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 23-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On October 2, 2022, at 3:01 p.m., the Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the GSPS, on October 2, 2022, at 12:40 a.m., the GSPS conducted a traffic stop involving the Complainant in the area of Grandview Boulevard in Sudbury. He was arrested by Witness Official (WO) #1 and the Subject Official (SO) for numerous outstanding warrants. The Complainant was transported to GSPS headquarters at 190 Brady Street and lodged in cells pending a remand in the early morning. At 10:00 a.m., the Complainant was observed to have what looked like a ball of white substance in his hand. He was making attempts to conceal the substance in his anal region. When the Complainant was approached by the cell staff, he flushed the substance down the cell toilet. A strip search was authorized by the staff sergeant. The Complainant told the officers he would not comply with the search. The Complainant was grounded and handcuffed. At the conclusion of the search, the Complainant admitted to consuming a quantity of fentanyl. Paramedics responded and transported the Complainant to Health Sciences North for further examination and a computerized tomography scan. During the assessment, it was revealed the Complainant had sustained a right metacarpal fracture. The Complainant indicated he was injured either during the arrest or the search. The Complainant also alleged sexual assault during the search. [2]

The Scene

On October 2, 2022, at 12:26 p.m., the scene presented itself on Grandview Boulevard, near Rideau Street in Sudbury.




Figure 1 – Google Map view of Grandview Boulevard

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and officers present at the time of the events in question, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the early morning of October 2, 2022, the CW was operating a Honda Civic northbound on Notre Dame Avenue when he passed two southbound police cruisers. The cruisers performed U-turns and started following the CW as he continued north on Notre Dame Avenue, east on LaSalle Boulevard and north on Rideau Street. With the CW in the front passenger seat was the Complainant. The Complainant was subject to outstanding arrest warrants at the time.

The lead police vehicle behind the Civic was operated by WO #2. Behind him in the other cruiser were two officers – the SO and WO #1. WO #2 activated his emergency lights and watched as the Civic pulled over to a stop on Grandview Boulevard, just east of Rideau Street. The officer stopped his cruiser behind the Civic, exited and approached the driver’s door to speak with the CW. The SO and WO #1 also brought their cruiser to a stop, exited and approached the front passenger’s door.

After some back and forth between the officers and the occupants of the Civic, in the course of which the Complainant provided a fake name, the officers confirmed the Complainant’s true identity and sought to arrest him. The Complainant was removed from the Civic and, though initially compliant with his pending arrest, soon began to resist as WO #1 took hold of his right arm. The Complainant tried to break WO #1’s hold and flee the area, but was taken to the ground by WO #1 and the SO.

The Complainant continued to resist on the ground and was met by several strikes delivered by the SO and CEW discharges from WO #2’s weapon. He was eventually subdued and handcuffed.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to the police station and then to hospital where he was diagnosed with a ruptured left tympanic membrane.

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 GSPS officers on October 2, 2022. In the ensuing SIU investigation of the incident, one of the officers – the SO - was identified as the subject official. 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.

The officers involved in the Complainant’s arrest were within their rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody. The Complainant was subject to two arrest warrants at the time for violations of probation orders and other offences.

With respect to the force that was used in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, namely, a takedown followed by a number of punches by the SO and multiple CEW discharges by WO #2, I am unable to reasonably conclude it was excessive. The weight of the evidence indicates that the Complainant tried to break free and avoid arrest as soon as WO #1 took hold of him. In the circumstances, it made sense that the WO #1 and the SO would force the Complainant to the ground; doing so would place the officers in a better position to manage the Complainant’s designs on escape and further resistance. In fact, the Complainant continued to resist on the ground by refusing to release his arms from underneath his torso to be handcuffed. It was then that he was struck by the SO and shocked by WO #2’s CEW. In the heat of the moment, and possessed of information that the Complainant had a history of violence in prior police interactions and a record for weapons offences, I am not persuaded that the officers exceeded what was reasonably necessary in the circumstances to quickly and safely effect the arrest. Indeed, in a search that followed the arrest, a knife was located on the Complainant’s person.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was incurred in the course of the altercation that marked his arrest, likely, the punches struck by the SO, there are no reasonable grounds to believe it was attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the officers. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: May 29, 2023


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit