SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OCI-042
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 injury of a 44-year-old woman (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 injury of a 44-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On February 12, 2023, at 7:49 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.Earlier that day, at 12:39 a.m., officers responded to single motor vehicle collision at the off-ramp of Mavis Road and westbound Highway 401. A male driver was subsequently arrested for ‘impaired driving’. A female passenger ran from officers to avoid being arrested for ‘public intoxication’. The female stumbled and fell, resulting in an injury to her right hand. She was transported to Credit Valley Hospital (CVH) and diagnosed with a fractured wrist and thumb.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 02/12/2023 at 8:36 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 02/12/2023 at 8:48 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
44-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on March 6, 2023.
Civilian Witness (CW)
CW Interviewed The civilian witness was interviewed on February 27, 2023.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal rightWitness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on April 6, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired on and around the on-ramp to the westbound lanes of Highway 401 from the southbound lanes of Mavis Road, Mississauga. Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
Communications Recordings
On February 14, 2023, the SIU received a copy of the relevant communications recordings from the PRP. Phone Calls
On February 12, 2023, at 12:32:46 a.m., a woman called 911 to report that a driver had exited Highway 401 westbound and driven through the intersection at Mavis Road and over the bridge.
At 1:13:38 a.m., Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was requested to attend Mavis Road and Highway 401 for a motor vehicle collision and an intoxicated female who had fallen and injured herself.
Radio Transmissions
At 12:39:35 a.m., WO #1 was dispatched to Mavis Road and Highway 401 for a motor vehicle collision involving a vehicle that had exited Highway 401 westbound and driven over the bridge.
At 12:43:07 a.m., WO #1 reported the vehicle had fallen into the ditch and was travelling on the westbound lane to get onto Highway 401.
At 12:48:49 a.m., WO #1 reported both occupants of the involved vehicle were without injury. He requested the attendance of a police officer with an Approved Screening Device. The SO agreed to attend the scene.
At 1:07:28 a.m., the SO requested a cab to attend his location.
At 1:08:06 a.m., the Complainant was reported to be running on the ramp. She was later arrested for “intox”.
At 1:11:14 a.m., the SO requested an ambulance for the Complainant as she was complaining about trouble breathing. He reported that the Complainant was highly intoxicated and had cuts from falling on the side of the highway.
At 1:27:05 a.m., EMS arrived on scene.
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage
On February 13, 2023, the SIU was provided the BWC footage of the involved officers.The SO
At 1:01:50 a.m., the SO attended the scene of a single motor vehicle collision at Highway 401 and Mavis Road to assist WO #1. He soon became involved with an intoxicated female passenger, the Complainant, who was upset that her boyfriend, the driver, was being arrested for impaired driving. While attempting to arrange a ride for her, the SO became aware that she was trying to walk away from the scene.
At 1:07:40 a.m., the SO walked past a tow truck operator [now known to be the CW] who had alerted him that the Complainant was walking down the ramp towards Highway 401. The SO said, “Hey, hey, mam,” “Hey,” “If you don’t stop, I am going to arrest you for public intoxication.” The Complainant replied, “Fuck you.” The Complainant did not look back as she bent over and removed her shoes. She appeared to be holding something in her right hand, possibly a cellular phone. The Complainant fell to her right with her right hand and cellular phone hitting the metal barrier on the guard rail. A bang could be heard. She fell backwards, her left hand breaking her fall, and her right forearm coming to rest on the ground. The Complainant got back up and picked up her shoes in her left hand. She was holding her cellular phone in her right hand. The Complainant yelled, “You can’t arrest me. You can’t arrest me for nothing!” The Complainant did not look back at the SO as she continued to walk away from him. The SO continued to walk toward the Complainant, who suddenly started to run, yelling, “You cannot arrest me!” The SO ran towards her and said, “Hey.”
At 1:08:06 a.m., the Complainant fell forward, slightly to her right side. Her left hand came to rest flat on the ground by her chest. Her right hand was hidden from camera view. The Complainant screamed when she landed on the ground.
