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 41-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On August 25, 2023, at 12:11 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

In the evening of August 24, 2023, PRP officers conducted a traffic stop involving two men. The driver was identified as the Civilian Witness (CW). The passenger, the Complainant, ingested what was believed to be a drug and baggie during the traffic stop. The Complainant had been transported to hospital where he was admitted.

The Scene

The events in question transpired by a police cruiser that was stopped on Salisbury Circle, Brampton, a residential street.

The scene was not held for the purposes of this investigation.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [4]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – The SO

On August 24, 2023, at time-stamp 9:25:31 p.m., the video began with the SO driving a cruiser.

Starting at about 9:25:40 p.m., the WO and the SO activated the emergency lights of their cruiser and executed a traffic stop on a Ford Escape on Salisbury Circle, Brampton. A man [the Complainant] was located on a nearby driveway and walked towards the SUV.

Starting at about 9:26:01 p.m., the SO asked the Complainant what he had thrown on the ground. He used his flashlight to search the driveway and picked up an item before he called the Complainant over to him and announced that he was under arrest. The Complainant was compliant and met the SO on the passenger side of his cruiser. During that time, the WO interacted with the driver of the Ford [the CW], who remained in the vehicle.

Starting at about 9:26:40 p.m., the SO positioned the Complainant against the passenger side quarter panel of his cruiser, and he placed the Complainant’s mobile phone and the item retrieved from the driveway onto the trunk. Both items were unsecured and within reach of the Complainant. The SO told him to put his hands behind his back three times. While the SO controlled the Complainant’s right arm behind his back, the Complainant snatched an item off the trunk with his left hand. His back was to the camera lens. The SO struggled with the Complainant and yelled repeatedly, “Spit it out.” The Complainant was then face down on the roadway as the SO continued to struggle with him. He used his left hand to control the back of the Complainant’s neck, and his right hand to pry open his mouth. The WO came to assist and the SO told him the Complainant had swallowed a bag of suspected methamphetamine. They handcuffed the Complainant’s hands behind his back as he laid on his stomach.

Starting at about 9:27:30 p.m., the SO called for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) as the Complainant had swallowed a full bag of suspected methamphetamine. He walked back to the Ford and directed the CW to exit, while the WO stayed with the Complainant. He walked the CW back to the front of the cruiser and placed him under arrest. He then walked the CW to the front passenger side of the Ford where he was sat on the curb as the SO searched the vehicle.

Starting at about 9:30:31 p.m., the SO walked back to the Complainant who was still standing at the rear of his cruiser with his hands cuffed behind his back.

Starting at about 9:31:07 p.m., the Complainant was placed under arrest for ‘obstruct’ by the SO. Other officers arrived and the SO briefed them on the situation.

Starting at about 9:32:06 p.m., the SO advised dispatch that the Complainant had ingested what was believed to be a gram of methamphetamine. He advised naloxone was not administered and the Complainant was not overdosing.

Starting at about 9:34:55 p.m., the Complainant entered the rear passenger door of the cruiser, and sat upright. While waiting for EMS, officers repeatedly asked him what he swallowed, and advised they needed to know for his personal safety. He continued to deny ingesting any drugs.

Starting at about 9:52:30 p.m., EMS arrived. The Complainant told paramedics that he had swallowed tobacco. EMS advised it would be best to transport him to a hospital and asked for an officer to accompany him. The Complainant agreed to go to Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH) via EMS and walked to the ambulance without assistance. The SO moved his handcuffs to the front as requested by EMS and the Complainant was assessed. He told paramedics that PRP officers were “good to release him on paperwork” but said they would do whatever EMS suggested. The SO and paramedics were concerned about a potential overdose, even though the Complainant insisted it was tobacco he smoked. The SO told the Complainant he was not being charged for the drugs and told him not to lie to paramedics who were there to help him. The Complainant told paramedics he was on methadone. EMS explained that because of the amount he possibly ingested, he needed to be monitored for at least four to six hours because if the plastic broke down in his stomach, his body would absorb all the drugs at once, which could be fatal. The SO advised he would talk to the sergeant.

Starting at about 9:59:32 p.m., the SO de-activated his audio and walked back to the acting sergeant and the other officers.

Starting at about 10:02:53 p.m., the SO boarded the ambulance and closed the rear door. The Complainant was alert and appeared to be speaking while en route to BCH. The BWC audio was not activated.

Starting at about 10:17:52 p.m., the ambulance arrived at BCH and the SO exited.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PRP between August 25 and 30, 2023:

• Occurrence Report;
• Incident Details Report;
• Incident History;
• Person Details Report;
• Involved Officers;
• Notes – the SO;
• Notes – the WO;
• BWC footage – the SO; and
• BWC footage – the WO.

The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.

In the evening of August 24, 2023, the SO was on patrol in Brampton operating a cruiser. The WO was in the passenger seat. The officers were travelling on Salisbury Circle when their attention was drawn to a Ford Escape coming towards them. The vehicle had momentarily crossed into the officers’ path of travel before it corrected course and moved past the cruiser. The officers decided to conduct a traffic stop.

The SO turned around to follow the Ford, activated his cruiser’s emergency lights, and watched as the front seat passenger – the Complainant – exited the vehicle as it slowed to a stop. The Complainant ran up a driveway and made a motion as if he was throwing an item under a vehicle parked on the driveway. The officer brought the cruiser to a stop, exited, and went to see what had been thrown. The SO located a small clear baggie containing white crystals, which he suspected was a gram of methamphetamine.

The Complainant was placed under arrest and positioned by the passenger side rear-quarter panel of the cruiser. As the SO attempted to handcuff the Complainant behind the back, the Complainant reached out with his left hand to grab the baggie from the trunk. It had been placed there by the officer. The Complainant proceeded to insert the baggie in his mouth. The SO grounded the Complainant and unsuccessfully attempted to pry his mouth open to retrieve the baggie. The Complainant managed to swallow the baggie.

EMS was contacted and paramedics arrived at the scene. The Complainant was taken to hospital where he was placed under observation in the event the baggie broke in his system. He subsequently left the hospital after having been cleared by medical staff.

Section 215, Criminal Code - Failure to Provide Necessaries

(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person

(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and

(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.

(b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code -- Criminal negligence causing bodily harm

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of    

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or    

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was admitted to hospital for a possible drug overdose on August 24, 2023. As the drug consumption occurred while the Complainant was in the custody of PRP officers, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. 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 hospital admission.

The offences that arise for consideration are failure to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to sections 215 and 221 of the Criminal Code, respectively. Both require something more than a simple want of care to give rise to liability. The former is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. The latter is premised on even more egregious conduct that demonstrates a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is not made out unless the neglect constitutes a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable standard of care. In the instant case, the question is whether there was any want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that endangered the Complainant’s life or contributed to his hospital admission. In my view, there was not.

The SO was lawfully placed and engaged in the execution of his duty when he decided to arrest the Complainant. He had observed the Complainant throwing something underneath a vehicle shortly after being stopped by police, and discovered a baggie of suspected methamphetamine under the vehicle in question. In the circumstances, the Complainant was subject to arrest for illicit drug possession.

I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for the Complainant’s health and well-being while in custody. I accept that the officer erred in placing the baggie of suspected methamphetamine within arm’s reach of the Complainant on the trunk of the cruiser. It would not have been unforeseeable that a person concerned about concealing their drugs might ingest them to destroy the evidence. That said, the Complainant had proven largely cooperative with the SO to that point, leaving the officer little reason to believe he would act out in the way he did. Moreover, the SO quickly appreciated what the Complainant had done and acted expeditiously to render care. He encouraged the Complainant to spit out the baggie, attempted to forcibly remove it from his mouth, and promptly called for paramedics. On this record, I am satisfied that the SO’s indiscretion did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: December 22, 2023


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit