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 32-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On March 9, 2023, at 11:33 p.m., the Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s injury.

According to the NRPS, on March 9, 2023, at approximately 2:34 p.m., the NRPS attended a residence in Niagara Falls to assist Niagara Emergency Medical Services (NEMS) personnel regarding a barricaded person [now known to be the Complainant]. The Complainant’s family was concerned as he was hallucinating, and they had called the NEMS for help. The Complainant had gone into the attic and barricaded himself. NRPS patrol officers, a crisis negotiator, and members of the NRPS Emergency Task Unit (ETU) attended the address and verbally interacted with the Complainant for several hours. At approximately 8:50 p.m., the Complainant jumped out an attic window and received a broken ankle. His serious injury was confirmed by the NRPS at 10:57 p.m.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 03/10/2023 at 9:15 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 03/13/2023 at 4:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a residence in Niagara Falls.

The front door of the dwelling appeared to have been forced open but also had been repaired prior to the SIU forensic investigator’s attendance at the scene.

In the bathroom, situated on the upper-level of the residence, the window had been damaged with some of the glass panes broken. There were holes in the door suggesting that the door had been screwed shut from the inside. The window through which the Complainant made his egress showed no signs of damage; however, outside there was damage to the roof.

On the patio at the rear of the dwelling was evidence of a conducted energy weapon (CEW) deployment, which was collected by the SIU forensic investigator.

On March 23, 2023, the SIU forensic investigator re-attended the scene. The SIU forensic investigator examined the exterior of the residence. Upon examining a corner of the residence, two small defects [holes] in the siding and a downspout that drained from the roof were observed, suggesting that CEW probes might have struck but not necessarily penetrated the surface.

Physical Evidence

CEW Data – SO #1

SO #1’s CEW was triggered at 8:49:22 p.m., [2] March 9, 2023, for a charge duration of about three seconds. The weapon was triggered again at 8:49:28 p.m. for a charge duration of about five seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [3]

NRPS Communications Recordings

Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Records

Starting at about 2:30 p.m., CW #1 contacted 911 to report that the Complainant had locked himself in the attic. The police were dispatched to assist the paramedics.

Starting at about 3:12 p.m., it was noted that the Complainant was not coming out of the house and had closed the blinds.

Starting at about 8:34:02 p.m., the Complainant was said to be sitting on a bed with a knife in his right hand.

Starting at about 8:49:24 p.m., the Complainant was said to have jumped from the window.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the NRPS between March 14 and 17, 2023:

• CAD records;
• Communications recordings;
• ETU Call-sign Chart;
• List of Officers;
• Notes – Witness Officials;
• Policy – Mentally Ill Persons;
• Photographs of CEW cartridge;
• Photographs by WO #7;
• Photograph – the Complainant; and
• Data downloaded from SO #1’s CEW.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

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

• The Complainant’s medical records from the Greater Niagara General Hospital.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the afternoon of March 9, 2023, at about 2:30 p.m., CW #1 called 911 seeking help for the Complainant. The Complainant, who had been residing with family in Niagara Falls, had that day been suffering from delusions and paranoia. He believed there were people out to harm his family, and had taken possession of a box-cutter knife to protect him and his loved ones.

Paramedics were the first to the address, followed shortly by WO #1, who was paired with a mental health professional. The first responders talked with CW #1 about the situation, after which the officer met and spoke with the Complainant inside the home. WO #1 told the Complainant that they were there to help him. The Complainant was not receptive to the officer’s overtures and refused, when asked, to follow the officer out of the house. WO #1 had everyone else leave the home, as did he.

The NRPS ETU arrived on scene, including SO #1 and SO #2, and took carriage of police operations. Police negotiators spoke with the Complainant but were unable to convince him to exit the home. This went on for several hours before the ETU decided to adopt a more proactive posture.

At about 7:37 p.m., a team of ETU officers forced open the front door and entered the home. The team moved towards the bottom of the stairs leading to the upper level and observed the Complainant running into a bedroom at the right rear of the house. Moments later, the Complainant was heard indicating that he would kill the police dog if the dog entered the house and, if he had bullets remaining, he would kill police officers.

At about 8:49 p.m., acting on the orders of SO #1, SO #2 forced open the bedroom door. Simultaneously, the Complainant climbed through the bedroom window onto a metal awning to get away.

ETU officers positioned in the backyard saw the Complainant exit onto the awning and walk southeast. When he came to the end of the awning and looked as if he was preparing to leap across a gap towards the roof of a single-storey side extension of the home, the officers called-out out to deter him from doing so. The Complainant jumped and did not make it across. He fell about three metres onto the ground below, fracturing his right foot in the process.

The Complainant was taken into custody and transported to hospital where he was treated for his injury and admitted for psychiatric examination.

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 

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of a standoff with NRPS officers on March 9, 2023. In the ensuing SIU investigation, SO #1 and SO #2 were identified as the 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 injury.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of SO #1 and/or SO #2, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s injury. In my view, there was not.

The officers who attended the residence, including SO #1 and SO #2, were lawfully placed throughout the events in question. They were there following a call by the Complainant’s family member expressing concern for him. In particular, the decision to deploy the ETU was a reasonable one given the information about a knife in the Complainant’s possession and his precarious state of mind at the time.

With respect to their conduct and decision-making, I am further satisfied that the officers comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s health and well-being. After approximately five hours of trying, the police had given negotiations with the Complainant a fair opportunity to work. Though they did not have a family member of the Complainant speak with him, as had been recommended by CW #1, one can never be sure how a barricaded person will react to communications with a family member in these situations. The police are faced with a difficult decision when it comes to the intervention of loved ones and deference must be paid to their choices barring exceptional circumstances. Once inside the house, the officers appear to have proceeded with prudence and composure. They did not storm the residence or otherwise push the Complainant into potentially reckless behaviour. Rather, the officers were inside the home for more than an hour, still attempting communications, before it was finally decided to confront the Complainant. That tactic was a reasonable one given the lengths to which negotiations had been tried and the ever-present risk that the Complainant might harm himself.

On the aforementioned-record, though the entry into the bedroom might have served as the impetus for the Complainant’s exit onto the awning and eventual fall from a height, the officers did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. [4] As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: July 7, 2023


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit