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 25, 2023, at about 2:19 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the PRP, on February 24, 2023, at 6:44 p.m., PRP officers attempted to arrest the Complainant for ‘assault with a weapon’ at Chinguacousy Park. He resisted, and a conducted energy weapon (CEW) was deployed. The Complainant’s body locked-up and he fell backwards, striking his head on the ground. The Complainant was transported to Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH) and diagnosed with a fractured occipital bone.

The Scene

The events in question occurred at Chinguacousy Park, 9050 Bramalea Road, Brampton. Chinguacousy Park was bounded by Queen Street East on the south, Bramalea Road on the east, and Central Park Drive on the north and west sides.




Figure 1 - Chinguacousy Park

Forensic Evidence

CEW Data

Data downloaded from SO #2’s CEW indicated it was deployed at 6:42:24 p.m. [2] for a charge duration of 3.92 seconds. That was followed by another deployment at 6:42:28 p.m. for a charge duration of 4.95 seconds.

Data downloaded from SO #1’s CEW indicated it was deployed at 6:42:33 p.m. for a charge duration of 0.30 seconds. That was followed by another deployment at 6:42:34 p.m. for a charge duration of 3.46 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [3]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

The SIU received footage from the BWCs of SO #2, WO #1, WO #2 and Officer #1. The following is a summary of the cumulative footage.

On February 24, 2023, starting at about 6:36 p.m., SO #2 was captured exiting his police vehicle on a pathway in Chinguacousy Park. He approached a male - the Complainant - and asked him to identify himself. The Complainant provided a false name and date of birth. SO #2 made attempts to confirm the identity on his Mobile Data Terminal (MDT). He broadcast that he believed he was with the man police were searching for and he requested that additional officers attend the park.

Starting at about 6:38 p.m., Officer #1 attended the Complainant’s residence and met with a family member who advised that the Complainant had been drinking all day and had been paranoid lately. She had argued with the Complainant. When he left the apartment, the Complainant said he was “going to blow his brains out”.

Starting at about 6:40:56 p.m., SO #2 confronted the Complainant about his real identity.

Starting at about 6:41:31 p.m., the Complainant turned and walked away down the pathway. SO #2 followed on foot. The Complainant backed away down the pathway. He said nothing. SO #2 repeatedly asked the Complainant to stop walking and to keep his hands out of his pockets.

Starting at about 6:42:20 p.m., SO #2 said, “Do you really want me to take my Taser out? Like is that what you want?” The Complainant replied, “I’d rather your gun.”

Starting at about 6:42:29 p.m., SO #2 drew his CEW and pointed it at the Complainant. He continued to advise the Complainant to remove his hands from his pockets.

Starting at about 6:42:33 p.m., the Complainant removed his hands from his pockets. SO #1 discharged his CEW twice within one second at the Complainant.

Starting at about 6:42:35 p.m., SO #2 discharged his CEW. The Complainant fell backwards into a supine position with his hands on his chest. He appeared to be in a state of neuromuscular incapacitation. SO #2 ordered the Complainant to, “Drop the knife.”

Starting at about 6:42:40 p.m., SO #2 deployed his CEW in probe mode again at the Complainant.
Starting at about 6:42:42 p.m., SO #1 struck the Complainant’s hands with a kick in an attempt to dislodge the knife from his right hand. The blade of the knife was in an extended position. WO #2 struck the Complainant’s hands with a kick in another attempt to dislodge the knife from his hand. SO #1 used his foot to hold the Complainant’s forearm in place, after which he pried the knife from the Complainant’s hand. The Complainant was rolled into a prone position by WO #2 and handcuffed by WO #1.

Starting at about 6:44 p.m., paramedic services were requested. They arrived at about 7:00 p.m.




Figure 2 – The Complainant’s knife

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PRP between February 14, 2023, and March 3, 2023:

• Incident Details Report;
• Incident History Report;
• Communications recordings;
• BWC footage;
• Photographs;
• Involved Officers List;
• Occurrence Report;
• CEW data reports;
• Notes – WO #2;
• Notes – WO #1;
• Policy – Incident Response;
• Policy – Criminal Investigations; and
• Policy – Mental Health Policy.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:

• The Complainant’s medical records from the BCH.

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized.

In the evening of February 24, 2023, a family member contacted police to report concerns about the well-being of the Complainant. The two had argued at her residence, and the Complainant, inebriated, had left indicating he was going to kill himself. Officers were dispatched to locate the Complainant.

At about 6:40 p.m., SO #2 located the Complainant on a pathway in Chinguacousy Park. He was soon joined by other officers. Asked to identify himself, the Complainant provided a false name and date of birth. When the Complainant started to walk away, SO #2 directed him to stop and to show his hands, which were in his pockets. The Complainant refused, prompting the officer to ask whether he really had to take out his CEW. The Complainant responded, “I’d rather your gun.”

SO #2 drew his CEW and pointed it at the Complainant. Within moments, the Complainant removed his hands from his pockets. He was holding a knife in his right hand. SO #1, among the officers present, discharged his CEW twice in quick succession at the Complainant, followed quickly by SO #2 also firing his CEW. The Complainant’s body locked-up and he fell backwards, his head striking the ground in the process. The knife still in the Complainant’s hand, SO #2 fired his CEW again at the Complainant.

Officers approached the Complainant on the ground and removed the knife from his possession. The Complainant was handcuffed with his hands behind the back.

Paramedics attended at the scene and removed CEW probes from the Complainant’s body.

The Complainant was taken to the police station where he complained of head pain and was transported to hospital. He had suffered a fracture to the base of the skull.

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,

Section 17, Mental Health Act -- Action by police officer

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

Section 31, Liquor Licence Act -- Intoxication 

(a) In a place to which the general public is invited or permitted access; or

(b) In any part of a residence that is used in common by persons occupying more than one dwelling in the residence.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by PRP officers on February 24, 2023. In the ensuing SIU investigation of the incident, 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 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.

Based on the information they had received of the 911 call made by the Complainant’s family member, and what they discerned for themselves upon confronting the Complainant in Chinguacousy Park, I am satisfied that the Complainant was subject to apprehension whether pursuant to section 17 of the Mental Health Act or section 31 of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019.

I am further satisfied that the force used by the subject officials, namely, CEW discharges, was legally justified. Given what they knew of the Complainant’s mindset at the time, the officers had cause to be concerned that the Complainant would attempt to harm himself. When he removed his right hand from a pocket holding a knife, they also would have been fearful for their own safety given their proximity. In the circumstances, I am unable to fault the subject officials for attempting to immediately incapacitate the Complainant from a distance with the use of their CEWs. Indeed, while it is unfortunate that he fell and fractured his skull in the process, the use of the weapon did prevent the Complainant from using the knife to inflict grievous bodily harm on himself or, had he been inclined, the officers. The final CEW deployment as the Complainant was on the ground was also warranted – the knife was still in the Complainant’s hand and continued to represent a threat.

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that SO #1 and SO #2 comported themselves other than within the limits of the criminal law in their engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: June 23, 2023

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit