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 injuries of a 44-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On August 28, 2023, at 3:22 p.m., the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the HRPS, on August 28, 2023, the Peel Regional Police (PRP) requested the assistance of HRPS Tactical Unit (TU) police officers in the execution of a ‘no-knock’ warrant at an apartment near Queensway and Hurontario Street, Mississauga. At approximately 4:16 a.m., August 28, 2023, HRPS TU officers attended the location where entry was made and two male occupants arrested. The arrested parties were subsequently transported to PRP 12 Division, where they were lodged at 5:19 a.m. without incident. At approximately 7:00 a.m., the Complainant, one of the arrested males, complained of facial and back pain. He was transported to Trillium Health Partners - Mississauga Hospital (THP-MH) and diagnosed with a left fractured orbital and zygomatic bones. At approximately 3:09 p.m., the PRP reported the injuries to the HRPS. The Complainant was subsequently remanded in custody and was scheduled to be transported to Maplehurst Correctional Facility.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in a bedroom of an apartment near Queensway and Hurontario Street, Mississauga.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

PRP BWC Footage – Officer #1

On August 28, 2023, starting at about 4:22 a.m., Officer #1 ascended an interior building staircase and entered an apartment [now known to be the Complainant’s apartment]. Other HRPS TU and PRP officers were present. He patted down and searched the pockets of a man, who was handcuffed and brought inside from the balcony. Officer #1 moved to a bedroom and patted down and searched the pockets of an upright man [now known to be the Complainant], who was handcuffed. The Complainant did not have any visible facial injuries to the left side of his face or head, and he showed no indications of physical distress. He was escorted to a marked PRP vehicle and transported to PRP 12 Division without incident.

Starting at about 5:16 a.m., the Complainant arrived in the sally port, where he was escorted inside. Officer #1 supervised the Complainant at PRP 12 Division before and during the booking process.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and officers involved in his arrest, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the morning of August 28, 2023, HRPS TU officers convened in front of the door to an apartment near Queensway and Hurontario Street. They had been called by the PRP to assist with the execution of a search warrant for the premises as their tactical team was unavailable at the time. The PRP had identified the occupants of the apartment as having been involved in a recent incident involving a firearm.

At about 4:15 a.m., the door to the apartment was forced open and officers stormed inside following the deployment of a distractionary device. The SO made his way down a hallway and into a bedroom. WO #2 was behind him. The Complainant was lying on the bed in the bedroom face down. WO #2 picked him up by the belt and threw him to the floor. The officers positioned themselves on either side of the Complainant and, with the assistance of WO #1, handcuffed him behind the back.

The Complainant was transferred to uniformed PRP officers who transported him to the police station.

The Complainant complained of pain while in police cells and was taken to hospital. He was diagnosed with fractures of the left orbital and zygomatic bones.

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 HRPS officers on August 28, 2023. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming the SO 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.

The SO was lawfully placed inside the apartment and within his rights in seeking to arrest the Complainant. He and the other HRPS TU officers were acting on the authority of a search warrant, which identified the apartment’s occupants as being wanted in relation to a kidnapping.

I am also satisfied that the TU’s choice of entry, namely, a no-knock dynamic entry, was not unreasonable. The occupants of the apartment were being sought in connection with a violent offence involving a firearm and there was reason to believe they would still be armed. Anything less than a dynamic entry would have raised the risk of weapons inside the apartment being brought to bear.

Once inside the apartment and the bedroom, the evidence falls short of reasonably suggesting the SO used excessive force in arresting the Complainant. There is an account in the evidence of an officer grabbing the Complainant by the hair and banging the left side of his face off the floor multiple times, and the Complainant being kicked to the back of the head by one of the arresting officers. That evidence, however, is contested by WO #2, who was present at the time and denied that he or the SO struck the Complainant. According to WO #2, once on the floor, and with the assistance of WO #1, the officers wrestled control of the Complainant’s arms and handcuffed him without much difficulty. As for the grounding, that would appear to have been a reasonable tactic given the concern about firearms and the corresponding need to quickly foreclose any opportunity for their use. On this record, the evidence is insufficiently cogent to warrant being put to the test by a court as I am unable to reasonably conclude that the version of events depicting excessive strikes by the arresting officers is any likelier to be closer to the truth that the account proffered by WO #2. [3]

For the foregoing reasons, while I accept that the Complainant’s injuries were incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, I am not reasonably persuaded that they were the result of any unlawful conduct by the arresting officers. As such, 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