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 70-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On November 28, 2022, at 11:56 a.m., the Complainant left a voicemail on the SIU public answering service in which she conveyed the following information

On November 12, 2022, at 5:30 a.m., Peel Regional Police (PRP) officers had been called to her home in the area of Cawthra Road and Bloor Street because of a foul odour emanating from the basement unit. Officers attended and spoke with the Complainant in the basement apartment, after which she was pushed to the ground by one of the officers. The Complainant was subsequently transported by Peel Regional Paramedics Services (PRPS) to the Mississauga Trillium Hospital, admitted for four days, and diagnosed with a fractured right shoulder.

On January 5, 2023, the Complainant provided medical documentation supporting her complaint of a fractured shoulder.

The Scene

The events in question occurred in the basement of a residence in the area of Cawthra Road and Bloor Street, Mississauga.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

Communications Recordings

On January 10, 2023, the SIU received pertinent communications recordings from the PRP.

Between about 5:42:02 a.m. and 5:42:29 a.m., November 12, 2022, a resident called 911 to report a suspicious smell from the basement. He was transferred to Emergency Medical Services (EMS).

Starting at about 5:52:31 a.m., the EMS requested that police officers attend the call.

Between about 5:58:06 a.m. and 5:59:05 a.m., the resident said an unknown person was knocking at his door.

Between about 5:58:03 a.m. and 5:59:48 a.m., the police operator alerted police officers to attend the home. A resident had called 911 to report a man, banging on his side door aggressively, trying to get in.

Starting at about 6:05:40 a.m., it was noted that a resident had informed police officers that someone had gone into his basement.

Starting at about 6:10:56 a.m., police officer reported, “One male in custody, everything’s [police code redacted].”

Starting at about 6:16:30 a.m., the police operator cancelled the initial call for an ambulance.

The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized. As was her legal right, SO #1 chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of her notes.

In the early morning of November 12, 2022, PRP officers were dispatched to a house in the area of Cawthra Road and Bloor Street. A resident of the address had called 911 to report the smell of what possibly was a dead body emanating from the basement. Information was subsequently received from the 911 caller that there was a break and enter in progress at the house.

SO #1 and SO #2 arrived at the scene at about 6:00 a.m. They were joined by WO #1 and WO #2. Fire department personnel were also at the address given the information about a potential dead body on site. The 911 caller was outside the residence. The officers spoke with the resident, and he confirmed the information he had provided about a possible break and enter.

The Complainant was the owner of the property. She emerged from the north side door of the residence to inquire what was going on. She spoke with the resident and some of the officers, and then made her way back into the residence. She did so despite objections from the police.

Led by SO #2, the officers followed the Complainant through the north side entrance and down a flight of stairs into the basement and a small foyer area. The Complainant was panicked at this time and started screaming as the officers attempted to direct her outside. SO #2 took hold of the Complainant’s left side and tripped her to the floor using his right leg. With the Complainant in a prone position, her hands were handcuffed behind the back by SO #1.

Following her apprehension, the Complainant was released and transported to hospital in ambulance. She was diagnosed with a fractured right shoulder.

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 during her apprehension by PRP officers in Mississauga on November 12, 2022. In the ensuing SIU investigation, two of the officers –SO #1 and SO #2 – were identified as subject officials. 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.

A police officer’s foremost duty is the protection and preservation of human life. At the time of the incident under investigation, SO #2 and SO #1 had reason to believe that an intruder might be present in the Complainant’s home. As they had tried and failed to keep the Complainant from the interior of the home, the officers were left with little choice but to detain her momentarily so they could remove her from the home, in the interests of her own safety, and proceed to quickly investigate the reported break and enter. Considering the Complainant’s agitated state, I am further satisfied that the officers were within their rights in restraining her in handcuffs.

As for the force used by the officers, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was excessive. This consisted of a takedown performed by SO #2, and SO #1’s intervention once the Complainant was on the floor to restrain her in handcuffs. It may well be that the maneuver executed by SO #2 was a little over the top, particularly in light of the Complainant’s age and the presence of other officers. On the other hand, the officers were in a confined space, which would have discounted the effect of their numbers, and there was a real imperative to dealing with the Complainant as soon as possible arising from the reports of an intruder in the home and a possible dead body. The takedown, which was not unduly aggressive on my review of the BWC footage, would have done just that, namely, facilitate the Complainant’s prompt detention by placing her in a position of disadvantage so she could be handcuffed. In arriving at this conclusion, I am mindful that the law does not expect police officers embroiled in dynamic and potentially dangerous situations to measure their force with precision; what is required is a reasonable response, not an exacting one: R v Nasogaluak, [2010] 1 SCR 206; R v Baxter (1975), 27 CCC (2d) 96 (Ont. CA).

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was the result of the physical interventions by either or both of SO #2 and SO #1 – whether the takedown or the handcuffing process – there are no reasonable grounds to believe it is 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: May 5, 2023

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit