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 24-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On October 27, 2022, at 4:47 p.m., the Barrie Police Service (BPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the BPS, earlier that day, the BPS Tactical Support Unit (TSU) was assisting the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) with the arrest of the Complainant for numerous criminal offences in the area of an address on Georgian Drive. The Complainant was taken to the OPP Nottawasaga Detachment following his arrest, where he complained of a sore ankle. The Complainant was subsequently transported to the Stevenson’s Memorial Hospital (SMH) and diagnosed with a broken ankle.

The Scene

The events in question occurred on Johnson Street, south of Georgian Drive, Barrie.

The SIU did not attend the scene.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The SO [2]

On October 31, 2022, the SIU received a copy of the footage from the SO’s BWC. The video recordings were date and time stamped, in colour, and contained audio. The following is a summary of the pertinent information from the footage.

On October 27, 2022, starting at 9:24:36 a.m., the video began.

Starting at 9:24:42 a.m., the Complainant was positioned face down on the sidewalk while his right arm was being moved behind his back by the SO. Another uniformed male officer – WO #9 - placed his left knee onto the Complainant’s upper back to assist the SO complete the handcuffing process. The Complainant yelled, “What the fuck?” The SO advised the Complainant that he was under arrest for ‘Property Obtained by Crime’. A bag was searched and removed from the Complainant’s person. When asked if he had any weapons, he told the officer he had a knife in his pocket.

Starting at 9:25:13 a.m., after the Complainant was rolled onto his right side, the SO conducted a search of his clothing and removed several items, including a knife from his waistband. When the Complainant inquired about “what property”, the SO responded that the OPP had received information that he was in possession of stolen property, and they would explain it to him.

Starting at 9:25:59 a.m., the Complainant said, “My fucking ankle hurts a lot.” The Complainant did not verbally indicate which ankle was hurting when the SO asked him.

Starting at 9:26:37 a.m., the SO advised the Complainant that there was a paramedic on scene and assisted him to his feet. The Complainant was unable to put any weight on his right leg.

Starting at 9:27:04 a.m., a plainclothes male officer – WO #6 - approached the Complainant and advised him he was under arrest for ‘Theft’ and ‘Property Obtained by Crime’. He read the Complainant his rights to counsel and a caution, which the Complainant understood

Starting at 9:28:44 a.m., the SO told the Complainant that he could sit down as they would be waiting for a several minutes. The audio component on the SO’s BWC was then de-activated while the video recording captured officers appearing to speak with each other.

Starting at 9:43:24 a.m., the Complainant limped towards the boulevard after an officer motioned for him to approach. He was unable to put weight on his right leg and hopped on his left leg towards the officer while in the care of the SO.

Starting at 9:43:47 a.m., a marked BPS police vehicle arrived on scene and the rear right passenger door was opened. The Complainant was seated on the curb on Johnson Street while a paramedic assessed his right leg.

At 9:44:36 a.m., the video ended.

The material events in question, which are not in dispute, may briefly be summarized.

In the morning of the day in question, the BPS TSU had been mobilized to assist with the arrest of the Complainant. The Complainant was wanted by the OPP for a rash of thefts in the Nottawasaga area. Search warrants had been secured by the OPP and were scheduled to be executed that day, including at a premise thought to be the Complainant’s residence on Georgian Drive, Barrie. As there was information linking him to firearms, the plan was to have the TSU arrest the Complainant outside the residence before it would be searched.

A team of TSU officers, including the SO, staged in an unmarked van by the Complainant’s residence. They waited to hear from OPP officers, who had the premises under surveillance and would signal when the Complainant had exited. That call came shortly before 9:30 a.m.

Advised that the Complainant, in the company of a male associate, had walked east on Georgian Drive and was then southbound on Johnson Street, the team of TSU officers rolled up to their location in the van. One or more distractionary devices were deployed in the area of the Complainant and his associate as officers exited the van to execute their arrests.

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 seriously injured in the course of his arrest by a BPS officer on October 27, 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 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.

Given the search warrants in effect naming the Complainant as the subject of a theft investigation, I am satisfied that he was subject to lawful arrest at the hands of the SO.

I am also satisfied that the tactic employed by police, and the force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, were reasonable. In a briefing delivered by the OPP the morning of the arrest, the SO had come to understand that illegal firearms had been linked to the Complainant by a number of sources. In the circumstances, the decision to deploy a team of tactical officers, equipped and trained to deal with situations involving weapons, made sense. Once out of the van, the SO gave the Complainant an opportunity to assume a position on the ground. When he delayed in doing so, and given the prospect of a possible weapon on his person, the SO was entitled to act quickly to effect a takedown. In that position, the risks associated with an armed person could be better managed. Indeed, as it turns out, knives were found on the Complainant’s person in a search following his arrest. As for the mechanics of the takedown, aside from the fact that it appears to have been the cause of the Complainant’s injury, the evidence does not establish that the officer used exaggerated or disproportionate force.

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than lawfully in his dealings with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: February 24, 2023

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit