SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OCI-359
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 31-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 31-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On September 2, 2023, at 7:47 a.m., the Brantford Police Service (BPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.According to the BPS, on September 2, 2023, at approximately 4:10 a.m., an anonymous call was received by the BPS indicating that a vehicle was stopped at the intersection of Market Street and Grey Street, Brantford. An unresponsive man – the Complainant – was sitting in the driver’s seat. Police officers responded to the area and physically blocked the vehicle with their police vehicles. A tire deflation device was placed behind the rear wheels of the Complainant’s vehicle in an attempt to prevent escape. As the police officers attempted to rouse the Complainant, he refused to exit the vehicle. He reversed over the tire deflation device and into the front bumper of a police vehicle. The Complainant managed to clear enough room to flee the area. Shortly thereafter, police officers learned that the Complainant, in his vehicle, had collided with a parked vehicle on West Street. Police officers responded to that area, and the Complainant fled on foot through yards in the area. At 4:25 a.m., the Complainant was located by police officers sitting on the front porch of a residence on West Street. He crossed his arms over his chest and ignored the police officers’ requests. The police officers took control of the Complainant and grounded him to effect the arrest. The Complainant was arrested for impaired driving and dangerous driving. Arrangements were made to transport the Complainant to the Waterloo Regional Police Service (WRPS) as no BPS Intoxilyzer Technician was available at the time. While travelling on Highway 24 north of Powerline Road in Brantford, the Complainant became unresponsive. Police officers conducted cardiopulmonary resuscitation and requested emergency medical services. The Complainant regained consciousness, so the police officers drove the Complainant back to Brantford where he was taken to the Brantford General Hospital (BGH). The Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured right wrist. At the time of intake, the Complainant remained at hospital undergoing treatment for the wrist fracture. It was anticipated that the Complainant would be held for a bail hearing.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2023/09/02 at 8:42 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/09/02 at 1:00 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
31-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on September 2, 2023.
Subject Officials (SO)
SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal rightWitness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Notes reviewed; interview deemed not necessary
The witness officials were interviewed on September 5, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired on and around the sidewalk out front of a residence on West Street, Brantford.Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
Video Footage - West Street, Brantford
The recordings, which were neither date nor time-stamped, were captured by two cameras. The first camera was located above the front doorway of a residence on West Street, which was on the west side of the street, and faced directly east to the street – Camera 1. The second camera was located at the southeast corner of the residence and faced in a southeast direction towards the street – Camera 2.
Camera 1
At 3 seconds into the video, the Complainant’s Jeep entered the screen from the left side travelling south.
At 7 seconds into the video, the sound of a bang was heard.
At 12 seconds into the video, a short blast of a car horn was heard.
The video finished at 32 seconds. No police vehicles were seen.
Camera 2 – Video File 1
At 1 second into the video, the Complainant’s Jeep entered the screen from left to right, travelling south at a high rate of speed. The tires screeched as it made a hard right turn to exit the road.
At 5 seconds into the video, the sound of a bang was heard.
At 11 seconds into the video, the sound of a horn was heard. A pick-up truck travelled slowly northbound on West Street, on the east side of the street.
Camera 2 – Video File 2
At 1 second into the video, a police vehicle with no emergency lights activated entered the screen from left or north. The police vehicle made a right hand turn into the south side of an apartment building to the right.
At 11 seconds into the video, a second police vehicle followed the direction of the first police vehicle with no emergency lights activated.
At 41 seconds into the video, a police vehicle drove east out of the driveway on the right side of the house and turned right onto the street.
At 52 seconds into the video, a police officer walked north on the west sidewalk from the apartment building on the right and off the screen.
Police Communications Recordings
On February 9, 2023, starting at about 4:12 a.m., the dispatcher advised officers that an unknown person had reported a vehicle stopped at a traffic signal at Grey Street and West Street, Brantford. The driver was passed-out at the steering wheel. The lights had gone through several rotations without the vehicle moving. WO #1 acknowledged the call and stated he would head to the area. The dispatcher also assigned WO #2 on the call. Starting at about 4:18 a.m., WO #1 advised the dispatcher that the suspect vehicle had rammed a BPS unit. A tire deflation device had been used and two tires of the Jeep were deflated. The Jeep had fled onto West Street. The duty officer asked if anyone was pursuing the suspect vehicle. The response came back in the negative.
Starting at about 4:20 a.m., an unknown officer stated he had the vehicle stopped at Fleet Street.
Starting at about 4:21 a.m., an officer provided a description of the Complainant. The Complainant was now on foot.
Starting at about 4:23 a.m., the SO stated the Complainant was resisting. A police officer advised their location was West Street.
Starting at about 4:25 a.m., officers advised they had one person in custody. The officer asked to speak with the duty officer.
Starting at about 4:30 a.m., an officer requested the availability of an Intoxilyzer Technician.
Starting at about 4:40 a.m., the Complainant was identified with a date of birth. WO #2 advised the dispatcher the Complainant had an outstanding warrant in Alberta. Dispatch confirmed his date of birth. The Complainant was also a prohibited driver.
Starting at about 4:45 a.m., dispatch advised an Intoxilyzer Technician was unavailable.
Starting at about 5:00 a.m., a technician was located with the WRPS. Dispatch requested that the Complainant be taken to 134 Frederick Street. Kitchener.
Starting at about 5:20 a.m., WO #2 advised he was at Governors Road and the Complainant was not responding. He asked dispatch to contact BGH and alert them. WO #2 requested an ambulance to his location, and indicated he was starting chest compressions. The duty officer requested additional units to that location to assist.
At 5:22 a.m., WO #2 advised the Complainant was conscious and breathing. Narcan was not administered, and he was continuing to BGH.
At 5:27 a.m., WO #2 arrived at BGH.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
The following records were obtained from the BPS between September 5, 2023, and October 24, 2023:- BPS communications recordings;
- BPS custody video;
- Procedure - Suspect Apprehension Policy;
- Procedure - Use of Force;
- Video footage – West Street;
- Background – the Complainant;
- Information from computer-assisted dispatch;
- Charges – the Complainant;
- General Occurrence Report;
- Global Positioning System data;
- List of Civilian Witnesses;
- List of Involved Officers;
- Medical Assessment Report;
- Motor Vehicle Collision Reports;
- Notes – WO #2;
- Notes – WO #1;
- Notes – WO #3;
- Notes – WO #4; and
- Supplementary Report – WO #2.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The Complainant’s medical records were received from the BGH on September 25, 2023.Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with the Complainant, 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 September 2, 2023, officers were dispatched to check on a motorist stopped facing westbound on Grey Street and its intersection with Market Street. A citizen had called to report that the vehicle had remained stationary through several cycles of the traffic lights and the motorist appeared passed-out.
Three BPS cruiser arrived on scene and surrounded the vehicle - a Jeep - to prevent its egress. WO #2, WO #1 and the SO positioned their cruisers behind, in front, and by the driver’s side of the Jeep. The sole occupant of the Jeep – the Complainant – was slumped over the steering wheel. A tire deflation device was placed behind the rear wheels of the Jeep.
The Complainant awoke and realized what was happening. He placed his vehicle in reverse and drove into the front of WO #2’s cruiser, traversing the tire deflation devise. Having cleared enough space, the Complainant drove forward and around WO #1’s cruiser, accelerating westward on Grey Street towards West Street, where he turned left to continue south.
The officers returned to their vehicles and followed the Jeep, locating it in the parking lot of an apartment building on West Street, about 300 metres from the initial police blockade. It had collided with another vehicle parked in the parking lot. The Complainant had left the vehicle but was located emerging from between two homes north of the parking lot. WO #1 told him to stop. The Complainant ignored that direction and continued north a short distance to a house on West Street.
WO #1, now joined by the SO, confronted the Complainant on the front porch of the house. The officers advised the Complainant he was under arrest and went to take hold of him. When the Complainant refused to release his arms to be handcuffed, the officers pulled him off the porch and grounded him on the surface in front of the house. Following a further period of struggle on the ground, the Complainant was handcuffed behind the back.
The Complainant was taken to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with a fractured right wrist.
In the morning of September 2, 2023, officers were dispatched to check on a motorist stopped facing westbound on Grey Street and its intersection with Market Street. A citizen had called to report that the vehicle had remained stationary through several cycles of the traffic lights and the motorist appeared passed-out.
Three BPS cruiser arrived on scene and surrounded the vehicle - a Jeep - to prevent its egress. WO #2, WO #1 and the SO positioned their cruisers behind, in front, and by the driver’s side of the Jeep. The sole occupant of the Jeep – the Complainant – was slumped over the steering wheel. A tire deflation device was placed behind the rear wheels of the Jeep.
The Complainant awoke and realized what was happening. He placed his vehicle in reverse and drove into the front of WO #2’s cruiser, traversing the tire deflation devise. Having cleared enough space, the Complainant drove forward and around WO #1’s cruiser, accelerating westward on Grey Street towards West Street, where he turned left to continue south.
The officers returned to their vehicles and followed the Jeep, locating it in the parking lot of an apartment building on West Street, about 300 metres from the initial police blockade. It had collided with another vehicle parked in the parking lot. The Complainant had left the vehicle but was located emerging from between two homes north of the parking lot. WO #1 told him to stop. The Complainant ignored that direction and continued north a short distance to a house on West Street.
WO #1, now joined by the SO, confronted the Complainant on the front porch of the house. The officers advised the Complainant he was under arrest and went to take hold of him. When the Complainant refused to release his arms to be handcuffed, the officers pulled him off the porch and grounded him on the surface in front of the house. Following a further period of struggle on the ground, the Complainant was handcuffed behind the back.
The Complainant was taken to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with a fractured right 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
The Complainant was diagnosed with a serious injury while in the custody of the BPS on September 2, 2023. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, identifying 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 injury.
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.
WO #1 and the SO were within their rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody. The Complainant had struck a police and civilian vehicle while fleeing from a police stop and was subject to arrest for ‘dangerous driving’.
As for the force used in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, I am not reasonably persuaded that it was excessive. According to WO #1, one of the arresting officers, he and the SO pulled the Complainant to the ground in a controlled fashion when he refused to surrender his arms to be handcuffed. This would seem a reasonable tactic as the officers could expect to better and more safely manage any continuing resistance from the Complainant with him on the ground given his positional disadvantage. WO #1 says that he did not strike the Complainant on the ground, nor did he see the SO deliver any strikes. Rather, they attempted to wrestle control of the Complainant’s arms behind his back. This too would appear a reasonable use of force in the circumstances.
There is a body of evidence in which it is alleged that the Complainant was repeatedly struck in the head and injured when an officer stomped on his right hand, but it would be unwise and unsafe to rest charges on this evidence. This more incriminating description of the events culminating in the Complainant’s arrest was clearly wrong. Missing from the story, for example, was that the Complainant had fled from a police stop moments before his arrest. And the Complainant’s injury, which might have corroborated this account in different circumstances, was ambiguous in the instance case. Specifically, there is evidence that suggests the injury was incurred before the Complainant’s run-in with WO #1 and the SO, namely, the motor vehicle collisions the Complainant was in and an utterance he is said to have made to the officers before he was grounded to the effect that his arm was broken. On this record, I am satisfied that the more incriminating evidence is insufficiently cogent to warrant being put to the test by a court.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the SO in this case. The file is closed.
Date: December 29, 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.
WO #1 and the SO were within their rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody. The Complainant had struck a police and civilian vehicle while fleeing from a police stop and was subject to arrest for ‘dangerous driving’.
As for the force used in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, I am not reasonably persuaded that it was excessive. According to WO #1, one of the arresting officers, he and the SO pulled the Complainant to the ground in a controlled fashion when he refused to surrender his arms to be handcuffed. This would seem a reasonable tactic as the officers could expect to better and more safely manage any continuing resistance from the Complainant with him on the ground given his positional disadvantage. WO #1 says that he did not strike the Complainant on the ground, nor did he see the SO deliver any strikes. Rather, they attempted to wrestle control of the Complainant’s arms behind his back. This too would appear a reasonable use of force in the circumstances.
There is a body of evidence in which it is alleged that the Complainant was repeatedly struck in the head and injured when an officer stomped on his right hand, but it would be unwise and unsafe to rest charges on this evidence. This more incriminating description of the events culminating in the Complainant’s arrest was clearly wrong. Missing from the story, for example, was that the Complainant had fled from a police stop moments before his arrest. And the Complainant’s injury, which might have corroborated this account in different circumstances, was ambiguous in the instance case. Specifically, there is evidence that suggests the injury was incurred before the Complainant’s run-in with WO #1 and the SO, namely, the motor vehicle collisions the Complainant was in and an utterance he is said to have made to the officers before he was grounded to the effect that his arm was broken. On this record, I am satisfied that the more incriminating evidence is insufficiently cogent to warrant being put to the test by a court.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the SO in this case. The file is closed.
Date: December 29, 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.