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 64-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On February 16, 2023, at 9:23 a.m., the Complainant contacted the SIU to report an incident with members of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) on October 17, 2022, resulting in a permanent eye injury. At 10:12 a.m., the SIU on-call manager contacted the Complainant and was provided the following information.

On October 17, 2022, the Complainant’s daughter was involved in a domestic incident with her common-law partner in London, Ontario. His daughter was at a department store and gave a staff member the Complainant’s phone number. When he was made aware of his daughter’s situation, the Complainant asked the store to call the London Police Service (LPS) to assist his daughter. Some time passed and there was no word from the LPS. The Complainant contacted the OPP via 911, as he was at his residence in Wasaga Beach, and requested their assistance contacting LPS. A while later, the Complainant had still not heard from LPS, so he again called the OPP and was told LPS had approximately 200 calls waiting that day. The Complainant took out his frustrations on the OPP call-taker and hung-up. At approximately 11:00 p.m., two OPP officers arrived at the Complainant’s residence to investigate the abuse of the 911 operator. The Complainant advised that his wife, CW #1, allowed the officers into their house and they confronted him about the way he had spoken with the 911 operator. The Complainant was more concerned with his daughter’s situation in London and asked the officers to leave. He went to open the door and was attacked from behind by one of the officers. There was a struggle, and the Complainant was pushed up against the wall, thrown to the ground, and punched several times. The Complainant was arrested and charged with multiple offences. As a result of the altercation, the Complainant sustained multiple injuries including permanent eye damage.

The involved officers were identified as Witness Official (WO) #2 and the Subject Official (SO) of the Huronia West Detachment.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 02/16/2023 at 1:47 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 02/17/2023 at 11:57 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

The Scene

Given the historical nature of the incident, the SIU did not attend the scene located in Wasaga Beach. This single residential family home was equipped with double-entrance front doors and a small foyer area measuring at about two metres by two metres. There were a set of six stairs that led up to the main floor and, right of the vestibule, another set of six stairs leading to the basement. Right and centre of the vestibule was a hallway leading to the garage.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

Telephone Calls

On March 8, 2023, the SIU was provided with a copy of the relevant communications recordings from the OPP.

On October 17, 2022, starting at about 10:53:46 p.m., the Complainant was captured speaking to a call-taker from the OPP’s Central Emergency Reporting Bureau (CERB) requesting police assistance in London. The call was transferred to the OPP Communications Centre in Orillia. A dispatcher did not receive a response from the Complainant and attempted to call him back to no avail. The CERB call-taker told the dispatcher that the Complainant had requested police.

Starting at about 10:54:40 p.m., the 911 dispatcher left a voicemail on the Complainant’s number and directed him to re-dial 911 if there was an emergency. The 911 dispatcher then called Bell Canada to request subscriber information. The dispatcher received the names of CW #1 and the Complainant, as well as an alternative contact number.

Starting at about 11:00:14 p.m., the 911 dispatcher called the alternative number and received an ‘out of service’ notification.

Starting at about 11:00:41 p.m., the 911 dispatcher called the Complainant’s phone number again and spoke with the Complainant. In response, the Complainant said, “You’re fucking kidding me, right?” He further stated, “I called a fucking hour ago for Christ sakes. Fuck off.” After inquiring if the Complainant had an emergency, the Complainant indicated he had an emergency an hour ago. The 911 dispatcher also said they had received additional 911 calls and, within seconds, the call was disconnected while the dispatcher made efforts to speak with the Complainant.

Starting at about 11:05:14 p.m., the 911 dispatcher contacted the Complainant again to ensure there was no emergency as there were several 911 calls. The Complainant replied, “What do you people want?” The Complainant told the dispatcher that no one provided him an update and that no officers were dispatched to the original call he made an hour prior. After receiving the address of the emergency in London, which the dispatcher advised was not in their jurisdiction, the dispatcher advised that officers would attend his residence to ensure everyone was safe. In response, the Complainant said, “Yeah, sure you will. Bye.” The call was disconnected.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including statements from the Complainant, the SO and an additional police and civilian eyewitness to the events in question, give rise to the following scenario.

In the late evening of October 17, 2022, the SO and WO #2 were dispatched to a residence in Wasaga Beach. They were there following multiple dropped 911 calls from the residence earlier that day.

The 911 calls had been made by the Complainant. The Complainant, concerned about his daughter’s well-being following a reported domestic dispute at a store in London, Ontario, had contacted police to ensure she was okay. Frustrated with the poor connection and perceived lack of action on the part of the police, the Complainant uttered profanity at the 911 call-taker.

The officers arrived at the residence shortly after 11:00 p.m. and were let inside by the Complainant’s wife, CW #1. The Complainant met the officers inside the foyer by the front doors of the home. The officers explained that they were there to ensure everyone was okay because of the dropped 911 calls. They also cautioned the Complainant about his verbal abuse of the 911 call-taker. Still worried about his daughter and frustrated with the police response, the Complainant did not take kindly to the officers. He began to gesticulate with his hands in their direction and asked them to leave the house. He grew even more frustrated when the officers continued to speak about the 911 calls. Deciding he would open the door for the officers, the Complainant approached the door with his left arm extended. Positioned near the door, and concerned that the Complainant’s animated behaviour was assaultive, WO #2 raised his left hand to defend himself. There followed a physical altercation among the parties that is a matter of dispute in the evidence. What is undisputed is that the SO punched the Complainant multiple times, while they stood and after they went to the floor, before both officers handcuffed him behind the back.

The Complainant declined medical care after his arrest but went to see his family physician the next day after being released from custody. He was ultimately diagnosed with an eye injury.

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 OPP officers on October 17, 2022. In the ensuing SIU investigation, one of the arresting 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 SO and WO #2 were lawfully placed at the time of the Complainant’s arrest inside his home. The officers, having been dispatched to investigate the dropped 911 calls from the address, had been invited inside by one of the homeowners – CW #1. Moreover, while they had been asked to leave by the Complainant before his arrest, I am satisfied that the SO and WO #2 did not unduly delay their departure so as to render their continued presence a trespass. Finally, while the evidence is discrepant on this issue, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officers had no grounds to believe that the Complainant had committed an assault on them – the predicate for his arrest. In light of the Complainant’s state of anger and agitation, it is entirely possible that the officers would have interpreted – reasonably, in my view – the act of the Complainant extending an arm in their direction as an act of assault, whether he made contact with the officers or not. That is in essence what they say occurred, and I am unable to dismiss their evidence with any confidence.

What followed was an altercation that is also variously described by the parties. On the one hand, there is evidence the officers beat the Complainant though he represented no threat to them whatsoever. The beating consisted of the Complainant being repeatedly punched about the head and taken to the ground. On the other hand, the SO and WO #2 contend that the Complainant was the aggressor throughout. Not only had he swatted WO #2’s hand away to start the confrontation, but he also then struck the SO’s neck with his right hand and started to choke him before the officer responded with punches to the head. Thereafter, WO #2 took the Complainant’s feet out from under him and the struggle went to the floor where the SO delivered additional punches when the Complainant refused to give up his arms to be handcuffed. Once handcuffed, no further blows were struck. On this record, it seems as likely as not that the officers’ account of the incident represents what actually happened. That account, involving a takedown and a series of punches to subdue a belligerent and violent the Complainant, does not give the appearance of unreasonable force.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, I am not reasonably satisfied that it was attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the involved officers. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: June 16, 2023


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit