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 20-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On November 3, 2022, at 8:26 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the OPP, on November 2, 2022, at 8:08 p.m., the OPP were called to an address in Bracebridge regarding an intoxicated and suicidal man. OPP officers arrested the Complainant and transported him to the OPP Bracebridge Detachment. The Complainant was subsequently taken to the South Muskoka Memorial Hospital (SMMH) where he was admitted and diagnosed with a fractured leg.

The Scene

On November 2, 2022, the scene presented in a room of a motel located in Bracebridge.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

Communications Recordings

The following is a summary of the pertinent information from the communications recordings in connection with the incident under investigation.

At 8:06 p.m., on November 2, 2022, the OPP received a telephone call from a family member of the Complainant who reported the Complainant was in the motel. He had suicidal thoughts. The caller was not present with him.

The dispatcher informed the caller that an OPP officer was just around the corner from the address. The OPP officer would be attending the call, and he would be requested to update the caller about the situation.
At 8:08 p.m., the dispatcher made a radio call to SO #2. She informed him about the incident. SO #2 was available to respond to the incident. The dispatcher advised that the Complainant did not have any previous report on police record. SO #2 informed the dispatcher he was on his way to the incident.

SO #2 subsequently called the dispatcher, and announced that they had the Complainant in custody and that he would be taken to the OPP detachment. SO #2 added that the Complainant was extremely intoxicated, and he had assaulted him and SO #1 by spitting at them. The dispatch communicator asked if there were any injuries. SO #2 said there were no injuries, and the Complainant was in the police vehicle. SO #2 then announced that they were en route to the station, and provided his vehicle mileage.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between November 23, 2022, and January 6, 2023:

• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
• Communications recordings;
• General Occurrence report;
• Involved Officer List; and
• Arrest Report.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:

• The Complainant’s medical records from SMMH.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with the Complainant, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officials chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of their notes.

In the evening of November 2, 2022, SO #1 and SO #2 arrived at a motel room in Bracebridge. They were there following a call to police by a family member of the Complainant. Having just spoken with the Complainant on the phone and concerned that he planned to harm himself, the caller had asked that the police check on his wellbeing.

The evidence establishes that the Complainant was intoxicated but was initially receptive to the idea of accompanying the officers to hospital for a mental health assessment. However, after the officers entered his room to assist him in gathering some belongings for his trip to hospital, the Complainant became defiant when he was prevented from consuming more alcohol prior to his departure. The Complainant was handcuffed and searched, after which he spat at the officers.

One or both of the officers reacted to the spitting by taking the Complainant down to the floor, where he was advised that he was under arrest for having assaulted a peace officer.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was transported to the detachment and lodged in a cell. The following morning, after he complained of pain to a leg, the Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured right knee.

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 17, Mental Health Act -- Action by police officer

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

The Complainant was injured in and around the time of his arrest by OPP officers in Bracebridge on November 2, 2022. The officers – SO #1 and SO #2 – were identified as the subject officials in the ensuing SIU investigation of the incident. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official 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.

I am satisfied that the Complainant was lawfully in the custody of the subject officials at the time of the takedown. He had communicated intentions of self-harm to a family member, and was significantly inebriated and labouring under mental health issues at the time. All of this gave rise to a lawful arrest power under section 17 of the Mental Health Act. [2]

With respect to the force used by one or both subject officials, namely, a takedown, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was excessive. The Complainant had just spit at the officers, and the officers were entitled to take steps to prevent further assaults on their persons. Taking the Complainant down to the floor would assist in that task as it would place the Complainant at a positional disadvantage. It is true that the Complainant was handcuffed at the time. However, the method he had chosen to assault the officers – by spitting at them – remained unrestrained. There is, moreover, no evidence to indicate that the takedown was performed with undue force. No strikes of any kind were delivered by the officers.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was the likely result of the takedown, I am not reasonably satisfied that it was the product of unlawful conduct on the part of either subject official. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.



Date: March 3, 2023

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit