SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OCI-234
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 36-year-old man (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 36-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On June 21, 2023, at 2:32 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.At approximately 10:05 a.m., members of the 21 Division Criminal Investigations Bureau (CIB) recognized a wanted man at the corner of Inspire Boulevard and Bramalea Road in Brampton. The plain-clothed police officers approached the man, identified themselves, and arrested him. The man, identified as the Complainant, resisted arrest and was grounded in the process. Two uniform police officers responded and transported the Complainant to 21 Division station. During the booking process, they saw a bulge on the Complainant’s shoulder and transported him to Brampton Civic Hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured clavicle.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2023/06/21 at 2:32 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/06/21 at 5:31 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
36-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on June 29, 2023.
Subject Officials (SO)
SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed The subject official was interviewed on September 25, 2023.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Interviewed
WO #6 Interviewed
WO #7 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary
The witness officials were interviewed on July 25, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired along the sidewalk area on the east side of Bramalea Road, south of Inspire Boulevard, during daylight hours. The weather was clear and dry.Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage
None of the CIB police officers who initially interacted with and arrested the Complainant were equipped with BWCs.BWC recordings captured the police response to the report of an automobile theft, and the arrival of WO #6 and WO #7 at the scene of the arrest at 10:28 a.m.
The Complainant was turned over to WO #6 and WO #7, already handcuffed with his hands behind his back. He made no complaints when he was searched and seated in the cruiser.
A male police officer, now known to be the SO, told the uniformed police officers the Complainant was cooperative and had told them he had used an illicit drug earlier that day.
21 Division Station Video Recordings
The Complainant arrived at 21 Division station in WO #6 and WO #7’s custody at 10:54 a.m. He was removed from the vehicle and escorted into the building.When WO #6 removed the handcuffs in the booking area, the Complainant appeared to have limited mobility in his left shoulder as he removed his jacket and then positioned his hands against a wall to be patted down.
Following the search and removal of articles in his possession, the Complainant sat on a bench and appeared to be in pain as he kept his right hand on his left shoulder.
About 12 minutes after arriving, discussion about his injury appeared to be taking place as the Complainant stood and pulled the left side of his sweater collar to show his injury to WO #1.
About 23 minutes after arriving, the Complainant was handcuffed with his hands in front of his body and escorted out of the building by the police officers who had paraded him.
Communications and Call Recordings
The call recordings captured the report of an automobile theft and calls related to the owner’s information about the vehicle’s location, determined by GPS tracking equipment in the vehicle.Communications recordings captured communications related to the CIB police officers’ response to the area where the stolen vehicle was located. The team reported descriptions of the suspects and then requested other PRP vehicles to stay away from the area while they maintained surveillance.
In one transmission, a male police officer reported they had one person in custody at a church at 11613 Bramalea Road and requested a marked cruiser to transport the individual.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
The SIU received the following records from PRP between June 21, 2023, and August 31, 2023:- The Complainant’s Person Details Report;
- List of involved police officers and their involvement in the incident;
- Incident Details related to stolen automobile;
- Incident History related to stolen automobile;
- Incident Details related to the Complainant’s arrest;
- Incident History related to the Complainant’s arrest;
- Occurrence Details report related to the Complainant’s arrest;
- Occurrence Reports of PRP previous incidents involving the Complainant;
- Communications and phone call recordings;
- BWC recordings; and
- PRP 21 Division station camera recordings.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU received the Complainant’s medical record on July 5, 2023. Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, gives rise to the following scenario.
In the morning of June 21, 2023, several plain-clothes police officers, including the SO, assembled in the area of Bramalea Road and Mayfield Road to arrest the occupants of a stolen vehicle – a Mercedes sedan. The owner had reported the theft earlier that day and assisted the police with locating the vehicle with the use of GPS locater technology. When the Complainant was observed exiting the vehicle, parked in the carpark of a shopping plaza in the area, the officers decided to apprehend him.
