SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-TCI-214
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 28-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 28-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On June 6, 2023, at 3:19 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.On June 6, 2023, at 11:45 a.m., reports were made to the TPS regarding the Complainant inside the Canadian Tire Store located at 7 Fraser Avenue in Toronto. The female was reported to have been damaging property and assaulting staff, and was armed with a box-cutter knife. At 11:48 a.m., the Complainant fled the store and was confronted by Witness Official (WO) #3 in the area of King Street West and Joe Shuster Way. While the Complainant was still armed with the box-cutter, WO #3 unholstered his conducted energy weapon (CEW) and engaged the Complainant in conversation. A brief time later, the Subject Official (SO) arrived and approached the Complainant from behind. He subsequently deployed his CEW, which caused the Complainant to fall backwards and strike her head on the ground. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) attended, and the Complainant was transported to St. Joseph’s Health Centre (SJHC) where she was diagnosed with a fractured skull.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 06/06/2023 at 5:23 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 06/06/2023 at 8:18 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
28-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on June 8, 2023.
Civilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 Interviewed CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Not interviewed; provided video footage
The civilian witnesses were interviewed on June 7, 2023, and June 9, 2023.
Subject Officials (SO)
SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right The subject official was interviewed on July 3, 2023.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed not necessary
The witness officials were interviewed on June 7, 2023, and June 8, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in and around the intersection of Joe Shuster Way and King Street West, Toronto.On June 6, 2023, at 5:00 p.m., a SIU forensic investigator attended the area of King Street West and Joe Shuster Way. The weather was clear and warm, and the roads were dry. King Street West ran in a general east-west direction. Joe Shuster Way ran north from King Street West. Within the scene, the ground surface was either concrete or interlocking brick. A Canadian Tire store was on the northeast corner of the intersection.
Members of the TPS were preserving an area of the sidewalk on the northwest corner of the intersection. The area being preserved had police caution tape in place.
Within the preserved area there was a small area of bloodstaining. There was evidence of a CEW deployment as Anti-felon Identification Disks (AFIDs) were present. Also within the scene was a blade for a box-cutting knife. The blade was present, but the knife handle was missing, reportedly removed from the scene. Photographs were taken that showed the overall scene, and the location of exhibits, which were collected.
At 5:45 p.m., the SIU forensic investigator released the scene to WO #1 and attended TPS 14 Division.
Physical Evidence
On June 6, 2023, a SIU forensic investigator collected evidence from the scene. A small area of bloodstaining was swabbed as Exhibit #1. To the south of the bloodstaining were two areas with box-cutter blades in close proximity, which were collected as Exhibit #2. Numerous AFIDs and Taser cartridge spacers were found within the secure area, and labelled Exhibit #3.At 6:05 p.m., the SIU forensic investigator attended TPS 14 Division and obtained the CEW used in the incident, the deployed CEW cartridge, and the box-cutter knives.
The box-cutters were in a new package of three and were manufactured by ‘OLFA’. This style of blade retracted within the handle of the knife. The blade was segmented so as the end became dull, it could be snapped off and the next blade exposed. The packaging had been opened. It contained three yellow handle box-cutter knives with retractable blades. One of the three knives had been advanced to expose the blade, but the exposed blade had broken away. This knife had five of the eight segmented blades missing. There were five segments of the blade located in the scene.
Figure 1 - Three box-cutters and their opened packaging
The CEW was a Taser X2 model with one live cartridge. The deployed cartridge still had the wire and probes attached.
Figure 2 - The SO's Taser X2 CEW
The SIU forensic investigator downloaded the deployment activity log for the CEW.
The activity log indicated that the CEW’s trigger was pulled at 11:55:24 a.m., [2] resulting in a charge duration of five seconds.
The SIU forensic investigator collected the deployed cartridge and returned all other items to the TPS.
Forensic Evidence
The SIU forensic investigator collected blood samples from the scene. They were stored in a secure location and not required for processing.Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [3]
Police Telephone and Radio Communications
On June 6, 2023, at 9:15:57 a.m., WO #3 logged on. He was assigned to King Street West and Joe Shuster Way and was to be there until about 4:00 p.m.Starting at about 11:45:13 a.m., a 911 call was received by TPS. The caller reported a woman [now known to be the Complainant] in a store destroying merchandise. The Complainant had taken a box-cutter package off a shelf, opened it, and used a box-cutter to damage store merchandize. She had then walked towards a cashier and assaulted a staff member prior to exiting through the front door. There was a lone police officer [now known to be WO #3] outside the store speaking to the Complainant, and he had his CEW drawn because she was holding a knife. The Complainant’s appearance and clothing was described. The caller thought she might be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Starting at about 11:47:06 a.m., the dispatcher broadcast that a female had a knife at the Canadian Tire store located at 5 Joe Shuster Way. The female had damaged displays and had box-cutters in her possession.
