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 37-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On June 25, 2023, at 6:29 a.m., the Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the DRPS, on June 24, 2023, at approximately 11:20 p.m., DRPS officers responded to a 911 call near Thornton Road North and Rossland Road West, Oshawa, on information a woman had been assaulted. Upon arrival, police officers encountered the Complainant who denied them access to the house indicating they would have to go through him to get to the woman. Police engaged physically with the Complainant and restrained him while allowing Emergency Medical Services access to the injured female. The Complainant was arrested for aggravated assault and taken to Lakeridge Health where he was treated for a small fracture to his nose and formed under the Mental Health Act (MHA).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 06/25/2023 at 7:29 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 06/25/2023 at 8:34 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

The Scene

The events in question transpired inside the front door area of the house near Thornton Road North and Rossland Road West, Oshawa.

The house was a single-family dwelling set within a residential subdivision. The scene had been processed by DRPS forensics prior to SIU notification and them learning of the Complainant’s serious injury.

SIU Forensic Investigators did not attend the scene as there was no evidence sought or believed present that would further the investigation.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

SO #1 and SO #2 were the only police officers present during the interaction with the Complainant and each wore a BWC that captured the incident.

Starting at about 11:30 p.m., SO #2 was captured knocking on the front door, after which he backed-off the porch and stood on the driveway. The Complainant opened the front door, stepped outside, and closed it behind him.

The Complainant stood at the top of the stairs. SO #1 advised him they had received a call about a lot of yelling. The Complainant told them he had been painting and sat down on the top step. SO #1 confirmed his name was ‘The Complainant’ and that he lived there with his mother. SO #1 asked the Complainant about the yelling and if they could speak to his mother. The Complainant told them she was in the bathroom. SO #1 told him they would have to speak to her to ensure her safety as there were reports of yelling and screaming, and people were concerned for her. The Complainant questioned their right to enter and was told it was to check on the welfare of his mother and that urgency and exigent circumstances allowed them to enter. The Complainant stood up, crossed his arms in front of him, and told the police officers they could go inside if they wanted. As the police officers walked towards the porch step, the Complainant took a single step to his right and blocked their path. SO #1 asked the Complainant why he was blocking his path and told him he could be arrested for obstruct police. The Complainant indicated he owned the house while questioning their authority to enter.

Starting at about 11:33 p.m., the Complainant told the police officers they would have to go through him to get into the house. The Complainant told them he owned the house and they had no legal right to enter. The Complainant became increasingly more agitated while SO #1 tried to calm him down explaining they were just there to talk to him. It was explained they had the lawful reason to be there as someone had called 911 and they needed to make sure everybody was okay in the house. The Complainant assured them everyone was fine. The Complainant unfolded a step stool, placed it in the middle of the porch, and sat on it. SO #1 and SO #2 asked the Complainant to have his mother come to the door and they would not have to enter the home. The Complainant stated she was occupied and that she was fine.

Starting at about 11:35 p.m., as the police officers stepped back to talk to each other, the Complainant took one step down the porch and was told by SO #2 not to advance any further. When asked, the Complainant told SO #2 he did not have any weapons on him and lifted his shirt to expose his front pant waistline. The Complainant told the police officers he did not want to talk with them anymore. The Complainant said he made the rules, and they could go into the house if he allowed them to, or they could kill him if they wanted to kill him. SO #1 told him they did not want to kill him; they were not there for that purpose and just wanted to make sure everyone was okay.

Starting at about 11:36 p.m., the Complainant turned around abruptly, said he would go check and walked towards the front door. He told the police officers to stay on the driveway as he opened the door and entered. As the door closed, SO #1 ran up the stairs and kicked the door with his right leg twice. He held the doorknob with his right hand and pushed forward on the door. The Complainant was on the other side of the door pushing it closed and refused their direction to open it. SO #1 forced his way in and immediately engaged in a struggle with the Complainant, which eventually spilled off into a darkened room off the entranceway. SO #2 followed immediately behind and both police officers had hold of the Complainant. The Complainant was fighting with the police officers. SO #1 and SO #2 yelled repeatedly at the Complainant to get on the ground and to stop resisting. SO #2 held the front of the Complainant while telling him to get on the ground. The Complainant was put to the floor on his back while both police officers struggled to control him. SO #2 yelled at the Complainant to give them his hands as the Complainant resisted. SO #1 held the Complainant’s arms in front of his body and the Complainant lifted his knees to kick at SO #1. SO #1 told him not to kick him. The Complainant was turned onto his stomach and asked to put his hands behind his back. SO #2 held the Complainant’s hands while SO #1 secured the handcuffs behind his back.

Starting at about 11:38 p.m., SO #1 located a woman on the floor of the upstairs hallway unconscious and critically injured. SO #2 remained downstairs holding the Complainant. The Complainant started to struggle with SO #2 and, leveraging his knees, turned around on his back. SO #2 yelled at the Complainant to stop resisting several times and asked SO #1 to return downstairs.

Starting at about 11:39 p.m., SO #2 told the Complainant he was under arrest for aggravated assault.

The material events in question may briefly be summarized.

In the morning of June 24, 2023, SO #1 and SO #2 were dispatched to the residence near Thornton Road North and Rossland Road West, Oshawa. A neighbour had called concerned about its occupants as she had heard the Complainant yelling profanities at his mother.

The officers arrived at the address, knocked on the front door, and were greeted by the Complainant. The officers explained why they were there and asked to speak to his mother to ensure she was okay. The Complainant indicated his mother was fine but was in the bathroom and unavailable. The officers indicated they would wait.

After a period, the Complainant eventually agreed to have the officers enter the house. However, as they made their way towards the porch, the Complainant moved over to block their path. The officers warned the Complainant that he could be charged with ‘obstruction of justice’. The Complainant became increasingly agitated and told the officers they would have to go through him to enter the house. When he abruptly moved to enter the house and close the door behind him, the officers moved-in and tried to force entry.

SO #1 kicked at the door and eventually pushed it open as the Complainant tried to push it closed from the inside. Once inside, the Complainant and the officers became engaged in a physical struggle. The officers wrestled with the Complainant on their feet, in the course of which SO #2 delivered three punches to the chest and a knee strike to the right thigh before the Complainant was brought to the floor. The struggle continued on the floor for a period, SO #1 punching the Complainant in the face twice, after which the Complainant was subdued and handcuffed behind the back.

Following the Complainant’s arrest, SO #1 found his mother upstairs. She was bleeding and had suffered catastrophic injuries.

Paramedics were called to the scene and transported her to hospital where she succumbed to her injuries.

The Complainant was reportedly diagnosed with a broken nose.

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,

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by DRPS officers in Oshawa on June 24, 2023. In the ensuing SIU investigation of the incident, both officers – SO #1 and SO #2 – were identified as subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official 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.

SO #1 and SO #2 were within their rights in forcing entry into the house and, thereafter, taking the Complainant into custody. By that time, they had information of a domestic disturbance in the house, a concern voiced by a neighbour with his mother’s well-being, and an equivocating and agitated Complainant who had consented to the officers’ entry before blocking their path. Those were among the considerations, in my view, that coalesced to give rise to exigent circumstances justifying a forced entry into the home to check on his mother’s welfare. When the Complainant then proceeded to impede the officers’ path and resist their ingress into the home, he was effectively obstructing SO #1 and SO #2 in the exercise of their lawful duties, and was subject to arrest for obstruction of justice.

With respect to the force used by the officers in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, I am satisfied that it was legally justified. It is clear that the Complainant was primed for a fight as the officers entered the home. He kicked at the officers and flailed his arms. SO #2 fought back, delivering several punches of his own and a knee strike to the right leg. The Complainant continued to flail his legs and arms on the floor, and was met with an additional two punches to the face by SO #1. Shortly thereafter, the Complainant was rolled into a prone position and handcuffed. No additional force was brought to bear. On this record, I am satisfied that the officers’ resort to force was appropriately tailored to the Complainant’s resistance.

In the result, while I accept that the broken nose the Complainant reportedly suffered was incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, I am satisfied that the injury is not attributable to any unlawful conduct on the part of the subject officials. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: October 23, 2023


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit