SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OCI-369
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 17-year-old female (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 17-year-old female (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On September 9, 2023, at 11:31 a.m., the Thunder Bay Police Service (TBPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant. According to the TBPS, on September 7, 2023, at 5:06 p.m., TBPS officers responded to a residence in Thunder Bay after receiving a call from Civilian Witness (CW) #1 seeking to revoke the Complainant’s surety. The Complainant, intoxicated, was arrested and force was used to get her into a cruiser. TBPS advised that information was received prior to the TBPS officers’ arrival that the Complainant had suffered a broken hand. Paramedics subsequently responded and reported that they could not find any injury. The Complainant was held overnight by the police before being released. On September 9, 2023, 12:30 a.m., the Complainant contacted police and reported that a TBPS officer had fractured her arm. Witness Official (WO) #1 attended the residence, took a statement, and then forwarded the information to an inspector who reported the incident to the SIU.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 09/09/2023 at 11:23 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 09/10/2023 at 10:05 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
17-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on September 14, 2023.
Civilian Witnesses
CW #1 InterviewedCW #2 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed on September 14, 2023.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal rightWitness Officials
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on October 5, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in a basement bedroom and a set of stairs leading from the basement to the main floor of a residence in Thunder Bay. SIU investigators attended the scene on September 14, 2023.
The scene was not examined by SIU forensic investigators as it was not anticipated it would contain relevant evidence.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
TBPS Booking and Cell Block Video Footage
On September 7, 2023, a TBPS SUV was captured pulling into the police garage. The Complainant was brought out of the driver’s side rear passenger door by WO #1 and the SO. She walked into the booking area with her hands handcuffed behind the back.The Complainant sat on a bench and the SO began the booking process. There was a conversation about injuries and the two spoke of new cuts to the right hand. The Complainant did not mention any injury or discomfort at that time. The Complainant showed no indication that she was injured as she had her handcuffs removed, extended her arms out, and was searched. She used both hands to put on blue booties that were supplied.
During the Complainant's time in a cell, she mostly slept. As the evening went on, the Complainant seemed to favour her right arm in movements.
Upon being released, the Complainant used both hands to go through a bag of property that was returned. Both hands were used to take off the booties and put on socks. The Complainant signed her released documentation with her right hand but used the left to carry her property that remained in the bag.
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – WO #1 and the SO
On September 7, 2023, starting at about 5:35 p.m., WO #1 followed the SO up the driveway of a residence. The SO spoke with CW#1 on the driveway, who was in the company of CW #2. CW #1 spoke of revoking the Complainant’s surety. She explained that as she returned home from the police station she was made aware that the Complainant was cutting herself. CW #1 further advised that an intoxicated Complainant had called her earlier and said she was at a park. The Complainant stated she had fallen and broken her hand. Starting at about 5:37 p.m., the SO and WO #1 went to the Complainant’s bedroom in the basement. The Complainant was lying on her bed and texting on her cellular telephone, which she continued to do until arrested. The SO inquired about her cutting herself, and the Complainant displayed scratches to her left arm and explained she was mad earlier. She denied feeling suicidal. The SO inquired about her broken hand, and the Complainant produced both hands and said her hands were fine. The Complainant was told her surety had been revoked and she would be taken to the station, but that paramedics wanted to check her out to make sure she was okay. A paramedic approached and was told by the Complainant not to touch her as she continued with her telephone. The Complainant was told that CW #1 had said she had broken her hand. The Complainant sat up momentarily, showed her hands, and asked, “Fucking where?” The Complainant told the paramedic she was just drunk, that she had consumed a mickey and had a cut on her toe from kicking CW #1’s work shelf. The paramedic said the hand did not appear broken.