Starting at about 11:47:33 a.m., WO #3 indicated that the female had a knife.
Starting at about 11:48:23 a.m., dispatcher broadcast that WO #3 had his CEW drawn at the female.
Starting at about 11:49:09 a.m., the dispatcher notified a sergeant of the call. The dispatcher explained there was paid-duty officer with his CEW drawn on a person, and that the officer had stopped communicating with the dispatcher. The dispatcher made numerous attempts to contact WO #3, with negative results.
Starting at about 11:50:41 a.m., it was reported that one person was in custody, and a CEW had been deployed.
Starting at about 11:50:46 a.m., the dispatcher asked if an ambulance was needed, and she was told that the Complainant had hit her head hard on the ground.
Starting at about 11:54:24 a.m., the dispatcher called ambulance and requested a rush.
Starting at about 12:08:18 p.m., a man said that the female was sitting up, and was conscious and alert.
Starting at about 12:18:19 p.m., an officer said he was on board an ambulance with the female, and they were going to SJHC.
Body-worn Camera Footage – WO #3
Starting at about 11:47:22 a.m., the Complainant was captured exiting a Canadian Tire store. She put a package into the back of her waistline and walked towards a street. The Complainant turned towards WO #3, who was standing at the corner to the south of the Canadian Tire store. The Complainant had a yellow box-cutter in her right hand. WO #3 drew a CEW.Starting at about 11:47:31 a.m., WO #3 advised that he was with a female and that she had a knife. He said, “Drop it.” The Complainant walked backward across the street. There was a Structube store behind the Complainant. WO #3 again said, “Drop it, what’s your name?” The Complainant said, “Mine? I don’t know, what is it?” WO #3 told the dispatcher that the Complainant had a knife.
Starting at about 11:47:48 a.m., the Complainant stopped in the middle of the street. She was still holding the yellow-handled box-cutter in her right hand. WO #3 told the dispatcher the location and said, “Drop it. What’s your name? Let’s talk.” The Complainant said, “Just let me walk.” She pointed behind herself. WO #3 said, “Can we talk? You’re not going anywhere, that’s my job.”
Starting at about 11:48:06 a.m., the Complainant walked towards the sidewalk in front of Structube, then stopped and yelled, “Fucking tase me.” WO #3 said, “No, I don’t want to. Drop the knife, we’ll talk, okay?”
Starting at about 11:48:15 a.m., WO #3 had his CEW pointed at the Complainant. He said, “Drop your knife. What’s your name? My name is [redacted]. I can help you. Just drop it, we can talk okay.” The dispatcher was speaking when WO #3 said, “How many times have I told you, okay drop it, I don’t want to tase you, don’t push that blade okay.”
Starting at about 11:48:50 a.m., the Complainant threw the box-cutter to the pavement and walked towards Structube. WO #3 followed the Complainant and got close to her. She reached to her back waist area. WO #3 said, “Don’t take another one.” The Complainant said, “I’m doing what I’m doing.” WO #3 said, “Weapons dangerous, you gotta talk to me.”
Starting at about 11:49:05 a.m., the Complainant removed a package from the waist area of her back. The package was red and had yellow-handled box-cutters in it.
Starting at about 11:49:08 a.m., WO #3 grabbed the Complainant. She stepped back and removed a yellow-handled box-cutter from the package. WO #3 had his CEW in his hand. The Complainant was facing WO #3 with the box-cutter in her right hand. WO #3 had the CEW near her chest. She walked backward, away from WO #3, and he ordered her to drop the knife. WO #3 pointed the CEW at the Complainant and said, “I’m going to tase you. Put it down.” There was more talk about the Complainant putting the box-cutter down. WO #3 told the Complainant that she was young, and he did not want her to experience being “tased”. The Complainant said, “You’re not taking me to jail.”
Starting at about 11:49:48 a.m., the SO and WO #2 arrived on bicycles from behind the Complainant. The SO drew a CEW. He was on the sidewalk behind the Complainant. WO #2 was standing on the street behind the Complainant. WO #3 asked the Complainant where she wanted to go if allowed to leave.
Figure 3 - Screenshot from WO #3's BWC footage depicting a close-up view of the Complainant holding a box-cutter immediately before the SO deployed his CEW
Starting at about 11:49:59 a.m., the SO deployed his CEW. The Complainant fell backward onto the sidewalk. WO #3 and other police officers approached the Complainant on the sidewalk. WO #3 was on the Complainant’s right side and removed the box-cutter from her right hand, throwing it away from the area. WO #3 explained what occurred to the police officers.
Starting at about 11:52:50 a.m., WO #3 explained what occurred to a sergeant. WO #3 said there were four knives in the package.
