SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OCI-284
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 serious injuries sustained by a 25-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 serious injuries sustained by a 25-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On July 24, 2023, at about 3:00 p.m., the Brockville Police Service (BPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant. According to the BPS, on July 24, 2023, at 8:30 a.m., BPS officers responded to a noise complaint in the area of King Street and Ormond Street. Once officers arrived on scene, they found that the Complainant was involved. The Complainant was known to have an outstanding warrant for robbery. The Complainant ran from the police officers through several backyards and over fences. He was found in a backyard where he gave himself up without a struggle to the Subject Official (the SO). The Complainant was booked at BPS station and advised that he had no injuries. The Complainant did admit to smoking fentanyl and was monitored for his safety. He was taken to bail court and held there pending his hearing. The Complainant’s condition deteriorated, and he was taken to the Brockville General Hospital (BGH). Once at BGH, he complained his wrist hurt. At 1:45 p.m., X-rays confirmed that both wrists were fractured. He reportedly told medical staff that the injury occurred during his arrest. Witness Official (WO) #1 and WO #2 had been involved in the foot pursuit.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2023/07/25 at 8:48 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/07/25 at 9:39 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
25-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on July 25, 2023.
Civilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 Interviewed CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between July 30, 2023, and August 14, 2023.
Subject Officials (SO)
SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal rightThe subject official was interviewed on August 29, 2023.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on August 3, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in the backyard of a residence situated on Ormond Street, Brockville.Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
WO #3 – Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage
The footage was approximately 15 minutes and 28 seconds in duration. It began on July 24, 2023, at 6:16:53 p.m. and concluded at 6:32:21 p.m.WO #3 was depicted as he entered the BGH with other members of the BPS.
The Complainant was discharged from the BGH back into BPS custody to be transported to the Brockville Jail.
Starting at about 6:17:55 p.m., WO #2 stood outside of the assessment room door. As he started to unlock the door, he asked the Complainant if he remembered him from earlier. The Complainant stated, "You're the one that broke my hand, right?" WO #2 responded, “I didn’t break your hand.” The Complainant asked, "Who did?" WO #2 replied, "I don't know." The Complainant then came into the field of view. He had both forearms and wrists in white plaster casts.
Starting at about 6:18:40 p.m., the Complainant asked, "Who do I talk to about the lawsuit, here?" WO #3 told him not to worry and said it would be addressed.
The Complainant then had leg shackles placed on his ankles and plastic handcuffs placed on his wrists/casts.
The Complainant was escorted out of the BGH and placed into a BPS police vehicle. He was transported to the Brockville Jail.
There were no further conversations about the injuries to the Complainant’s wrists.
BPS Booking Hall and Cell #2 Video Footage
The BPS provided the SIU with footage of the booking hall and a cell in connection to the Complainant’s time in custody on July 24, 2023. There were no audio portions to the footage, or any date or time-stamps.The footage did not contain any apparent indications by the Complainant of injuries to his wrists.
The Complainant was placed into a holding cell, where he appeared to fall asleep while squatting on the cell floor. The Complainant did not punch any walls while in the cell.
At 27:44 minutes of the recording, the Complainant fell headfirst towards the cell wall.
For the most part, the Complainant was unsteady and frequently fell asleep. He awoke momentarily when a BPS officer attended the cell and had a brief conversation with him. The Complainant fell asleep once the police officer left.
During the Complainant’s booking and his placement in the cell, he was compliant and there was no force applied or required by any of the involved BPS police officers.
Video Footage - Brockville Courthouse
There was no audio in the footage. On July 24, 2023, starting at about 9:34 a.m., the Complainant arrived at the Brockville Courthouse booking area and was placed in a cell.
Starting at about 10:32 a.m., the Complainant was taken out of his cell by Court Officers. He was escorted into the booking area and seated on a bench.
Starting at about 10:35 a.m., paramedics assessed the Complainant’s vitals.
Starting at about 10:47 a.m., the Complainant was placed on a gurney, and removed from the booking hall by Leeds and Grenville Paramedics.
There were no indications that the Complainant complained of any injuries to his wrists, or physical signs that he favoured either hand.
Police Communications Recordings
911 CallOn July 24, 2023, starting at about 8:22:34 a.m., a male contacted 911 to report a group of people who were intoxicated across the street from him. He provided the address and referenced a store. He advised that there were two women and three men, all of whom were very inebriated. He said the individuals yelled, ran into the middle of the street, and fell because they could not stand. One of the individuals had a dog. The caller provided a physical description and stated that the most problematic one had his shirt off. The individuals walked slowly eastbound on King Street with “giant freezies”.
Radio Transmissions
On July 24, 2023, starting at about 8:31:51 a.m., the police dispatcher directed BPS police officers to attend the area of the store. She provided the address on King Street East. She indicated five individuals were walking in and out of the road, and were possibly intoxicated. They walked eastbound on King Street.
Starting at about 8:34:39 a.m., WO #2 radioed that the individuals were over by Ormond Street, and identified one of the individuals as the Complainant, who was wearing track pants and was shirtless.
Starting at about 8:35:20 a.m., a police officer radioed, “He’s running, he’s running.”
Starting at about 8:36:00 a.m., a police officer radioed that the Complainant had hopped a fence located at the third house on the left side of Ormond Street.
Starting at about 8:41:26 a.m., a police officer radioed, and provided details of the address.
Starting at about 8:42:17 a.m., the dispatcher radioed that the Complainant was wanted for robbery, breach of recognizance, and breach of probation.
Starting at about 8:45:42 a.m., a police officer radioed that he was concerned about the potential firearm information but was unable to locate anything at the scene.
Starting at about 8:50:24 a.m., a police officer radioed that they had returned to the station with the Complainant in custody.
Starting at about 9:04:50 a.m., a police officer asked dispatch to mark down a physical check for the Complainant.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
The SIU obtained the following records from the BPS between from July 26, 2023, and September 11, 2023: - The Complainant - Prisoner Log;
- Notes – WO #2;
- Notes – WO #1;
- Notes – WO #3;
- Arrest Report;
- Event Details;
- Communications recordings;
- Custody video;
- Brockville Courthouse footage;
- WO #3 – BWC footage; and
- Use of Force Certification – the SO.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from the BGH on July 25, 2023.Incident Narrative
The evidence gathered by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, gives rise to the following scenario.
In the morning of July 24, 2023, the BPS received a call of a disturbance being created on King Street East by a group of inebriated individuals. Officers, including the SO, were dispatched to investigate. The officers located the group on King Street East in the area of Ormond Street and stopped their vehicles to speak with them. They recognized the Complainant, a member of the group, as the person wanted for a robbery committed the day before.
At the sight of the police, the Complainant ran. He fled west on King Street East and north on Ormond Street, turning left onto the grounds of a residence on Ormond Street. He hopped a fence on the property and made his way onto a path beside the garage, running into a dead-end. It was there he was confronted by the SO.
The SO had chased the Complainant onto the property. The officer told the Complainant he was under arrest, ordered him to the ground, and then took him to the ground when he failed to do so. The Complainant was handcuffed by the SO and lodged in the rear seat of a cruiser, after which he was transported to the station.
The Complainant was subsequently taken to hospital when it was learned he had consumed fentanyl earlier in the day. X-rays confirmed that he had fractured his right forearm and left wrist.
In the morning of July 24, 2023, the BPS received a call of a disturbance being created on King Street East by a group of inebriated individuals. Officers, including the SO, were dispatched to investigate. The officers located the group on King Street East in the area of Ormond Street and stopped their vehicles to speak with them. They recognized the Complainant, a member of the group, as the person wanted for a robbery committed the day before.
At the sight of the police, the Complainant ran. He fled west on King Street East and north on Ormond Street, turning left onto the grounds of a residence on Ormond Street. He hopped a fence on the property and made his way onto a path beside the garage, running into a dead-end. It was there he was confronted by the SO.
The SO had chased the Complainant onto the property. The officer told the Complainant he was under arrest, ordered him to the ground, and then took him to the ground when he failed to do so. The Complainant was handcuffed by the SO and lodged in the rear seat of a cruiser, after which he was transported to the station.
The Complainant was subsequently taken to hospital when it was learned he had consumed fentanyl earlier in the day. X-rays confirmed that he had fractured his right forearm and left wrist.
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
Following his arrest by BPS officers on July 24, 2023, the Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with serious injuries. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming one of the arresting officers – the SO – 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 injuries.
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.
It would appear that the Complainant was subject to arrest at the time he was taken into custody. The SO and his colleagues seem to have quickly recognized that the Complainant was implicated in a robbery from the night before. The Complainant was, in fact, charged with that offence, and others, following his arrest on July 24, 2023.
As for the force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence indicates that this consisted of nothing more than a controlled takedown at the scene. That tactic would seem a reasonable precaution in the circumstances – the Complainant was wanted for a violent offence, and he had fled from the police and was refusing to lower himself at the direction of the officer, who was alone at the time. In that position, the SO could expect to better manage any further resistance by the Complainant. Nor does the evidence suggest that the Complainant sustained any injuries at this time.
It has been alleged that the SO caused the Complainant’s fractures. However, the source of the allegation’s recall of the events in question, by their own admission, was poor. They were unable to describe what exactly the officer did that resulted in the injuries. In the circumstances, this evidence is not enough to establish excessive force by the SO.
It remains unclear how and when the Complainant was injured. The medical evidence indicates that the fractures in question are of the sort that result when individuals use their hands and arms to break their fall. The evidence also suggests that the Complainant’s injuries occurred sometime before his run-in with police. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the SO comported himself other than within the limits of the criminal law, there is no basis for proceeding with charges. The file is closed.
Date: November 21, 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.
It would appear that the Complainant was subject to arrest at the time he was taken into custody. The SO and his colleagues seem to have quickly recognized that the Complainant was implicated in a robbery from the night before. The Complainant was, in fact, charged with that offence, and others, following his arrest on July 24, 2023.
As for the force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence indicates that this consisted of nothing more than a controlled takedown at the scene. That tactic would seem a reasonable precaution in the circumstances – the Complainant was wanted for a violent offence, and he had fled from the police and was refusing to lower himself at the direction of the officer, who was alone at the time. In that position, the SO could expect to better manage any further resistance by the Complainant. Nor does the evidence suggest that the Complainant sustained any injuries at this time.
It has been alleged that the SO caused the Complainant’s fractures. However, the source of the allegation’s recall of the events in question, by their own admission, was poor. They were unable to describe what exactly the officer did that resulted in the injuries. In the circumstances, this evidence is not enough to establish excessive force by the SO.
It remains unclear how and when the Complainant was injured. The medical evidence indicates that the fractures in question are of the sort that result when individuals use their hands and arms to break their fall. The evidence also suggests that the Complainant’s injuries occurred sometime before his run-in with police. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the SO comported himself other than within the limits of the criminal law, there is no basis for proceeding with charges. The file is closed.
Date: November 21, 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.