Starting at about 5:43 p.m., the Complainant was asked to stand up. The SO said they would be arresting her for ‘breach of a release order’. She questioned why and wanted to talk to CW #1. The Complainant said she could not get another surety and it was not her fault. The SO grabbed the Complainant’s right upper and lower arm and removed the telephone from her hands. As the Complainant was brought to her feet, the SO grabbed her right wrist. With little difficulty and two hands, the SO brought the right arm behind the Complainant’s back. WO #1 had the left arm behind the back with the wrist bent back. The Complainant said she had a broken hand and began screaming. The Complainant bent forward and then went to the floor on her knees. WO #1 stated, “Don’t bite me.” She was laid on her right side as the SO held the right wrist and WO #1 the left arm out to her sides. Both arms were brought behind the Complainant’s back. WO #1 warned the Complainant she would be charged with assault if she tried to bite him again. The handcuffing was completed, and the Complainant was lifted to her feet. The SO held the right arm but followed behind the Complainant as they walked her towards the stairs.
Starting at about 5:46 p.m., the Complainant slammed her upper body and head twice against a closed door. The SO asked what she was doing as WO #1 grabbed the left arm. She resisted being taken to the stairs. The SO squeezed her right upper bicep muscle as the Complainant was briefly bent forward. The Complainant screamed for CW #1 and stated the officers were hurting her. At the steps, the Complainant used her right foot to push backward on the step and raised her left leg above the banister. The Complainant was turned around. WO #1 had his left hand above the left elbow and the SO had a two-handed grip on the upper right muscle. With her back to the steps, the Complainant’s upper body was lifted and she was brought up the steps. The Complainant was taken outside. At the cruiser, the Complainant refused to cooperate. WO #1 went to the rear driver’s side door and pulled her across the back seat. The Complainant was then transported to the TBPS station.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TBPS on September 12, 2023:- Computer-assisted dispatch information;
- General, Supplementary and Arrest Reports;
- Names, contact information and statements from all civilian witnesses;
- BWC footage;
- In-car camera footage;
- Communications recordings;
- Call signs/log-ons of involved police officers;
- Duty notes of witness officials;
- Booking and cell block video footage; and
- Booking/Lodging and Prisoner Check Reports.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following record from other sources on September 26, 2023:- • The Complainant’s medical records from the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and video footage that captured the events in question, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.
In the afternoon of September 7, 2023, the SO, in the company of his partner, WO #1, attended a residence in Thunder Bay. CW #1 had earlier been to the police station to have herself removed as the Complainant’s surety on a bail release and the officers were there to take the Complainant into custody. The officers spoke to CW #1 on the driveway of the home and learned that the Complainant was inebriated and had complained of a broken hand. They entered the home and descended a flight of stairs to the basement.
The Complainant was lying in a bed when WO #1 and the SO entered her basement bedroom. She denied that her hand was broken and refused to allow paramedics, also in attendance, to conduct a full examination. Told she was under arrest for a bail violation, the Complainant refused to stand from the bed. She resisted as the officers lifted her from the bed and handcuffed her hands behind the back.
With the SO holding her right arm, the officers escorted the Complainant outside the bedroom towards the flight of stairs. The Complainant purposefully hit her head off a closed door and used her feet as leverage against the stairs to resist her forward movement. The officers turned her around and brought her up the stairs backwards. Once outside, the Complainant was escorted towards the officers’ cruiser where she was placed in the rear for transportation to the station.
The Complainant was released from custody on September 8, 2023, after which she attended hospital and was diagnosed with a fractured right forearm.
In the afternoon of September 7, 2023, the SO, in the company of his partner, WO #1, attended a residence in Thunder Bay. CW #1 had earlier been to the police station to have herself removed as the Complainant’s surety on a bail release and the officers were there to take the Complainant into custody. The officers spoke to CW #1 on the driveway of the home and learned that the Complainant was inebriated and had complained of a broken hand. They entered the home and descended a flight of stairs to the basement.
The Complainant was lying in a bed when WO #1 and the SO entered her basement bedroom. She denied that her hand was broken and refused to allow paramedics, also in attendance, to conduct a full examination. Told she was under arrest for a bail violation, the Complainant refused to stand from the bed. She resisted as the officers lifted her from the bed and handcuffed her hands behind the back.
With the SO holding her right arm, the officers escorted the Complainant outside the bedroom towards the flight of stairs. The Complainant purposefully hit her head off a closed door and used her feet as leverage against the stairs to resist her forward movement. The officers turned her around and brought her up the stairs backwards. Once outside, the Complainant was escorted towards the officers’ cruiser where she was placed in the rear for transportation to the station.
The Complainant was released from custody on September 8, 2023, after which she attended hospital and was diagnosed with a fractured right forearm.
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 reportedly injured in the course of her arrest by TBPS officers on September 7, 2023. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. One of the arresting officers – 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 arrest and 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.
I am satisfied that the SO and WO #1 were engaged in the lawful execution of their duties when they sought to arrest the Complainant. The officers had spoken to CW #1 and had cause to believe that the Complainant was in breach of bail conditions for being without a surety and intoxicated.
I am also satisfied that the officers used only reasonable force in their dealings with the Complainant. When the Complainant, after repeated requests, refused to stand of her own volition, she left the officers no choice but to physically lift her from the bed. This, as the BWC footage shows, was done in a controlled fashion. Thereafter, the same footage indicates that the officers had to use some force to maneuver the Complainant’s arms behind her back so they could be handcuffed when she refused to surrender them voluntarily. That force consisted of the officers physically forcing her arms behind the back and appears proportionate on the BWC footage to the level of the Complainant’s resistance. No strikes of any kind were delivered. When the Complainant lashed out by striking her head off a door as they approached the staircase, WO #1 and the SO reacted by momentarily bending her upper body forward. The SO appeared to be squeezing the Complainant’s upper right arm at this time. Both actions seemed calibrated to re-assert control over the Complainant and prevent her repeating the behaviour. Lastly, the officers assisted in keeping the Complainant up by her underarms as they ascended the stairs backwards. Here, again, I am unable to reasonably conclude the officers acted with excessive force in light of the Complainant’s refusal to climb the stairs under her own power.
It remains unclear precisely when the Complainant’s injury was incurred. I accept it might have happened at some point when she was forcibly removed from the house. It might also have happened before the officers’ arrival. CW #1, for example, says the Complainant told her that her hand had been broken before WO #1 and the SO showed up at the house. The Complainant also uttered that her hand was broken as the officers attempted to handcuff her. Be that as it may, as I am satisfied the officers comported themselves within the limits of the criminal law throughout their engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges.
Date: January 4, 2024
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.
I am satisfied that the SO and WO #1 were engaged in the lawful execution of their duties when they sought to arrest the Complainant. The officers had spoken to CW #1 and had cause to believe that the Complainant was in breach of bail conditions for being without a surety and intoxicated.
I am also satisfied that the officers used only reasonable force in their dealings with the Complainant. When the Complainant, after repeated requests, refused to stand of her own volition, she left the officers no choice but to physically lift her from the bed. This, as the BWC footage shows, was done in a controlled fashion. Thereafter, the same footage indicates that the officers had to use some force to maneuver the Complainant’s arms behind her back so they could be handcuffed when she refused to surrender them voluntarily. That force consisted of the officers physically forcing her arms behind the back and appears proportionate on the BWC footage to the level of the Complainant’s resistance. No strikes of any kind were delivered. When the Complainant lashed out by striking her head off a door as they approached the staircase, WO #1 and the SO reacted by momentarily bending her upper body forward. The SO appeared to be squeezing the Complainant’s upper right arm at this time. Both actions seemed calibrated to re-assert control over the Complainant and prevent her repeating the behaviour. Lastly, the officers assisted in keeping the Complainant up by her underarms as they ascended the stairs backwards. Here, again, I am unable to reasonably conclude the officers acted with excessive force in light of the Complainant’s refusal to climb the stairs under her own power.
It remains unclear precisely when the Complainant’s injury was incurred. I accept it might have happened at some point when she was forcibly removed from the house. It might also have happened before the officers’ arrival. CW #1, for example, says the Complainant told her that her hand had been broken before WO #1 and the SO showed up at the house. The Complainant also uttered that her hand was broken as the officers attempted to handcuff her. Be that as it may, as I am satisfied the officers comported themselves within the limits of the criminal law throughout their engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges.
Date: January 4, 2024
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.