SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-PCI-237
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 48-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 48-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On June 23, 2023, at 1:42 p.m., the Complainant called the SIU to report an injury he had suffered during an interaction with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) in Sioux Lookout on June 21, 2023. According to the Complainant, he had arrived in Sioux Lookout for some medical appointments on June 19, 2023, and was staying at a hotel. He was supposed to check-out at 11:00 a.m., on June 21, 2023. He had been drinking the night before and slept past the check-out time. Cleaning staff came to his room and told him to leave. The Complainant asked if he could pay for one more night and was denied. Hotel staff called the OPP, and officers attended and forcefully removed him from the hotel, twisting his arm back too far in the process. The Complainant was taken to the Sioux Lookout OPP station and held in the “drunk tank” for 12 hours. He complained of pain to his shoulder and asked to go to the hospital but was denied. When the Complainant was finally released, a female OPP officer drove him to the Sioux Lookout hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured shoulder. The Complainant was subsequently transported by air ambulance to Thunder Bay where he underwent surgery on June 23, 2023, at the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Center (TBRHSC). He had a plate and pins inserted in his shoulder to correct the injury.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 06/22/2023 at 3:36 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 06/26/2023 at 8:05 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
48-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on June 27, 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 September 12, 2023.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Notes reviewed; interview deemed not necessary
The witness officials were interviewed on July 12, 2023.
Service Employee Witnesses (SEW)
SEW #1 Interviewed SEW #2 Interviewed
The service employee witnesses were interviewed on July 12, 2023, and September 13, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in the cell block area of the OPP Sioux Lookout Detachment, 62 Queen Street, Sioux Lookout The scene was not examined by SIU forensic investigators. No relevant physical evidence would be expected.
The cell block was equipped with video cameras.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
Video Footage – Hotel
On July 12, 2023, SIU investigators attended the hotel canvassing for video footage. The hotel had footage that covered the hallway outside the room where the Complainant had stayed. Another camera covered the exterior stairwell leading from the second-floor to the parking lot area.The footage captured the Complainant leaving the hotel room and descending the stairs of his own accord. An OPP police officer carried his suitcase down the stairs. The Complainant was not handcuffed.
The parking lot camera captured two OPP police cruisers in the lot. The Complainant was handcuffed by the police and placed in the rear of a police cruiser without incident.
SIU was not able to obtain the footage as staff did not have the ability to copy the video footage.
The hotel footage viewed by investigators was unremarkable.
Video Footage - OPP Booking and Cell Block
On July 5, 2023, the SIU received the video footage of the booking and cell areas from the OPP as it related to the Complainant’s time in custody on June 21, 2023. The times, in Eastern Time, are derived from the footage.At 2:03 p.m., WO #1 drove his marked OPP cruiser into the garage bay at the Sioux Lookout Detachment. The Complainant exited the rear of the cruiser as WO #1 and WO #2 stood by. The Complainant was handcuffed with his hands behind his back. He was visibly unsteady on his feet and appeared intoxicated. The Complainant was escorted from the garage to the booking area by WO #1 and WO #2 without incident.
At 2:04 p.m., the Complainant was searched and booked without incident with WO #1, WO #2 and the SO present.
At 2:08 p.m., the Complainant was escorted down the cell corridor towards a cell as the SO held his left arm and WO #2 held his right arm. WO #1 was also in camera view as he walked ahead towards the cell with the cell key. As they walked down the cell corridor, the Complainant was captured on video pushing his body back towards WO #2 and the SO. They, in turn, pushed the Complainant forward to keep him moving towards the cell.
As the Complainant approached the cell, he was able to free his hands and grab onto the cell bars on his right. The SO and WO #2 attempted to remove his hands from the bars, but the Complainant refused to let go. The SO delivered an elbow strike to the left forearm of the Complainant that successfully removed his left hand from the bars. WO #2 continued to struggle attempting to remove the Complainant's right hand from the bars. He delivered an elbow strike to the Complainant's right forearm, and was able to remove the Complainant's right hand from the bars.
The SO, WO #2, and WO #1, who had returned to their location to assist, resumed pushing the Complainant forward down the corridor towards cell #6. The Complainant continued to push back against the police officers, resisting being placed in a cell.
At 2:09 p.m., as the Complainant was in the doorway of the cell, WO #1 and WO #2 stepped back as the SO pushed the Complainant forward from behind with both hands. The Complainant fell forward and landed heavily on his right shoulder and the right side of his head, on the cell floor up against a cement bunk. The SO then entered the cell and appeared to check on the Complainant to ensure he was okay.
At 2:10 p.m., the SO exited the cell, the door was closed, and the Complainant was secured in the cell. He sat on the floor of the cell. The Complainant eventually moved and sat on one of the bunks.
The remainder of the video was unremarkable; it captured the detention of the Complainant in the cell until he was released by WO #3.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
The SIU obtained the following records from the OPP Sioux Lookout Detachment between June 29, 2023, and July 10, 2023:- Computer-assisted dispatch report;
- Communications recordings;
- Notes - WO #1;
- Notes - WO #2;
- Notes – WO #4;
- Notes - WO #3;
- General Occurrence Report;
- Prisoner in Custody Report;
- OPP Prisoner Care Policy;
- In-car camera footage; and
- Booking and cell block footage.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources: - The Complainant’s medical records from Sioux Lookout – Meno Ya Win Health Centre, received June 28, 2023; and
- The Complainant’s medical records from TBRHSC, received July 19, 2023.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.
In the afternoon of June 21, 2023, police officers were called to a hotel in Sioux Lookout. A registered guest – the Complainant - had overstayed his welcome and was refusing to leave.