The SO approached the Complainant’s left side and grabbed hold of her left arm, holding it behind her back, and told her to get up. The SO advised the dispatcher that he had one in custody for “intoxication”. The Complainant sat up and leaned against the metal barrier, with her right hand resting on the ground. She told the SO he could not arrest her and to stop. The SO advised the dispatcher the Complainant was running on the ramp towards the highway. He then told the Complainant not to resist arrest. He applied the left handcuff to her wrist as she yelled. He told her to put her hands behind her back and she yelled, “No.” The SO arrested the Complainant for public intoxication. He had hold of her left arm and told her to get up; however, she yelled no and slumped forward.
At 1:08:46 a.m., the SO asked an attending male firefighter if he would help. The Complainant appeared to be on her stomach. The SO was to her left and the firefighter to her right. The firefighter took hold of the Complainant’s right hand, which was on the ground, and brought it behind her back, after which the SO applied the handcuffs. The Complainant continued to yell and said she was not running onto the highway.
At 1:09:21 a.m., the SO escorted the Complainant to his police vehicle. She yelled obscenities and complained her feet were cold. The Complainant requested an ambulance as she was unable to breathe.
At 1:13:07 a.m., the SO told a male paramedic that he had run after the Complainant, who was under arrest for public intoxication. An EMS superintendent attended and attempted to calm the Complainant.
At 1:30:45 a.m., the SO returned to his police vehicle after the Complainant was placed onto a stretcher.
WO #1
At 12:43:21 a.m., WO #1 attended the scene of a single vehicle motor vehicle collision. He located the driver behind the wheel of the involved motor vehicle and the Complainant in the front passenger seat. Both indicated that they were not injured because of the collision. The driver advised that he had been drinking and had fallen asleep. The Complainant advised that she had been drinking. As WO #1 was dealing with the driver, firefighters and EMS personnel arrived, along with the SO.
As WO #1 was arresting and processing the driver for impaired driving, the Complainant attempted to interfere. The SO was dealing with the Complainant and trying to arrange a ride home for her.
While sitting in his police vehicle with the impaired driver, WO #1 overheard the SO indicate that the Complainant was on the ramp heading towards the highway. WO #1 exited his police vehicle and ran to assist the SO.
When he arrived, WO #1 observed the Complainant down on the pavement. The SO was on her left side, and a male firefighter was on her right side. The Complainant was advised that she was under arrest for public intoxication and handcuffed with her hands behind her back.
The Complainant was resisting and verbally aggressive towards the officers. She was placed in the rear of the police vehicle operated by the SO, at which point WO #1 returned to his police vehicle to continue processing the impaired driver.
Officer 1
At 1:14:15 a.m., officer 1 appeared at the rear of the police vehicle operated by the SO. The Complainant was standing beside the rear driver’s side door. She was handcuffed with her hands behind her back. The Complainant appeared upset and was verbally argumentative in relation to her arrest for public intoxication prior to her placement in the rear of the police vehicle.
A male superintendent from the paramedic service tried to calm the Complainant and then indicated to other EMS personnel that the Complainant had suffered an abrasion to her face.
The Complainant was removed from the rear of the police vehicle, placed on a stretcher, and transferred to a nearby ambulance. Once loaded, the ambulance left the scene of the arrest.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PRP between February 13, 2023, and March 2, 2023:- Communications recordings;
- BWC footage-SO;
- BWC footage-WO #1;
- BWC footage-Officer 1;
- Incident Details;
- Incident History;
- List of Involved Officers and their roles;
- Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
- Notes-WO #2;
- Notes-WO #1;
- Occurrence Details; and
- Provincial Offences Notice-the Complainant.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources: - The Complainant’s medical records from CVH, received on February 16, 2023; and
- Ambulance Call Reports from Peel EMS, received on February 13, 2023.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized. 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 hours of February 12, 2023, PRP received a 911 call about a vehicle that had driven into a ditch by an on-ramp at the intersection of Mavis Road and Highway 401, Mississauga. WO #1 arrived to find the driver in the driver’s seat of the vehicle and the Complainant in the front passenger seat; neither were physically injured. Their vehicle was in the ditch between Mavis Road and the on-ramp to westbound Highway 401 from southbound Mavis Road. As each of the vehicle’s occupants had admitted to drinking, WO #1 asked for an officer to attend the scene to administer a breath test.
The SO arrived at the scene with an approved screening device. He administered the test to the driver, who blew over the legal limit and was arrested.
The Complainant, who had been placed inside a tow truck, exited the truck and approached the scene of the driver’s arrest. She was upset with what was happening with her boyfriend, and upset when she was told to keep her distance by the SO. The Complainant began to walk away from the officer down the ramp towards the westbound lanes of the highway, falling twice in the process.
The SO caught up with the Complainant after her second fall and placed her under arrest with the assistance of a firefighter, who had also responded to the site of the collision.
The Complainant was transported in ambulance to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured right thumb.
In the early morning hours of February 12, 2023, PRP received a 911 call about a vehicle that had driven into a ditch by an on-ramp at the intersection of Mavis Road and Highway 401, Mississauga. WO #1 arrived to find the driver in the driver’s seat of the vehicle and the Complainant in the front passenger seat; neither were physically injured. Their vehicle was in the ditch between Mavis Road and the on-ramp to westbound Highway 401 from southbound Mavis Road. As each of the vehicle’s occupants had admitted to drinking, WO #1 asked for an officer to attend the scene to administer a breath test.
The SO arrived at the scene with an approved screening device. He administered the test to the driver, who blew over the legal limit and was arrested.
The Complainant, who had been placed inside a tow truck, exited the truck and approached the scene of the driver’s arrest. She was upset with what was happening with her boyfriend, and upset when she was told to keep her distance by the SO. The Complainant began to walk away from the officer down the ramp towards the westbound lanes of the highway, falling twice in the process.
The SO caught up with the Complainant after her second fall and placed her under arrest with the assistance of a firefighter, who had also responded to the site of the collision.
The Complainant was transported in ambulance to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured right thumb.
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.
Section 31, Liquor Licence and Control Act -- Intoxication
31 (4) No person shall be in an intoxicated condition in,
(a) a place to which the general public is invited or permitted access; or(b) any part of a residence that is used in common by persons occupyingmore than one dwelling in the residence.
(5) A police officer or conservation officer may arrest without warrant any person who is contravening subsection (1) if, in the opinion of the officer, it is necessary to do so for the safety of any person.
Analysis and Director's Decision
The Complainant suffered a serious injury in and around the time of her arrest by a PRP officer on February 12, 2023. The officer – the SO – was identified as the subject official in the ensuing SIU investigation. 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.
I am satisfied that the SO was proceeding to lawfully arrest the Complainant under section 31 of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019. She had admitted to drinking alcohol and was nearing the live lanes of a highway, refusing to stop at the direction of the officer and clearly placing herself in danger.
I am also satisfied that the SO used no more force than was necessary to secure the Complainant’s hands in handcuffs. This consisted in a very minimal amount of force to position the Complainant’s left arm behind her back and to affix the handcuffs; the Complainant’s right arm was placed behind the back by a firefighter with what was also negligible force. The possibility that the SO broke the Complainant’s thumb when he grabbed it in the handcuffing process is not borne out by the BWC footage that captured the incident. Rather, it seems much more likely that the Complainant’s injury was incurred in one or both of her falls prior to her arrest.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than lawfully in his engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: June 12, 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.
I am satisfied that the SO was proceeding to lawfully arrest the Complainant under section 31 of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019. She had admitted to drinking alcohol and was nearing the live lanes of a highway, refusing to stop at the direction of the officer and clearly placing herself in danger.
I am also satisfied that the SO used no more force than was necessary to secure the Complainant’s hands in handcuffs. This consisted in a very minimal amount of force to position the Complainant’s left arm behind her back and to affix the handcuffs; the Complainant’s right arm was placed behind the back by a firefighter with what was also negligible force. The possibility that the SO broke the Complainant’s thumb when he grabbed it in the handcuffing process is not borne out by the BWC footage that captured the incident. Rather, it seems much more likely that the Complainant’s injury was incurred in one or both of her falls prior to her arrest.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than lawfully in his engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: June 12, 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.