SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OCI-299
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 42-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 42-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On July 30, 2023, at 6:33 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant. According to the PRP, on July 29, 2023, the Complainant was arrested at an address in Brampton on outstanding warrants and taken to 21 Division. At 4:39 a.m., on July 30, 2023, while at the PRP station, the Complainant said he was suicidal. A decision was made to transport him to hospital. The Complainant was placed in a cruiser in the sally port and started banging his head off the partition. He was removed from the cruiser with a struggle, transported to Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH) by ambulance, and diagnosed with a fractured ankle.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 07/30/2023 at 7:30 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 07/30/2023 at 9:30 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
42-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on July 30, 2023.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewedThe subject official was interviewed on September 18, 2023.
.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed between August 4 and 21, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in the sally port of the PRP 21 Division, 10 Peel Centre Drive, Brampton.Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
PRP Sally Port Video
On July 29, 2023, starting from about 9:15 p.m., the SO was captured escorting the Complainant into the sally port. WO #2 was standing between cruisers. The Complainant was walked to the rear passenger door of a marked PRP cruiser, and WO #4 walked behind them. The Complainant was assisted into the rear passenger seat and the door was closed by the SO. About 45 seconds later, the SO and WO #4 looked inside as the PRP cruiser moved from side to side. The door was opened, and the Complainant was pulled out of the cruiser. WO #3 came to assist. The Complainant was put face down on the ground. WO #3 was shown holding the Complainant down in the centre of his back; WO #4 assisted. At times, just WO #3 had to hold the Complainant down, but at other times the Complainant thrashed around, which required other PRP officers to assist. The Complainant was making contact with the paved floor of the sally port, and WO #2 put a blanket of some kind under the Complainant’s head. WO #2 took over at the Complainant’s head and knelt over him. WO #3 remained on the left side, trying to control his hands. The SO went to the legs and feet, and held them down with both hands. There was movement from the Complainant, and the SO held the Complainant’s legs, which were up in the air. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and the Fire Department arrived at the station and took over. The Complainant was lifted from the ground by three PRP officers and placed onto a stretcher, with his hands handcuffed behind his back. The handcuffs were removed, and his right hand was out and visible. The Complainant was strapped to the stretcher.
PRP Communications Recordings and Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Information
On July 29, 2023, at 7:38 p.m., the Complainant was arrested for outstanding warrants by a PRP Strategic Tactical Enforcement Policing Unit member. The SO and WO #4 transported him to PRP 21 Division. At 9:19 p.m., the SO advised dispatch he needed EMS to attend, as the Complainant was banging his head against the glass in the PRP cruiser.
EMS was dispatched at 9:21 p.m.
At 9:28 p.m., dispatch asked EMS for an update, saying that the Complainant needed sedation as he was banging his head against the pavement.
At 9:29 p.m., it was learned that EMS had dispatched the call as ‘priority orange’ with a one hour arrival time. EMS was updated again about sedation being required and they updated dispatch to ‘priority red’.
EMS arrived at 9:34 p.m., and broadcast that the Complainant was being sedated.
At 9:40 p.m., the Complainant was transported to BCH.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following records from the PRP between August 1, 2023, and September 1, 2023:- List of involved officers;
- Communications recordings;
- Video from sally port;
- Notes – the SO;
- Notes – WO #1;
- Notes – WO #4;
- Notes – WO #3;
- Notes – WO #2;
- Occurrence Details Report; and
- Information derived from CAD.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following record from other sources:- The Complainant’s medical records from the BCH, received August 10, 2023.
Incident Narrative
In the evening of July 29, 2023, the SO, in the company of his coach officer, WO #4, were dispatched to a residence in Brampton. They were there to take custody of a detainee – the Complainant – who had been arrested by a member of STEP – PRP’s Strategic Tactical Enforcement Policing. The officers placed the Complainant into their cruiser and transported him to 21 Division.
The Complainant protested that the police had the wrong person – he claimed he was not the person named in the warrants; rather, that was his brother. The Complainant was right. However, as the officers would come to learn, he too was subject to an arrest warrant at the time.
The Complainant grew increasingly frustrated with his arrest. At the station, while being processed, he responded in the affirmative when asked if he was suicidal. The booking sergeant decided that the Complainant should be assessed at hospital.
WO #4 and the SO escorted the Complainant back to their cruiser in the police station garage and placed him in the rear seat for transport to the hospital. Within seconds of doing so, they noticed the cruiser rocking. The Complainant was thrashing about in the vehicle, striking his head against an interior plastic partition and rear window. The officers removed the Complainant from the cruiser and held him down when he continued to jerk his body and flail his legs. The SO took hold of the Complainant’s lower legs and feet, as others attempted to maintain control of his torso and head.
Paramedics attended at the station and took the Complainant to hospital.
The Complainant remained agitated at hospital and had to be restrained on a bed. He was eventually diagnosed with a fractured left ankle.
The Complainant protested that the police had the wrong person – he claimed he was not the person named in the warrants; rather, that was his brother. The Complainant was right. However, as the officers would come to learn, he too was subject to an arrest warrant at the time.
The Complainant grew increasingly frustrated with his arrest. At the station, while being processed, he responded in the affirmative when asked if he was suicidal. The booking sergeant decided that the Complainant should be assessed at hospital.
WO #4 and the SO escorted the Complainant back to their cruiser in the police station garage and placed him in the rear seat for transport to the hospital. Within seconds of doing so, they noticed the cruiser rocking. The Complainant was thrashing about in the vehicle, striking his head against an interior plastic partition and rear window. The officers removed the Complainant from the cruiser and held him down when he continued to jerk his body and flail his legs. The SO took hold of the Complainant’s lower legs and feet, as others attempted to maintain control of his torso and head.
Paramedics attended at the station and took the Complainant to hospital.
The Complainant remained agitated at hospital and had to be restrained on a bed. He was eventually diagnosed with a fractured left ankle.
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 on July 29, 2023, in Brampton while in the custody of the PRP. 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.
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario.
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.
There is some question raised in the evidence concerning the lawfulness of the Complainant’s arrest. It seems the arresting officer was of the understanding that he was arresting the Complainant’s brother, not the Complainant. That said, WO #4 and the SO were not the arresting officers; they had simply been called to take custody of the Complainant to transport him to the station. Moreover, it seems there was also a warrant for the Complainant’s arrest at the time. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that WO #4 and the SO were not lawfully placed throughout the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s injury.
With respect to the force used by the SO, I am satisfied that it was legally justified. As one of the Complainant’s custodians, the officer was within his rights in controlling the Complainant’s movements to ensure he was safely processed according to law. In that vein, the SO was right in helping WO #4 remove the Complainant from the cruiser when it appeared the Complainant might hurt himself by striking his head off the vehicle’s interior. He also acted sensibly in helping control the Complainant on the ground by taking hold of his legs to stop them flailing. There is a suggestion in the evidence that the SO may have caused the Complainant’s injury by twisting his left leg and ankle. The SO denies doing so. And the video that captured this sequence of events is somewhat equivocal; while it does not explicitly capture any such twisting, it does not unequivocally rule it out. In the circumstances, it would be unwise and unsafe to rest charges on the strength of the incriminating evidence as it does not appear any more likely to be closer to the truth than the account proffered by the SO.
It remains unclear when and how precisely the Complainant incurred his injury. It may have been in the police station garage as he struggled on the ground, or perhaps at the hospital where security found it necessary to restrain him on a bed because of his state of agitation. Be that as it may, as I am satisfied there is insufficient evidence to believe the SO comported himself other than lawfully in his engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.
Date: November 27, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario.
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.
There is some question raised in the evidence concerning the lawfulness of the Complainant’s arrest. It seems the arresting officer was of the understanding that he was arresting the Complainant’s brother, not the Complainant. That said, WO #4 and the SO were not the arresting officers; they had simply been called to take custody of the Complainant to transport him to the station. Moreover, it seems there was also a warrant for the Complainant’s arrest at the time. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that WO #4 and the SO were not lawfully placed throughout the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s injury.
With respect to the force used by the SO, I am satisfied that it was legally justified. As one of the Complainant’s custodians, the officer was within his rights in controlling the Complainant’s movements to ensure he was safely processed according to law. In that vein, the SO was right in helping WO #4 remove the Complainant from the cruiser when it appeared the Complainant might hurt himself by striking his head off the vehicle’s interior. He also acted sensibly in helping control the Complainant on the ground by taking hold of his legs to stop them flailing. There is a suggestion in the evidence that the SO may have caused the Complainant’s injury by twisting his left leg and ankle. The SO denies doing so. And the video that captured this sequence of events is somewhat equivocal; while it does not explicitly capture any such twisting, it does not unequivocally rule it out. In the circumstances, it would be unwise and unsafe to rest charges on the strength of the incriminating evidence as it does not appear any more likely to be closer to the truth than the account proffered by the SO.
It remains unclear when and how precisely the Complainant incurred his injury. It may have been in the police station garage as he struggled on the ground, or perhaps at the hospital where security found it necessary to restrain him on a bed because of his state of agitation. Be that as it may, as I am satisfied there is insufficient evidence to believe the SO comported himself other than lawfully in his engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.
Date: November 27, 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.