SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OCI-283
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 24-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 24-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On October 29, 2022, at 4:09 p.m., the Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.On October 29, 2022, at about 2:10 a.m., NRPS police officers responded to a fight in progress at the Level 3 Night Club, 6 James Street, St. Catharines.
The Complainant had left the bar and was arrested a short distance away. He was taken to the Niagara Health - St. Catharines General Hospital (SCGH) and diagnosed with a broken clavicle. The Complainant was subsequently released from custody.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 10/29/2022 at 4:53 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 10/29/2022 at 5:15 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
24-year-old male; interviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on October 31, 2022.
Civilian Witness (CW)
CW Interviewed The civilian witness was interviewed on October 31, 2022.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right The subject official was interviewed on December 19, 2022.
.
Witness 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
The witness officials were interviewed between November 10, 2022 and December 5, 2022.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question occurred on Summer Street, west of James Street.The scene was not examined by the SIU.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]
Police Radio Communications
The following is a summary of the pertinent communications in connection with the incident under investigation.At 2:12 a.m., a fight was identified at the intersection of James Street at St. Paul Street in St. Catharines. The SO and WO #1 were requested to attend. They were nearby.
The SO and WO #1 stated the suspect had run west onto Summer Street.
A further transmission indicated the suspect was in custody.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the NRPS between October 31, 2022, and November 22, 2022:- Incident Report;
- Communications recordings;
- Notes-WO #5;
- Notes-WO #4;
- Notes-WO #1;
- Notes-WO #2;
- Notes-WO #3;
- Policy - Use of Force; and
- Video footage - City of St. Catharines. [2]
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:- Medical records from SCGH; and
- Video footage from a bar on St. Paul Street.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, gives rise to the following scenario.
In the early morning hours of October 29, 2022, the Complainant came to the attention of police officers on patrol in the area of St. Paul and James Streets, St. Catharines. He had been involved in a fight at the intersection with a passerby after the passerby stopped to check on the welfare of the Complainant’s girlfriend, who appeared distressed and in tears.
The SO caught wind of the fight over his police radio. He and his partner – WO #1 – drove a short distance to the intersection, stopped and exited their cruiser, and chased after the Complainant on foot. The SO pursued the Complainant as the latter fled north on James Street and then west on Summer Street. He eventually caught up to the Complainant and took him to the ground. The Complainant refused to give up his arms on the ground and struggled against the officer. With the arrival of WO #1 and other officers, the Complainant was subdued and handcuffed behind the back.
Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to the police station. He subsequently complained of shoulder pain and was transported to hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured right clavicle.
In the early morning hours of October 29, 2022, the Complainant came to the attention of police officers on patrol in the area of St. Paul and James Streets, St. Catharines. He had been involved in a fight at the intersection with a passerby after the passerby stopped to check on the welfare of the Complainant’s girlfriend, who appeared distressed and in tears.
The SO caught wind of the fight over his police radio. He and his partner – WO #1 – drove a short distance to the intersection, stopped and exited their cruiser, and chased after the Complainant on foot. The SO pursued the Complainant as the latter fled north on James Street and then west on Summer Street. He eventually caught up to the Complainant and took him to the ground. The Complainant refused to give up his arms on the ground and struggled against the officer. With the arrival of WO #1 and other officers, the Complainant was subdued and handcuffed behind the back.
Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to the police station. He subsequently complained of shoulder pain and was transported to hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured right clavicle.
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 NRPS officers in St. Catharines on October 29, 2022. One of the 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 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.
There is no suggestion in the evidence that the Complainant’s arrest, per se, was unlawful. He had attacked a passerby with some friends, and was clearly subject to arrest for assault.
With respect to the force brought to bear by the SO, namely, a takedown, I am satisfied that it was legally justified. As he chased the Complainant, the SO screamed at him to stop and that he was under arrest. When the Complainant ignored that direction and continued to run, he gave the officer little choice but to intervene physically to bring his flight to an end. The grounding itself would appear a reasonable tactic in the circumstances – it would put an end to the pursuit and place the SO in a position to better manage any continuing resistance on the part of the Complainant, which he had given the officer reason to believe would happen. In fact, the Complainant did resist for a short period on the ground before he was quickly brought under control and handcuffed.
In the result, while I accept that the takedown likely caused the Complainant’s injury, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO comported himself other than lawfully throughout their engagement. As such, there is no basis for criminal proceedings in this case. The file is closed.
Date: February 24, 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.
There is no suggestion in the evidence that the Complainant’s arrest, per se, was unlawful. He had attacked a passerby with some friends, and was clearly subject to arrest for assault.
With respect to the force brought to bear by the SO, namely, a takedown, I am satisfied that it was legally justified. As he chased the Complainant, the SO screamed at him to stop and that he was under arrest. When the Complainant ignored that direction and continued to run, he gave the officer little choice but to intervene physically to bring his flight to an end. The grounding itself would appear a reasonable tactic in the circumstances – it would put an end to the pursuit and place the SO in a position to better manage any continuing resistance on the part of the Complainant, which he had given the officer reason to believe would happen. In fact, the Complainant did resist for a short period on the ground before he was quickly brought under control and handcuffed.
In the result, while I accept that the takedown likely caused the Complainant’s injury, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO comported himself other than lawfully throughout their engagement. As such, there is no basis for criminal proceedings in this case. The file is closed.
Date: February 24, 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) The footage did not capture the Complainant’s arrest on Summer Street. [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.