The officers followed the Complainant surreptitiously across Inspire Boulevard and confronted him on foot as he stood with his cell phone in hand. The SO was the first officer to reach the Complainant, wrapping his arms around him and forcing him to the ground. The other officers immediately intervened as well and assisted in taking the Complainant into custody.
The Complainant was taken to the police station after his arrest and then to hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured left clavicle.
In the morning of June 21, 2023, several plain-clothes police officers, including the SO, assembled in the area of Bramalea Road and Mayfield Road to arrest the occupants of a stolen vehicle – a Mercedes sedan. The owner had reported the theft earlier that day and assisted the police with locating the vehicle with the use of GPS locater technology. When the Complainant was observed exiting the vehicle, parked in the carpark of a shopping plaza in the area, the officers decided to apprehend him.
The officers followed the Complainant surreptitiously across Inspire Boulevard and confronted him on foot as he stood with his cell phone in hand. The SO was the first officer to reach the Complainant, wrapping his arms around him and forcing him to the ground. The other officers immediately intervened as well and assisted in taking the Complainant into custody.
The Complainant was taken to the police station after his arrest and then to hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured left clavicle.
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 during his arrest by PRP officers in Brampton on June 21, 2023. In the ensuing SIU investigation of the incident, one of the arresting officers – the SO – was identified as 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.
Based on the information they had from the owner of the Mercedes, including GPS location data, and their own observations of the Complainant inside the vehicle, I am satisfied that the officers were within their rights in seeking to arrest the Complainant in connection with the theft of the automobile.
As for the force used by the SO, namely, a takedown, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was unlawful. In one body of evidence, it is alleged that the Complainant was walking in the area of the arrest when he was approached by four plain-clothed officers, two of whom grabbed his arms and pulled him to the ground. There is no mention, in this allegation, of any resistance on the Complainant’s part or attempt at flight. On the other hand, the SO indicates that the Complainant moved as if he was preparing to run as the officers approached and that, as he did, the officer observed a silver object hanging out of his front right pocket that he feared could be a weapon. In response, the SO tackled the Complainant to the ground to neutralize both contingencies. Though the other arresting officers – three of them – make no mention of any ‘silver object’ being a concern, there is reference in their accounts to the Complainant seemingly preparing to run before he was grounded. The one account paints a picture of excessive force. The other suggests force that was tailored to the exigencies of the moment. In the final analysis, as it is unclear that either rendition is more likely to be closer to the truth than the other, there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the force used by the SO was unjustified.
For the foregoing reasons, while I accept that the Complainant’s clavicle was broken in the takedown, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: October 19, 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.
Based on the information they had from the owner of the Mercedes, including GPS location data, and their own observations of the Complainant inside the vehicle, I am satisfied that the officers were within their rights in seeking to arrest the Complainant in connection with the theft of the automobile.
As for the force used by the SO, namely, a takedown, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was unlawful. In one body of evidence, it is alleged that the Complainant was walking in the area of the arrest when he was approached by four plain-clothed officers, two of whom grabbed his arms and pulled him to the ground. There is no mention, in this allegation, of any resistance on the Complainant’s part or attempt at flight. On the other hand, the SO indicates that the Complainant moved as if he was preparing to run as the officers approached and that, as he did, the officer observed a silver object hanging out of his front right pocket that he feared could be a weapon. In response, the SO tackled the Complainant to the ground to neutralize both contingencies. Though the other arresting officers – three of them – make no mention of any ‘silver object’ being a concern, there is reference in their accounts to the Complainant seemingly preparing to run before he was grounded. The one account paints a picture of excessive force. The other suggests force that was tailored to the exigencies of the moment. In the final analysis, as it is unclear that either rendition is more likely to be closer to the truth than the other, there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the force used by the SO was unjustified.
For the foregoing reasons, while I accept that the Complainant’s clavicle was broken in the takedown, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: October 19, 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.