The SO was the first to arrive. He approached the Complainant in his room and advised him he had to leave. The Complainant was cooperative; he packed his things and accompanied the officer, now joined by WO #1 and WO #2, down the stairs and out of the premises.
Once outside, the officers were concerned with leaving the Complainant to his own devices. He was inebriated and unsteady on his feet. They decided to arrest him for being intoxicated in a public place.
The Complainant was taken into custody without incident, placed in the rear of a police cruiser and transported to the OPP Sioux Lookout Detachment.
Back at the station, the Complainant was cooperative with the police until the point he was being escorted to his cell for lodging. With the SO holding his left arm and, WO #2, his right, the officers escorted him down the cell corridor towards the cell. The Complainant started to push back against the officers. They, in turn, responded by pushing the Complainant forward. At one point, the Complainant managed to free his hands and grab hold of the bars of a cell. The officers applied elbow strikes to release the Complainant’s hands, after which they continued to force him forward as he resisted.
Once at the open cell door, WO #2 released his hold of the Complainant before the SO pushed him from behind into the cell. The Complainant fell forward, landing on his right shoulder and head, fracturing his right clavicle in the process.
The Complainant would subsequently complain of pain to his right shoulder. Upon his release from custody, the Complainant was transported by an officer to hospital. The following day, he was diagnosed with his injury.
In the afternoon of June 21, 2023, police officers were called to a hotel in Sioux Lookout. A registered guest – the Complainant - had overstayed his welcome and was refusing to leave.
The SO was the first to arrive. He approached the Complainant in his room and advised him he had to leave. The Complainant was cooperative; he packed his things and accompanied the officer, now joined by WO #1 and WO #2, down the stairs and out of the premises.
Once outside, the officers were concerned with leaving the Complainant to his own devices. He was inebriated and unsteady on his feet. They decided to arrest him for being intoxicated in a public place.
The Complainant was taken into custody without incident, placed in the rear of a police cruiser and transported to the OPP Sioux Lookout Detachment.
Back at the station, the Complainant was cooperative with the police until the point he was being escorted to his cell for lodging. With the SO holding his left arm and, WO #2, his right, the officers escorted him down the cell corridor towards the cell. The Complainant started to push back against the officers. They, in turn, responded by pushing the Complainant forward. At one point, the Complainant managed to free his hands and grab hold of the bars of a cell. The officers applied elbow strikes to release the Complainant’s hands, after which they continued to force him forward as he resisted.
Once at the open cell door, WO #2 released his hold of the Complainant before the SO pushed him from behind into the cell. The Complainant fell forward, landing on his right shoulder and head, fracturing his right clavicle in the process.
The Complainant would subsequently complain of pain to his right shoulder. Upon his release from custody, the Complainant was transported by an officer to hospital. The following day, he was diagnosed with his injury.
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 while in the custody of the OPP in Sioux Lookout on June 21, 2023. In the ensuing SIU investigation of the incident, 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 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 Complainant was lawfully in the custody of the police at the time of his injury. Given his intoxication, the officers were right to be concerned about his wellbeing and were within their rights in taking him into custody pursuant to section 31 of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019. Once in custody, the officers were entitled to exercise reasonable control over his movements, including his placement in a cell, so that he could be safely processed accordingly to law.
With respect to the force brought to bear against the Complainant in the cell block, namely, several elbow strikes and a push to the back, I am satisfied it was legally justified. The officers were left with little option but to respond with a measure of force when the Complainant took hold of cell bars, to prevent his placement in a cell, and refused to let go. The use of manual force in the nature of several elbow strikes to force his hands free of the bars seems a proportionate response to the Complainant’s resistance at the time. The same may be said of the SO’s push to the Complainant’s back. The Complainant had been pushing his body weight backwards into the officers, necessitating their countervailing push forwards to keep him moving. Once at the threshold of the cell door, it made sense to push the Complainant forward a distance into the cell as doing so would permit a window of time for the safe closing of the cell door. Regrettably, as it appears the Complainant had let up his resistance at that moment, he was propelled forward in an uncontrolled fashion, resulting in his falling to the floor and suffering his injury. I am unable to fault the SO for this regrettable turn of events. As the Complainant had put up a struggle for the period leading to the cell door, it was reasonable for the officer to anticipate that same resistance would be present at the threshold of the cell.
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 throughout his engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: October 20, 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.
The Complainant was lawfully in the custody of the police at the time of his injury. Given his intoxication, the officers were right to be concerned about his wellbeing and were within their rights in taking him into custody pursuant to section 31 of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019. Once in custody, the officers were entitled to exercise reasonable control over his movements, including his placement in a cell, so that he could be safely processed accordingly to law.
With respect to the force brought to bear against the Complainant in the cell block, namely, several elbow strikes and a push to the back, I am satisfied it was legally justified. The officers were left with little option but to respond with a measure of force when the Complainant took hold of cell bars, to prevent his placement in a cell, and refused to let go. The use of manual force in the nature of several elbow strikes to force his hands free of the bars seems a proportionate response to the Complainant’s resistance at the time. The same may be said of the SO’s push to the Complainant’s back. The Complainant had been pushing his body weight backwards into the officers, necessitating their countervailing push forwards to keep him moving. Once at the threshold of the cell door, it made sense to push the Complainant forward a distance into the cell as doing so would permit a window of time for the safe closing of the cell door. Regrettably, as it appears the Complainant had let up his resistance at that moment, he was propelled forward in an uncontrolled fashion, resulting in his falling to the floor and suffering his injury. I am unable to fault the SO for this regrettable turn of events. As the Complainant had put up a struggle for the period leading to the cell door, it was reasonable for the officer to anticipate that same resistance would be present at the threshold of the cell.
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 throughout his engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: October 20, 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.