Starting at about 12:03:30 p.m., EMS arrived. WO #3 explained what occurred to a paramedic. The SO told the paramedic that the Complainant had fallen onto her back on the sidewalk and was responsive.
Starting at about 12:08:00 p.m., the Complainant was assisted to a sitting position. The CEW probes were removed. The Complainant was assisted to her feet, and then onto a stretcher.
Starting at about 12:11:00 p.m., the Complainant was put into the ambulance and WO #3’s BWC was turned off.
Cell Phone Video – CW #2
The video was 39 seconds in length and was taken from behind the Complainant. The video depicted WO #3 speaking to her in front of the Structube store. Two officers wearing bicycle helmets walked behind the Complainant. One of the officers [the SO] had a CEW pointed at the Complainant’s back. The CEW was deployed, and the Complainant fell backward to the sidewalk.Cell Phone Video – CW #3
This video, one minute and 50 seconds in length, was taken from across the street. It showed WO #3 and the Complainant speaking in front of Structube. WO #3 had his CEW in his right hand. The Complainant had a yellow-handled box-cutter in her right hand. The Complainant refused to drop the box-cutter. The SO approached the Complainant from behind. The SO had his CEW pointed at the Complainant’s back and deployed the CEW. The Complainant fell backward to the sidewalk.Video Footage – Canadian Tire
On June 6, 2023, TPS electronically provided the SIU with video footage from the Canadian Tire store located at 5 Joe Shuster Way. The 13 recordings related to the Complainant on June 6, 2023. Street Entrance
Starting at about 11:43:32 a.m., the Complainant was captured entering the Canadian Tire store.
Aisle 23
Starting at about 11:44:25 a.m., the Complainant pulled items from shelves onto the floor.
Starting at about 11:44:52 a.m., the Complainant walked around looking at merchandise. She was followed by three store employees. The Complainant took a package from a shelf in aisle 24 and walked out of view.
Aisle 51
Starting at about 11:45:29 a.m., the Complainant walked towards Aisle 42. A female, who appeared to be an employee, extended her right arm to block the Complainant. The Complainant pushed the female out of the way and walked out of view.
Aisle 46
Starting at about 11:45:49 a.m., the Complainant walked to aisle 42 followed by three male employees, one of whom was on a cell phone. She held a white package in her left hand and walked to a shelving unit, somewhat out of view. The Complainant subsequently walked away from the shelving unit with a red package. With her right hand, she removed an object [box-cutter] and walked out of view.
Entrance 1
Starting at about 11:46:51 a.m., the Complainant exited the Canadian Tire store via the entrance doors with a red package in her left hand. In her right hand was a box-cutter with the blade extended. She made a circular movement with the box-cutter down by her side and went up the escalator.
Street Entrance 48
Starting at about 11:47:13 a.m., the Complainant got off the escalator. She held the red package in her left hand. Her right hand could not be seen. As she exited the store, she tucked the package into the back waistband of her jeans. The Complainant was followed by two male employees. Once she was outside the store, an officer wearing a fluorescent vest [WO #3] was seen approaching her. The two walked out of view.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
The SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between June 6 and 9, 2023:- Record of computer-assisted dispatch;
- Communications recordings;
- BWC footage;
- General Occurrence Report;
- Supplementary Occurrence Reports;
- Notes – WO #3;
- Notes – WO #4;
- Notes – WO #2;
- Notes – WO #1;
- Procedure - Incident Response / Use of Force De-Escalation;
- Procedure - Conducted Energy Weapon;
- Use of Force Training Record – the SO;
- Video footage from Canadian Tire;
- Cell phone video footage; and
- Witness List.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
On July 20, 2023, the SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources: - The Complainant’s medical records from St. Michael’s Hospital.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.
In the morning of June 6, 2023, the TPS took a 911 call from the Canadian Tire store at 5 Joe Shuster Way, Toronto, about the Complainant. According to the caller, the Complainant had assaulted a store employee and damaged store property, after which she exited the premises in possession of a box-cutter. Police officers were dispatched to the area.
WO #3, who was working a paid-duty at a construction site in the vicinity of the Canadian Tire, heard of the 911 call via radio. He observed the Complainant with a box-cutter in her right hand, its blade extended, and attempted to have her drop the knife.
The Complainant was of unsound mind at the time and seemingly unable to respond to WO #3 in a meaningful way. She demanded that the officer “tase” her as he attempted to defuse the situation by engaging her in conversation. At one point, the Complainant did drop the box-cutter, only to access another one she had on her person when WO #3 approached to take her into custody. The officer immediately created distance at this time, aimed his CEW in her direction, and warned the Complainant that he would shock her if she did not drop the knife.
