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 38-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On February 4, 2023, at approximately 3:04 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On the evening of the February 3, 2023, at approximately 6:54 p.m., a weapons-related call was reported around the Keg Restaurant near the Square One Shopping Mall in Mississauga. Initial reports indicated that there had been several shots fired; suspect vehicle information was provided to police. A short time later, the vehicle was located and stopped, and three individuals were arrested at 7:16 p.m. and transported to 11 Division at 8:39 p.m. The individuals were searched and lodged in cells pending further investigation. One of the involved males, the Complainant, was subsequently removed from his cell and interviewed by investigators. During the interview, the Complainant was observed to be displaying symptoms of lethargy and appeared to be in medical distress. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were contacted; however, when they did not respond, police transported the Complainant to the Credit Valley Hospital at 11:54 p.m. The Complainant was assessed and found to be suffering from high blood pressure. At 10:43 a.m. on February 4, 2023, the Complainant was admitted to hospital.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 02/05/2023 at 1:20 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 02/05/2023 at 2:10 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

The Scene

The scene was the booking and cell block area of PRP 11 Division, 3030 Erin Mills Parkway, Mississauga. The Complainant had been lodged in holding cell M4. The cell contained a sleeping bunk and a toilet/sink combination unit.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

The SO’s Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

Starting at about 7:09 p.m., February 3, 2023, WO #1 was captured arriving at the scene – the site of a black SUV with people inside being arrested. WO #1 exited his police cruiser and assisted in a gunpoint arrest of the people.

Starting at about 7:12 p.m., the Complainant exited the passenger side of the SUV. He was wearing black pants and a light-colored winter jacket.

Starting at about 7:13 p.m., the Complainant was ordered by WO #1 to walk backwards towards him. The Complainant asked why the police were doing this to him. WO #1 advised the Complainant that he was in custody for ‘weapons dangerous’. The Complainant was handcuffed to the back by a female officer assisting WO #1. WO #1 conducted a pat-down search of the Complainant and again advised that he was in custody for ‘weapons dangerous’. The Complainant told WO #1 that there were no weapons and that they did nothing wrong.

Starting at about 7:14 p.m., WO #1’s BWC footage stopped.

Starting at about 7:15 p.m., WO #1’s BWC footage returned. The Complainant was in the backseat of a police cruiser.

Starting at about 7:17 p.m., a sergeant asked WO #1 if the Complainant had been searched. WO #1 advised that the Complainant had been searched and that he had no weapons on him.

Starting at about 7:36 p.m., WO #1 told the Complainant that he was breaching his house arrest and would be charged with failing to comply.

Starting at about 7:59 p.m., WO #1 provided the Complainant a drink. WO #1 told the Complainant that they found shell casings at the scene.
Starting at about 8:19 p.m., WO #1 told the dispatcher that he was going to the division.

Starting at about 8:32 p.m., WO #1 arrived at the police station.

Starting at about 8:34 p.m., WO #1 opened the back passenger door and spoke to the Complainant. WO #1 asked if the Complainant had consumed any drugs recently. The Complainant replied that he had not. He explained that he did not drink alcohol but had high blood pressure and had been on medication for kidney stones. WO #1 told the Complainant that if he felt unwell, they would take him to the hospital.

Starting at about 8:38 p.m., the Complainant exited the police cruiser. WO #1 pulled the Complainant’s pants up so he could walk better. They walked inside to the booking room. The Complainant sat on a bench in front of the booking desk. There was a female police officer (now known to be WO #3) present in the booking room.

Starting at about 8:39 p.m., the male booking officer - the SO – began receiving the information related to the Complainant from WO #1. The SO removed the handcuffs from the Complainant and conducted a pat-down search of him. WO #3 asked the Complainant about medications or drugs he took and if he required medical attention. The Complainant said that he did not require any medical attention and he had not taken any drugs or alcohol that day.

Starting at about 8:53 p.m., the SO asked the Complainant to sign for his property that had been removed from him. The Complainant was sweating and advised that it was because of his high blood pressure. The SO told the Complainant he would be going to see the detectives.

Starting at about 8:56 p.m., the Complainant was walked from the booking room up a flight of stairs to Interview Room #1.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with the Complainant and video footage of his time in police custody, 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 evening of the day in question, the Complainant was arrested by WO #1 inside a vehicle in the area of the Square One Shopping Mall, Mississauga. The police had been on the lookout for the vehicle, which was associated with a call about weapons. The arrest was without incident. A pat-down search of the Complainant at the scene failed to turn up any weapons or evidence.

En route to the police station in WO #1’s cruiser, the officer noticed the Complainant sweating and asked if he was okay. The Complainant denied alcohol or drug consumption, and explained that his symptoms were attributable to high blood pressure.

At the station, the Complainant was subjected to a further search of his person. Again, no evidence or drugs were discovered. The Complainant repeated that he had not consumed any drugs or alcohol, and declined medical attention.

Following his booking, the Complainant was lodged in an interview room at about 8:56 p.m. While waiting to be interviewed, the Complainant became increasingly lethargic. He was somnolent and unsteady on his feet. The investigators assigned to speak with the Complainant declined to do so given his condition and asked that he be lodged in a cell. The Complainant was removed from the room at about 11:10 p.m.

The officer in charge, WO #3, went to see the Complainant in his cell at about 11:20 p.m. Finding him unwell – he was drooling, sweaty and unfocused – she arranged to have paramedics attend. Shortly thereafter, when it appeared paramedics would be delayed, WO #3 summoned two police officers to take the Complainant to hospital.

The Complainant arrived at hospital at about midnight. There, he was treated for drug overdose and high blood pressure.

A baggie of suspected drugs was subsequently located in the cell that had briefly been occupied by the Complainant.

Section 215, Criminal Code - Failure to Provide Necessaries

(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person

(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and

(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.

(b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code -- Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

221 Every one who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of 

On February 4, 2023, the PRP contacted the SIU to report that a male they had arrested the day before – the Complainant – had been taken to hospital and admitted. The SIU commenced an investigation and named the SO 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 admission to hospital.

The offences that arise for consideration are failure to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to sections 215 and 221 of the Criminal Code, respectively. Both require something more than a simple want of care to give rise to liability. The former is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. The latter is premised on even more egregious conduct that demonstrates a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is not made out unless the neglect constitutes a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable standard of care. In the instant case, the question is whether there was any want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that endangered the Complainant’s life or contributed to his overdose. In my view, there was not.

At the outset, it bears noting that the Complainant was in lawful custody throughout the events in question. He was in a vehicle that police had reasons to believe was connected with a weapons-related call. He was also in breach of a bail condition that required he remain inside his home.

Once in custody, I am satisfied that the officers who dealt with the Complainant comported themselves with due care and regard for his health and well-being. The Complainant was repeatedly asked about his symptoms and consistently denied drug consumption. He explained that he suffered from high blood pressure and indicated that he would be receiving his medication for that condition the following day. When his symptoms worsened, the officers sought medical attention in a timely fashion, transporting the Complainant to hospital themselves when it seemed the ambulance would be delayed. It is true that the Complainant was seemingly able to enter a cell with apparent illicit substances on his person - substances which he may or may not have ingested while in police custody – but I am unable to attribute any neglect on the part of the SO, who performed the search at the station. After all, a similar search in the field by WO #1 had also failed to turn up any drugs. It may be that a more invasive search would have detected the drugs – a strip search, perhaps. That said, it is not at all clear that the officers had the necessary grounds to strip search the Complainant pursuant to the law set out in R v Golden, [2001] 3 SCR 679; the Complainant had not been arrested for a drug offence, denied drug consumption, and provided a plausible and innocent explanation for his symptoms.

In the result, as I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO or any of the officers who dealt with the Complainant transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: June 3, 2023



Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit