SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OCI-091
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 32-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 32-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On March 20, 2023, at 5:01 p.m., the Kingston Police (KP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.According to the KP, the KP had received a complaint from the Office of the Independent Police Review Director reporting that the Complainant had suffered a fractured collarbone in her arrest by officers on August 27, 2022, at 5:56 p.m. The Complainant was reportedly involved in an altercation with staff at a restaurant in the area of Gardiners Road and Cataraqui Woods Drive, Kingston. While struggling with bar staff, the Complainant ran into a door frame and then a wall before making her way outside. Once outside, the Complainant again struggled with bar staff and fell to the ground. Bar staff called 911 to report that the Complainant appeared to be in a psychotic state. During the call, someone mentioned that the Complainant had suffered an injury to her shoulder. As a result, the dispatcher had officers and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) attend. Witness Official (WO) #1 and WO #2 were the involved officers. Paramedics advised that the Complainant’s shoulder looked displaced and transported her to Kingston General Hospital (KGH), where she was treated for a fractured collarbone. Once released from hospital, the Complainant was transported to the police station and booked.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 03/21/2023 at 7:22 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 03/21/2023 at 7:46 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
32-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on March 22, 2023.
Civilian Witness (CW)
CW Interviewed The civilian witness was interviewed on March 30, 2023.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed between April 8 and 11, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in and around a restaurant located in the area of Gardiners Road and Cataraqui Woods Drive, Kingston. Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
Video Footage from the Restaurant
On March 21, 2023, the SIU contacted the restaurant and learned the retention of their surveillance video had lapsed.
KP Communications Recordings
Starting at about 5:56 p.m., the CW called 911 to request police assistance at a restaurant in the area of Gardiners Road and Cataraqui Woods Drive regarding a female [now known to be the Complainant] reported to be behaving irrationally, smashing herself into walls, and yelling at other patrons. The CW also reported that the Complainant was rushing at every staff member, biting and spitting on them. The Complainant, who was outside on the patio, was crying and yelling. The call-taker advised the CW to keep his distance until police arrived. Starting at about 6:06 p.m., the CW reported that the Complainant was complaining that her shoulder was dislocated, and EMS was requested.
Starting at about 6:08 p.m., the WO #1 and WO #2 arrived on scene. After a person query, it was learned that the Complainant was prohibited from carrying firearms, on probation for several charges, and not to consume alcohol or other intoxicating substances.
WO #1 and WO #2 followed the ambulance to KGH.
KP Custody Video
On August 27, 2022, at 8:21:13 p.m., the video began with a view of the booking area. A female’s voice [now known to be the Complainant] was heard off camera stating, “You broke my shoulder. You broke my shoulder.” In response, an officer told the Complainant to tell the sergeant. The Complainant was seated on a bench in front of the sergeant. Her right arm was in a sling.Starting at about 8:22:32 p.m., the Complainant told the sergeant that WO #1 and WO #2 bullied her and broke her shoulder when one of the officers dragged her by the arm, dislocating her shoulder. WO #2 corrected the Complainant to inform her that her shoulder was fractured two minutes prior to police arrival.
Starting at about 8:25:02 p.m., the Complainant told the sergeant that she had not consumed any alcohol or illegal substances.
Starting at about 8:27:52 p.m., a female officer searched the Complainant.
Starting at about 8:33:51 p.m., the Complainant was escorted from the booking room to the fingerprint room by WO #1. The Complainant smashed her face off the computer terminal table twice before attempting a third time. WO #1 then pushed her away from the computer and the Complainant fell onto her buttocks while WO #1 attempted to hold onto her. WO #2 and WO #1 assisted the Complainant to her feet and the fingerprinting process continued until completion with the assistance of the female officer.
Starting at about 8:40:59 p.m., the female officer escorted the Complainant out of the fingerprint room and out of camera view.
Starting at about 8:42:19 p.m., WO #1 told the sergeant that the 911 caller reported the Complainant had dislocated her shoulder two minutes prior to their arrival.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the KP between April 7 and 20, 2023:- Communications recordings;
- Custody video;
- Event Details Report;
- Arrest Report;
- Probation Order;
- Notes-WO #1;
- Notes-WO #2; and
- Witness statements.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between March 29, 2023, and April 14, 2023:- The Complainant’s medical records from KGH;
- Incident Report authored by the CW; and
- Video and photographs taken by the Complainant of her injuries.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, and police and civilian eyewitnesses present at the time of the events in question, gives rise to the following scenario.
In the evening of August 27, 2022, WO #1 and WO #2 were dispatched to a restaurant in the area of Gardiners Road and Cataraqui Woods Drive, Kingston, following a call to police by restaurant staff. The CW had reported a disturbance at the restaurant involving the Complainant. She was behaving strangely, had banged into walls, and was being combative with employees of the establishment. The CW also noted that the Complainant had complained of a dislocated shoulder, and requested paramedics.
The Complainant was outside upon the officers’ arrival, where she had fallen a number of times and was crying. She yelled at WO #2 as he waited outside while his partner, WO #1, entered the restaurant to speak with witnesses. Paramedics arrived on scene within ten minutes of the officers, examined the Complainant and noted an obvious deformity to her right shoulder.
The Complainant was transported to hospital in ambulance and diagnosed with a fractured right collarbone.
In the evening of August 27, 2022, WO #1 and WO #2 were dispatched to a restaurant in the area of Gardiners Road and Cataraqui Woods Drive, Kingston, following a call to police by restaurant staff. The CW had reported a disturbance at the restaurant involving the Complainant. She was behaving strangely, had banged into walls, and was being combative with employees of the establishment. The CW also noted that the Complainant had complained of a dislocated shoulder, and requested paramedics.
The Complainant was outside upon the officers’ arrival, where she had fallen a number of times and was crying. She yelled at WO #2 as he waited outside while his partner, WO #1, entered the restaurant to speak with witnesses. Paramedics arrived on scene within ten minutes of the officers, examined the Complainant and noted an obvious deformity to her right shoulder.
The Complainant was transported to hospital in ambulance and diagnosed with a fractured right collarbone.
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.
Analysis and Director's Decision
On March 20, 2023, the KP contacted the SIU to report that they were in receipt of information in which it was alleged that a woman – the Complainant – was seriously injured in the course of her arrest by KP officers on August 27, 2022. The SIU initiated an investigation, which has since concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any KP officer committed a criminal offence in connection with the allegation.
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.
WO #1 and WO #2 were lawfully placed throughout their dealings with the Complainant. They had arrived at the restaurant to investigate a disturbance and were present when the Complainant was loaded into an ambulance and taken to hospital.
As for any force either officer might have used against the Complainant, the evidence indicates there was none. The officers were on scene for no more than about ten minutes before the ambulance arrived and the Complainant was removed. During that time, neither officer had any physical engagement with the Complainant.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any officer touched the Complainant or is in any way responsible for her injury, which appears to have been self-inflicted prior to the officers’ arrival, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.
Date: July 10, 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.
WO #1 and WO #2 were lawfully placed throughout their dealings with the Complainant. They had arrived at the restaurant to investigate a disturbance and were present when the Complainant was loaded into an ambulance and taken to hospital.
As for any force either officer might have used against the Complainant, the evidence indicates there was none. The officers were on scene for no more than about ten minutes before the ambulance arrived and the Complainant was removed. During that time, neither officer had any physical engagement with the Complainant.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any officer touched the Complainant or is in any way responsible for her injury, which appears to have been self-inflicted prior to the officers’ arrival, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.
Date: July 10, 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.