As the standoff between the Complainant and WO #3 continued, the SO and his partner, WO #2, on bike patrol, were approaching the scene from the north on Joe Shuster Way. Both officers dismounted their bikes and continued their approach on foot, unknown to the Complainant, who was facing south towards WO #3 at the time. As the SO neared to within two to three metres, he fired his CEW. The probes from the weapon struck the Complainant in the back. The Complainant locked-up and fell backwards, striking her head in the process. With the Complainant on the ground, the officers removed the knife from her possession and handcuffed her behind the back.
The Complainant was transported from the scene in ambulance to hospital, where she was diagnosed with a skull fracture and subarachnoid hemorrhage.
In the morning of June 6, 2023, the TPS took a 911 call from the Canadian Tire store at 5 Joe Shuster Way, Toronto, about the Complainant. According to the caller, the Complainant had assaulted a store employee and damaged store property, after which she exited the premises in possession of a box-cutter. Police officers were dispatched to the area.
WO #3, who was working a paid-duty at a construction site in the vicinity of the Canadian Tire, heard of the 911 call via radio. He observed the Complainant with a box-cutter in her right hand, its blade extended, and attempted to have her drop the knife.
The Complainant was of unsound mind at the time and seemingly unable to respond to WO #3 in a meaningful way. She demanded that the officer “tase” her as he attempted to defuse the situation by engaging her in conversation. At one point, the Complainant did drop the box-cutter, only to access another one she had on her person when WO #3 approached to take her into custody. The officer immediately created distance at this time, aimed his CEW in her direction, and warned the Complainant that he would shock her if she did not drop the knife.
As the standoff between the Complainant and WO #3 continued, the SO and his partner, WO #2, on bike patrol, were approaching the scene from the north on Joe Shuster Way. Both officers dismounted their bikes and continued their approach on foot, unknown to the Complainant, who was facing south towards WO #3 at the time. As the SO neared to within two to three metres, he fired his CEW. The probes from the weapon struck the Complainant in the back. The Complainant locked-up and fell backwards, striking her head in the process. With the Complainant on the ground, the officers removed the knife from her possession and handcuffed her behind the back.
The Complainant was transported from the scene in ambulance to hospital, where she was diagnosed with a skull fracture and subarachnoid hemorrhage.
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
The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of her arrest by TPS officers on June 6, 2023. One of the officers – the SO – was identified as the subject official in the ensuing SIU investigation. 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 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.
By the time the SO fired his CEW at the Complainant, he and other officers responding to the scene had information that she had caused damage in the Canadian Tire, stolen and wielded a box-cutter from the store, and laid hands on a store employee. In the circumstances, the officer was within his rights in seeking to take her into custody.
With respect to the SO’s use of his CEW, I am satisfied that it was legally justified. The Complainant had hold of a box-cutter in a manner that was clearly threatening to herself and those around her. Moments prior, though apparently in crisis and perhaps not in complete control of her faculties, she had behaved erratically and violently inside the Canadian Tire. On this record, the officers were right to keep their distance from the Complainant while she was still in possession of the box-cutter, an item clearly capable of inflicting serious injury or death. The SO might have considered holding back to give negotiations some more time to work. That appears to have been the course adopted by WO #3. On the other hand, events were unfolding in a downtown intersection with bystanders around and it might well have been the more prudent course to bring the situation to resolution as quickly as possible. Given these considerations, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO’s choice was beyond the pale. Indeed, the CEW discharge did immediately result in the Complainant’s immediate incapacitation from a safe distance, albeit it was highly regrettable that she sustained serious injuries in her fall to the ground.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the SO comported himself other than within the limits of the criminal law in his brief engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: October 4, 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.
By the time the SO fired his CEW at the Complainant, he and other officers responding to the scene had information that she had caused damage in the Canadian Tire, stolen and wielded a box-cutter from the store, and laid hands on a store employee. In the circumstances, the officer was within his rights in seeking to take her into custody.
With respect to the SO’s use of his CEW, I am satisfied that it was legally justified. The Complainant had hold of a box-cutter in a manner that was clearly threatening to herself and those around her. Moments prior, though apparently in crisis and perhaps not in complete control of her faculties, she had behaved erratically and violently inside the Canadian Tire. On this record, the officers were right to keep their distance from the Complainant while she was still in possession of the box-cutter, an item clearly capable of inflicting serious injury or death. The SO might have considered holding back to give negotiations some more time to work. That appears to have been the course adopted by WO #3. On the other hand, events were unfolding in a downtown intersection with bystanders around and it might well have been the more prudent course to bring the situation to resolution as quickly as possible. Given these considerations, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO’s choice was beyond the pale. Indeed, the CEW discharge did immediately result in the Complainant’s immediate incapacitation from a safe distance, albeit it was highly regrettable that she sustained serious injuries in her fall to the ground.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the SO comported himself other than within the limits of the criminal law in his brief engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: October 4, 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 time is derived from the internal clock of the weapon, and is not necessarily synchronous with actual time. [Back to text]
- 3) 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.