SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-PCI-315
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 injuries of a 49-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 injuries of a 49-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On December 11, 2022, at 1:12 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant. According to the OPP, on December 10, 2022, OPP Subject Official (SO) #1 and SO #2 were conducting a RIDE (Reduced Impaired Driving Everywhere) program on Petrolia Line, Petrolia, when a westbound approaching vehicle was observed making a U-turn. The police officers departed the RIDE check and, at 7:50 p.m., located the vehicle and conducted a traffic stop on First Avenue and Pearl Street. The driver [now known to be Civilian Witness (CW) #2] was unlicensed, while the passenger [now known to be the Complainant] was found to be breaching release conditions. When the police officers arrested the Complainant, he was uncooperative and assaultive. SO #1 used a grounding technique, which resulted in all three of them falling to the ground. The Complainant struck his face on the pavement. Once taken into custody, the Complainant was transported to Bluewater Health in Sarnia where he was diagnosed with a fractured orbital bone.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 12/11/2022 at 1:35 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 12/11/2022 at 4:30 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)
49-year-old male; interviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on December 11, 2022.
Civilian Witnesses
CW #1 Interviewed CW #2 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed on December 12, 2022.
Subject Officials
SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
The subject official was interviewed on January 18, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired around a vehicle that had come to a stop on Pearl Street, just west of First Avenue, Petrolia.SIU investigators arrived at the scene on December 11, 2022, at 4:30 a.m.
Pearl Street was a two-lane asphalt road with one lane for each of eastbound and westbound traffic. It was controlled by a stop sign at the intersection of First Avenue.
First Avenue was a two-lane asphalt road with one lane for each of northbound and southbound traffic. First Avenue was a through street at Pearl Street where it intersected.
Pictured below was the location where CW #2 parked her vehicle after being stopped by SO #1. The orange pylons in the intersection were believed to mark the location of the arrest and physical interaction between SO #1 and SO #2, and the Complainant.
Figure 1 – Location of the arrest
SIU forensic investigators did not attend the scene as there was no evidence believed to be present that would further the investigation.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
Communications Recordings
On December 14, 2022, SIU requested the pertinent communications recordings from the OPP. On December 21, 2022, they were received by the SIU. The following is a summary of the recordings.Police Radio Transmissions
At about 7:45:33 a.m., SO #1 told SO #2 that he was at Pearl Street and First Avenue.
SO #1 contacted dispatch and requested a records check of CW #2.
Dispatch told SO #1 that CW #2 was unlicensed.
SO #2 advised they had one person in custody and requested a records check of the Complainant.
Dispatch told SO #2 that the Complainant was on a charge with a condition that he was to remain in his residence at all times except for medical emergencies.
SO #2 told dispatch that the Complainant was being transported to Bluewater Health by ambulance.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between December 15 and 21, 2022:- Arrest Report;
- Show Cause Hearing Report;
- Event Details Occurrence;
- Communications recordings; and
- Notes-SO #1.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:- Bluewater Health medical records of the Complainant.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with one of the two subject officials – SO #1 - and civilian eyewitnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the other subject official – SO #2 – chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.
In the evening of December 10, 2022, SO #1, operating a police cruiser, pulled over a vehicle being operated by CW #2. With CW #2 in the front passenger seat was the Complainant. Moments earlier, CW #2 had made a U-turn ahead of a RIDE checkpoint on Petrolia Line, thereafter turning right to travel south on First Avenue before coming to stop after turning right again on Pearl Street. SO #1 had been manning the checkpoint and suspected that the driver – CW #2 – had attempted to avoid the RIDE program.
Joined shortly by SO #2, who had also been working the RIDE stop, SO #1 approached CW #2’s stationary vehicle. As SO #1 dealt with CW #2 and learned she was an unlicensed driver, SO #2 spoke with the Complainant seated in the passenger seat. Asked for his name, the Complainant provided a false identification to the officer. When challenged by the officer that he had provided false information, the Complainant lied again about his name. At the time, the Complainant was in breach of a court order that he remain in Windsor.
Still not satisfied that he had provided a real name, SO #2 approached the Complainant, then standing outside CW #2’s vehicle, and attempted to detain him pending further investigation. The Complainant initially put up his arms as if to surrender, but then attempted to flee when SO #2 took hold of one of his arms. As SO #2 struggled to hold on, the Complainant rounded the back of CW #2’s vehicle before he and the officer were tackled to the ground by SO #1.
The struggle continued on the ground. With SO #1 on his back, the Complainant attempted to get up – he bucked and thrashed trying to free himself. SO #2, who was beside the Complainant on the ground, punched him several times in the head area. SO #1 delivered several knees to the Complainant’s upper thighs. The Complainant continued to resist the officers and was met with several more punches, this time delivered by SO #1 to the back and waist area, after which the officers handcuffed him.
Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with an orbital blow-out fracture and an un-displaced nasal fracture.
In the evening of December 10, 2022, SO #1, operating a police cruiser, pulled over a vehicle being operated by CW #2. With CW #2 in the front passenger seat was the Complainant. Moments earlier, CW #2 had made a U-turn ahead of a RIDE checkpoint on Petrolia Line, thereafter turning right to travel south on First Avenue before coming to stop after turning right again on Pearl Street. SO #1 had been manning the checkpoint and suspected that the driver – CW #2 – had attempted to avoid the RIDE program.
Joined shortly by SO #2, who had also been working the RIDE stop, SO #1 approached CW #2’s stationary vehicle. As SO #1 dealt with CW #2 and learned she was an unlicensed driver, SO #2 spoke with the Complainant seated in the passenger seat. Asked for his name, the Complainant provided a false identification to the officer. When challenged by the officer that he had provided false information, the Complainant lied again about his name. At the time, the Complainant was in breach of a court order that he remain in Windsor.
Still not satisfied that he had provided a real name, SO #2 approached the Complainant, then standing outside CW #2’s vehicle, and attempted to detain him pending further investigation. The Complainant initially put up his arms as if to surrender, but then attempted to flee when SO #2 took hold of one of his arms. As SO #2 struggled to hold on, the Complainant rounded the back of CW #2’s vehicle before he and the officer were tackled to the ground by SO #1.
The struggle continued on the ground. With SO #1 on his back, the Complainant attempted to get up – he bucked and thrashed trying to free himself. SO #2, who was beside the Complainant on the ground, punched him several times in the head area. SO #1 delivered several knees to the Complainant’s upper thighs. The Complainant continued to resist the officers and was met with several more punches, this time delivered by SO #1 to the back and waist area, after which the officers handcuffed him.
Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with an orbital blow-out fracture and an un-displaced nasal fracture.
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 sustained serious injuries in the course of his arrest in Petrolia on December 10, 2022, by two OPP officers. The officers – SO #1 and SO #2 – were identified as the subject officials in 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 arrest and injuries.
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 Complainant’s repeated lies about his identity to SO #2 gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that he was implicated in a criminal offence, namely, obstruction of justice. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the officer had lawful grounds to detain the Complainant pending further investigation: see R v Mann, [2004] 3 SCR 59.
As for the force used by SO #2 and SO #1, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was excessive and not legally justified. The takedown of the Complainant by SO #1 seems a reasonable tactic. The Complainant had attempted to escape apprehension and had doggedly managed to pull SO #2 several metres in his flight before SO #1’s intervention. On this record, it was open to the officer to conclude that the Complainant needed to be taken to the ground to better manage his resistance. Once on the ground, the Complainant continued to struggle and was met with a series of punches and knees by the officers, at least some of which were compelled by the knife that had fallen from the Complainant in the tackle and a concern that he might have additional weapons on his person.
The Complainant suggests that he was beaten by the officers even as he put up no resistance to their efforts. That proposition, however, is belied by the accounts of SO #1 and, importantly, civilian eyewitnesses.
In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injuries were incurred in the course of the altercation that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe they are attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the subject officials. As such, 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
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 Complainant’s repeated lies about his identity to SO #2 gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that he was implicated in a criminal offence, namely, obstruction of justice. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the officer had lawful grounds to detain the Complainant pending further investigation: see R v Mann, [2004] 3 SCR 59.
As for the force used by SO #2 and SO #1, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was excessive and not legally justified. The takedown of the Complainant by SO #1 seems a reasonable tactic. The Complainant had attempted to escape apprehension and had doggedly managed to pull SO #2 several metres in his flight before SO #1’s intervention. On this record, it was open to the officer to conclude that the Complainant needed to be taken to the ground to better manage his resistance. Once on the ground, the Complainant continued to struggle and was met with a series of punches and knees by the officers, at least some of which were compelled by the knife that had fallen from the Complainant in the tackle and a concern that he might have additional weapons on his person.
The Complainant suggests that he was beaten by the officers even as he put up no resistance to their efforts. That proposition, however, is belied by the accounts of SO #1 and, importantly, civilian eyewitnesses.
In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injuries were incurred in the course of the altercation that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe they are attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the subject officials. As such, 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
Endnotes
- 1) The information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s finding of facts following its investigation. [Back to text]
- 2) 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]
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.