from 2:35 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. The following is a summary of the footage:- At 2:35 a.m., the Complainant was escorted into the cell area shirtless and handcuffed behind his back. His handcuffs were removed, and he was provided a shirt which he used only his right hand to put on. He stretched his arms above his head.
- At 2:39 a.m., the Complainant sat on the booking area bench, and rubbed and cradled his left shoulder with his right hand. He appeared to speak with the police officer behind the desk while pointing to his left shoulder.
- Between 3:02 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., the Complainant was in a cell. He repeatedly rubbed his left shoulder and cradled his arm.
- At 8:30 a.m., the Complainant was removed from his cell by special constables. He spoke with them and pointed to his left shoulder.
- At 8:31 a.m., the Complainant was being fingerprinted, and appeared to speak while pointing to his left shoulder and gesturing in a circular motion around the area.
- At 10:15 a.m., the Complainant was released from custody.
PRP Telephone Recordings
The following is a summary of the pertinent recordings:- At 1:19 a.m., the PRP Communications Unit received a 911 call from a man (Caller #1) reporting that his uncle, the Complainant, was at his door with a knife.
- The Complainant was screaming and had told Caller #1’s father to go outside.
- The Complainant was drunk and had mental health issues, but Caller #1 did not know what they were and said he had not seen a doctor.
PRP Radio Recordings
The following is a summary of the pertinent recordings:- At 1:20 a.m., WO #2 was dispatched in response to a call about the Complainant screaming outside Caller #1’s address. The Complainant was reported to be intoxicated and in possession of a knife. He was believed to be in the hallway.
- At 1:32 a.m., WO #1 advised they were speaking with the Complainant through his door.
- At 1:48 a.m., the Complainant was in custody.
- At 2:08 a.m., the Complainant was driven from the scene to PRP 22 Division.
Camera Video Captured by CW #1
CW #1 told SIU investigators she had lost the camera that contained video footage of the interaction between the Complainant and the police. The Complainant told SIU investigators that his mother’s camera had been lost and the video was irretrievable, as it had not loaded to her iCloud storage account.
Video Footage from the Complainant’s Residence
The property manager at the Complainant’s residence told SIU investigators that all video from July 2021 had been overwritten and no longer existed. Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PRP between September 22, 2022, and December 9, 2022:- Email regarding previous complaints;
- Email regarding additional WOs (x2);
- Email regarding WO interviews;
- Communications Audio Report (x3);
- Notes- WO #3;
- Notes- WO #4;
- Notes- WO #1;
- Notes- WO #2;
- Person Details Report – the Complainant;
- Police Correspondence with Crown;
- Activity Log for the Complainant;
- Computer-Assisted Dispatch report;
- Disclosure Log;
- Occurrence Report;
- Prisoner Details Report;
- Custody Video;
- Communications Recordings; and
- Directive - Prisoner Care and Control.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the following other sources: - Medical records from THP for the Complainant; and
- Letter dated September 12, 2022, received from the Complainant’s counsel.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police officers active in his arrest, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO declined an interview with the SIU and the release of his notes.
In the early morning hours of July 15, 2021, a resident of a residential complex contacted police to report that another resident, his uncle – the Complainant, was intoxicated and screaming outside the door of his unit with a knife in hand. Uniform and TRU officers were dispatched to investigate.
WO #1 and WO #2, patrol officers, were the first to attend. They arrived at the front door of the Complainant’s unit and identified themselves as officers. From inside the residence, the Complainant indicated he was inebriated, shouted profanities, and refused to open the door. The TRU officers, including the SO, arrived within minutes of the patrol officers, at about 1:40 a.m. They too attempted to speak with the Complainant to have him peacefully exit his unit and surrender to police.
The Complainant opened the door of his unit at about 1:50 a.m. Following some back and forth at the doorway, the SO grabbed hold of the Complainant and forced him to the floor. The Complainant’s arms were brought behind his back and he was handcuffed.
A couple of days after his arrest, the Complainant visited a medical clinic and was diagnosed with a fractured left humerus.
In the early morning hours of July 15, 2021, a resident of a residential complex contacted police to report that another resident, his uncle – the Complainant, was intoxicated and screaming outside the door of his unit with a knife in hand. Uniform and TRU officers were dispatched to investigate.
WO #1 and WO #2, patrol officers, were the first to attend. They arrived at the front door of the Complainant’s unit and identified themselves as officers. From inside the residence, the Complainant indicated he was inebriated, shouted profanities, and refused to open the door. The TRU officers, including the SO, arrived within minutes of the patrol officers, at about 1:40 a.m. They too attempted to speak with the Complainant to have him peacefully exit his unit and surrender to police.
The Complainant opened the door of his unit at about 1:50 a.m. Following some back and forth at the doorway, the SO grabbed hold of the Complainant and forced him to the floor. The Complainant’s arms were brought behind his back and he was handcuffed.
A couple of days after his arrest, the Complainant visited a medical clinic and was diagnosed with a fractured left humerus.
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 88(1), Criminal Code -- Possession of Weapon for Dangerous Purpose
88 (1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.Analysis and Director's Decision
The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by PRP officers on July 15, 2021. One of the arresting – 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 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 officers who attended at the Complainant’s door would have understood from the 911 call that he had wielded a knife in a threatening manner at another residence only minutes prior. In the circumstances, the Complainant was subject to lawful arrest for being in possession of a weapon contrary to section 88(1) of the Criminal Code. [2]
With respect to the force that was used by the officers in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, there is insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude it was excessive. The takedown effected by the SO would appear to have constituted a legitimate tactic. An intoxicated Complainant was alleged to have threatened a fellow resident a short time ago with a knife in hand. In the circumstances, it was only prudent to ground the Complainant to mitigate the risk of injury that a weapon would have created. Nor does it appear that the takedown itself was the cause of the Complainant’s injury. That appears to have been the result of the manipulation of the Complainant’s arms behind his back by the officers, including the SO. It is alleged that the Complainant’s left arm was yanked behind his back with unnecessary force and that he had not physically resisted arrest. That account, however, is belied by the evidence of WO #2 and WO #1, who describe an arrest that was relatively uneventful aside from the takedown. It is also belied by the Complainant’s drunkenness at the time and evidence that he was less than truthful with respect to the surrounding incident. For these and other reasons, I find that the evidence tips in favour of the officers’ rendition of events.
In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was incurred at some point during his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that it was the product of unlawful conduct on the part of the arresting officers. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.
Date: January 10, 2023
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 officers who attended at the Complainant’s door would have understood from the 911 call that he had wielded a knife in a threatening manner at another residence only minutes prior. In the circumstances, the Complainant was subject to lawful arrest for being in possession of a weapon contrary to section 88(1) of the Criminal Code. [2]
With respect to the force that was used by the officers in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, there is insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude it was excessive. The takedown effected by the SO would appear to have constituted a legitimate tactic. An intoxicated Complainant was alleged to have threatened a fellow resident a short time ago with a knife in hand. In the circumstances, it was only prudent to ground the Complainant to mitigate the risk of injury that a weapon would have created. Nor does it appear that the takedown itself was the cause of the Complainant’s injury. That appears to have been the result of the manipulation of the Complainant’s arms behind his back by the officers, including the SO. It is alleged that the Complainant’s left arm was yanked behind his back with unnecessary force and that he had not physically resisted arrest. That account, however, is belied by the evidence of WO #2 and WO #1, who describe an arrest that was relatively uneventful aside from the takedown. It is also belied by the Complainant’s drunkenness at the time and evidence that he was less than truthful with respect to the surrounding incident. For these and other reasons, I find that the evidence tips in favour of the officers’ rendition of events.
In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was incurred at some point during his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that it was the product of unlawful conduct on the part of the arresting officers. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.
Date: January 10, 2023
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]
- 2) There was enough discrepancy in the evidence such that I was unable to reasonably conclude that the arrest occurred within the dwelling-house of the Complainant, which would otherwise have raised an additional set of legal issues relating to the lawfulness of the arrest. [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.