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 24-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On March 19, 2023, at 2:57 p.m., the Peterborough Police Service (PPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the PPS, on March 19, 2023, at 2:09 a.m., a uniformed police officer, the Subject Official (SO), was travelling in the area of George Street North, Peterborough, when he observed a disturbance in front of a business. The Complainant was being detained by several security staff members. As the SO attempted to arrest the Complainant for public intoxication, the Complainant spat in the face of a security guard, Civilian Witness (CW) #3. The Complainant struggled with the SO and security guards, and eventually was handcuffed with his hands behind his back. The Complainant was placed in the back of a police vehicle, but he stuck his legs out and impeded the door being closed. The Complainant was transported to the police station where he complained of pain in his leg from the door being closed on it. At 2:38 a.m., the police received information that CW #3, who had been spat on, did not want to proceed with charges. The Complainant was released unconditionally. Peterborough County City Paramedics – Emergency Medical Services attended the police station and transported the Complainant to the Peterborough Regional Health Centre (PRHC). PPS police officers attended the PRHC and, at 6:30 a.m., a doctor advised that the Complainant had not suffered a serious injury to his leg, but had sustained a fractured right number two finger, or forefinger.

In a subsequent communiqué with the SIU, the PPS reported that the Complainant had been involved in a fight inside the business prior to police involvement in the course of which he had punched another patron, identified as CW #2.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 03/19/2023 at 2:57 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 03/19/2023 at 8:06 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

The Scene

The scene was located outside a business on George Street North, Peterborough.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD)

Starting at about 2:04 a.m., March 19, 2023, an officer contacted the police communications centre to report a disturbance at a business.

Starting at about 2:46 a.m., it was noted that a male was requesting an ambulance for being punched in the face at 2:26 a.m.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PPS between March 20, 2023, and March 23, 2023:

• Arrest Report;
• CAD;
• Notes – the SO;
• The Complainant History – police contacts;
• Communications recordings;
• Custody video; and
• Prisoner Record of Detention.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources:

• Peterborough Paramedic Services Ambulance Call Report.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with civilian eyewitnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the early morning of March 19, 2023, the SO came upon a disturbance in front of a business on George Street North, Peterborough. Security guards were restraining the Complainant on the ground. The Complainant had been ejected from the business after punching another patron. The officer intervened to assist the guards and eventually was able to handcuff the Complainant behind the back.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to the police station, and then to hospital when he complained of leg pain. He was diagnosed with a fractured right forefinger.

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 31, Liquor Licence and Control 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.

(2) 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.

On March 19, 2023, the PPS contacted the SIU to report that a male – the Complainant – had sustained a broken finger in and around the time of his arrest earlier that day by a PPS officer – the SO. The SIU initiated an investigation, naming the SO 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 was in the lawful execution of his duty when he intervened to assist the security guards with a clearly intoxicated and belligerent Complainant. In light of his violent behaviour, I am satisfied the Complainant was subject to arrest for public intoxication under section 31 of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019. The Complainant further spat at one of the security guards during the struggle, rendering him also subject to arrest for assault.

With respect to the force used by the SO, namely, the application of manual power to wrestle control of the Complainant’s hands, I am satisfied that it was legally justified. The Complainant had his hands gripped together, effectively preventing the application of handcuffs. In the circumstances, the officer was entitled to apply a countervailing force to pry them apart, which he did by pulling hard on his right arm. No strikes of any kind were delivered.

It remains unclear when and how the Complainant incurred his injury. It might well have been inflicted when he punched another patron of the business prior to his encounter with the security guards and the SO. In any event, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the SO comported himself unlawfully in his dealings with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: July 10, 2023

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit