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 serious injuries reportedly suffered by a 24-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On August 17, 2023, at 2:35 a.m., the Barrie Police Service (BPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On August 16, 2023, at 6:47 p.m., a BPS officer, the subject official (SO), observed a vehicle, a Mazda, speeding. The driver of the vehicle, the Complainant, was also using a cell phone. The SO pulled up beside the vehicle at a red traffic light and directed the Complainant to pull over. The traffic signal turned green, and the Complainant continued to drive away. The Complainant pulled into a residential complex near Mapleview Drive East and Yonge Street, and into the driveway of a residence. The SO followed the Complainant and, at some point, activated his emergency equipment. The Complainant exited his vehicle, and the SO proceeded to arrest him for ‘flight from police’. An altercation ensued. The Complainant tried to get back in the vehicle and attempted to reach into the glove box. The SO deployed his conducted energy weapon (CEW) in probe mode. The CEW was ineffective. The SO used empty-hand techniques to pull the Complainant out of the car and to the ground. The Complainant was taken to the Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre by ambulance to have the CEW probes removed. The physician advised that the Complainant had a concussion, and his toe was broken. The Complainant was brought back to the police station and released on an undertaking.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 17/08/2023 at 11:00 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 17/08/2023 at 11:40 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the area of the underground garage ramp at a residential complex near Mapleview Drive East and Yonge Street in Barrie.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – SO

The following deployment data were downloaded from the SO’s CEW for August 16, 2023.

Seq #	Time		Event	Cartridge Info	Duration
2995		2:42:36[1][2] p.m.	Armed	C1: Empty C2: Empty
2996		242:37 p.m.	Trigger	C1: Empty	5 seconds
2997		2:42:43 p.m.	Arc	C1: Empty C2: Empty	1 second
2998		2:42:44 p.m.	Arc	C1: Empty C2: Empty	1 second
2999		2:42:44 p.m.	Safe	C1: Empty C2: Empty	8 seconds
3000		6:55:36 p.m.	Armed	C1: 25’ Standard C2: 25’ Standard
3001		6:55:41 p.m.	Trigger	C1: Deployed	5 seconds
3002		6:55:47 p.m.	Trigger	C2: Deployed	5 seconds
3003		6:55:52 p.m.	Trigger	C2: Deployed	5 seconds
3004		6:55:57 p.m.	Safe	C1: Deployed C2: Deployed	21

Audio/Video/Photographic Evidence [3]

Police Communications Recordings

On August 16, 2023, at about 6:46 p.m., the SO contacted the radio room and reported a vehicle was pulling away from him and about to enter the underground near Mapleview. He subsequently indicated that a man had been ‘Tasered’ and was in custody.

Starting at about 6:50 p.m., the SO confirmed all was in order. He provided the plate number of the involved vehicle, and the dispatcher provided information about the registered owner of the vehicle. An ambulance was dispatched.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of August 16, 2023, the SO was performing traffic enforcement when he clocked a vehicle travelling at 87 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. The SO pulled up alongside the vehicle as it was stopped on Mapleview Drive East at Yonge Street and gestured to the driver to pull over. The driver looked at the SO but did not acknowledge that he was to pull over. Rather, he looked down at his cell phone in his right hand.

The driver was the Complainant. As the light turned green, the Complainant continued eastward on Mapleview Drive East for several hundred metres until making a turn to enter onto the grounds of a housing complex. The Complainant had reached the underground parking ramp and was stopped waiting for the overhead door to open completely when he opened the driver’s door to acknowledge the SO behind him.

With his emergency lights on and siren sounding intermittently, the SO had followed behind the Complainant on Mapleview Drive East until the housing complex, where he too turned in tow with the Mazda. The officer stopped his vehicle behind the Mazda, exited, and approached the Complainant. He told the Complainant that he had been trying to stop him, and the Complainant replied that he needed to park. The SO told him to get out of the vehicle and pulled on his left arm. The Complainant exited the vehicle and took objection to the officer grabbing his arm. The SO lost his hold of the Complainant’s arm, and the Complainant turned away from the officer and reached towards the centre console of the Mazda. The officer, his CEW drawn and pointed, told the Complainant to place his hands on the car and then fired his weapon when the Complainant failed to do so. The Complainant was unaffected. The SO grabbed the Complainant by the back of his shirt and pulled him back. The Complainant turned to face the officer, and the SO fired the CEW a second and third time. Again, the Complainant was unaffected. Ordered to get on the ground, the Complainant remained standing. He was grabbed by the officer and pinned up against the front hood of the police vehicle before he was forced to the ground and handcuffed without further incident.

The Complainant was transported from the scene to hospital and reportedly diagnosed with a concussion and broken toe.

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 arrested by a BPS officer on August 16, 2023, purportedly suffering serious injuries in the process. In the ensuing SIU investigation of the incident, the arresting officer was identified as the SO. 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.

The SO was within his rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody. The officer had made clear his intentions to pull the Complainant over for a speeding infraction, and the Complainant failed to do so despite there being ample opportunity to bring his vehicle to a stop on Mapleview Drive East. On this record, the Complainant was subject to arrest for failing to stop for a police officer contrary to section 320.17 of the Criminal Code.

With respect to the force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, I am satisfied that it was legally justified. The Complainant had given the SO reason to be concerned for his personal safety. He had seemingly ignored the officer’s direction to pull over, was slow to exit the Mazda, and had failed to put his hands on the car when ordered, instead reaching into the vehicle. This constellation of factors lends credence to the officer’s claim that he feared the Complainant was reaching for a weapon. That being the case, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO’s initial CEW discharge was unwarranted. If it worked as intended, the CEW would temporarily incapacitate the Complainant, prevent any weapons from being brought into play, and afford the officer an opportunity to safely take him into custody. In the heat of the events as they quickly unfolded thereafter, with the Complainant refusing to lower himself to the ground, I am satisfied that the officer’s subsequent use of force was reasonable for substantially the same reasons. If the first CEW discharge was reasonable, then so too was the second and third. When that also failed to incapacitate the Complainant, it would seem that a resort to physical force – a punch to the head and a grounding – was commensurate with the exigencies of the moment.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s reported injuries were likely incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that they are the result of any unlawful conduct by the SO. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.



Date: December 15, 2023

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit