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 56-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On December 3, 2022, at 6:00 p.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 3:40 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), Hawkesbury Detachment, had requested their assistance in locating the Complainant as he was wanted on spousal assault charges. The OPP also reported that the Complainant had made suicidal comments before fleeing his residence. His cell phone had been ‘pinged’ and revealed his location to be a parking lot in the area of Montreal Road and St. Laurent Boulevard in the City of Ottawa. OPS officers attended the address and located the Complainant as he slept within his vehicle. [2] When asked to step out, the Complainant refused, brandished a box-cutter knife, and cut his throat. OPS officers broke the driver’s window, discharged a conducted energy weapon (CEW), and removed the Complainant, after which they rendered first-aid. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) later attended and transported the Complainant to the Ottawa Civic Hospital (OCH) where his wound was sutured, and he was admitted under the Mental Health Act. Later that day, the Complainant was released by OPP officers via an undertaking in connection with several criminal charges.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in a parking lot in the area of Montreal Road and St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa.

On December 4, 2022, at 11:00 a.m., a SIU forensic investigator attended the plaza located in the area of Montreal Road and St. Laurent Boulevard. The property was a medium-sized exterior retail mall that housed several businesses and a large number of marked parking spaces.

Although the scene was examined the day after the interaction, there was little difficulty locating the area where the incident occurred as there was a large amount of dried blood on the pavement in a parking space.




Figure 1 - Parking lot where the incident occurred

Physical Evidence

The SIU forensic investigator photographed the knife used by the Complainant to cut his neck.




Figure 2 - Box-cutter knife used by Complainant

Forensic Evidence

CEW Data

On December 4, 2022, SIU investigators received the data downloaded from SO #1’s discharged CEW [Taser X 2]. The information from the CEW revealed that the weapon was discharged on two occasions on December 3, 2022: firstly, at 4:10:28 p.m.; and, secondly, at 4:10:34 p.m. – each time for a duration of five seconds.




Figure 3 - CEW

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [3]

On December 4, 2022, the OPS provided SIU investigators with one cellphone video and five photographs, which they had received from the CW on December 3, 2022.

The cellphone video was two minutes and 38 seconds in duration. The footage revealed no date or time-stamp but the video and audio quality was good. The following is a summary of the footage.

The video began and depicted two marked OPS SUV cruisers as they were parked in front of and behind the Complainant’s pick-up truck [4] in the parking lot. Two OPS officers [WO #1 and SO #2] stood at the driver’s side of the pick-up truck and attempted to open the door.

A short time later, WO #1 and SO #2 pulled a man [the Complainant] through the driver’s window; the passenger door was opened by another OPS officer [SO #1]. Wires were attached to the Complainant as he was pulled out [wire/probes from a discharged CEW as deployed by SO #1]. The Complainant was placed on his knees on the pavement and SO #2 handcuffed his hands behind his back.

At that time, WO #1 applied gauze to the Complainant’s neck as it bled from a self-inflicted knife wound. There was blood on the Complainant’s face.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPS between December 3 and December 28, 2022:

• WO #2 - Internal Statement / Notebook Entries;
• WO #1 - Internal Statement / Notebook Entries;
• SO #2 - Internal Statement / Notebook Entries;
• SO #1 - Internal Statement / Notebook Entries;
• General Occurrence Report;
• General Occurrence Report - Supplementary;
• Civilian Witness Statement - CW;
• Civilian Witness Statement - Fernando Melo;
• Officer Schedule;
• Policy - Mental Health Incidents;
• Policy - Suspect Apprehension Pursuit (SAP);
• Policy - Use of Force; and
• Use of Force - De-escalation / Requalification for all involved OPS officers.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

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

• The Complainant’s medical records from OCH; and
• Video footage from the CW.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with a police officer and civilian eyewitness, and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, both subject officials declined an interview with the SIU. They did, however, authorize the release of their notes.

In the afternoon of December 3, 2022, SO #2 and SO #1, in the company of WO #1, confronted the Complainant in the parking lot of a plaza in the area of Montreal Road and St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa. The Complainant was sleeping at the time in the driver’s seat of his pick-up truck. The officers had been dispatched to the scene following a request for assistance from the OPP, which had called the OPS indicating that the Complainant, suicidal and wanted for spousal assault, could be located at the parking lot.

The officers positioned their cruisers in front of, and behind, the pick-up truck, and then approached the Complainant on foot. From the driver’s side, WO #1 and SO #2 spoke to the Complainant. They informed him why they were there, and asked him to step out of the vehicle. The Complainant refused to do so, and started the ignition of the pick-up truck. Concerned that the Complainant might try to drive away, SO #1 retrieved a spike belt from his cruiser and deployed it across the pick-up truck’s front tires.

As SO #2 and WO #1 continued to speak with the Complainant, he rolled up his window, produced a box-cutter knife in his right hand, and cut his neck with it. Seeing this, WO #1 smashed the driver’s door window and SO #1 did the same to the passenger side window. Seeking to prevent him from further harming himself, SO #1 drew and fired his CEW through the passenger door window at the Complainant. The Complainant’s body seized, and WO #1 and SO #2, from the other side, proceeded to extricate him from the open driver’s side door.

Once outside the pick-up truck, the officers immediately administered first aid to the Complainant. Pressure was applied to his neck while waiting for EMS to arrive at the scene.

The Complainant was taken from the scene to hospital where he was treated for a serious neck laceration. He was also admitted to hospital for psychiatric examination, and subsequently released.

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,

On December 3, 2022, the Complainant suffered a self-inflicted serious injury while engaged with three OPS officers in Ottawa. Two of the officers – SO #2 and SO #1 – were identified as subject officials for purposes of the ensuing SIU investigation. 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 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 that sought to take the Complainant into custody were engaged in the lawful execution of their duties. They had information from the OPP that the Complainant was suicidal and wanted for domestic assault.

I am further satisfied that the officers used only legally justified force in effecting the Complainant’s arrest. As soon as it became clear that the Complainant had retrieved a knife and used it to slash himself, they took immediate steps to incapacitate him to prevent further harm. In particular, SO #1 deployed his CEW, causing the Complainant’s body to lock-up, and SO #2 and WO #1 forcibly pulled him out of the vehicle, after which they quickly applied first-aid. In acting as they did, the officers’ quick action might well have played a part in saving the Complainant’s life.

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


Date: March 31, 2023

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit