SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OCI-366
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 23-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 23-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On September 6, 2023, the Complainant called the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) to report an injury involving Peel Regional Police (PRP) officers. According to the Complainant, he was arrested on September 2, 2023, at 11:30 p.m., by six to seven of “the officers of the PRP at […] Orenda Court” in Brampton. The officers beat him in the course of the arrest resulting in bruising to his eyes and sore ribs. On September 3, 2023, the Complainant went to hospital following his release from custody but left before being seen. On September 5, 2023, he returned to hospital where X-rays and a computed tomography scan were conducted. The doctor advised the Complainant he had an orbital bone fracture and referred him for follow-up examination.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 09/07/2023 at 6:59 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 09/08/2023 at 11:43 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
23-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on September 8, 2023.
Civilian Witness
CW InterviewedThe civilian witness was interviewed on September 8, 2023.
Subject Official
SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal rightThe subject official was interviewed on October 16, 2023.
Witness Officials
WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewedWO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #5 Notes reviewed; interview deemed not necessary
WO #6 Notes reviewed; interview deemed not necessary
The witness officials were interviewed on September 29, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired on and around the parking lot by the rear exit doors of the building situated at 33 Kennedy Road South, Brampton. Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Recordings
Footage from the BWCs of WO #4 and another PRP officer [2] captured events after the Complainant was arrested. The footage confirmed that WO #1 and WO #2 were not equipped with BWCs.WO #4’s recording captured WO #1 crouched over the Complainant, who was laying supine handcuffed with his hands behind his back. The Complainant told the police officers he ran from them because they scared him.
Starting at about 11:10 p.m., when WO #1 told the Complainant to sit up as he was out of breath from running, the Complainant responded, “You guys fucking hit me bro.” WO #1 did not respond to the utterance.
The BWC footage was muted several times throughout the event and so did not capture all dialogue.
At 11:28 p.m., the Complainant was placed in the left rear seat of WO #4’s cruiser and sat with his feet on the ground.
Starting at about 11:34 p.m., WO #4 read the Complainant his rights to counsel and indicated he was charged with possession of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking. During that process, the Complainant told WO #4 his head was spinning. She asked if he wanted an ambulance called. The Complainant told WO #4 he did not understand the rights to counsel and said, “They hit me in my head. I’m not overreacting or acting or anything.” [3] WO #4 told him an ambulance was on the way.
The footage was muted again at 11:41:21 p.m. and re-activated while WO #2 asked the Complainant if he had ingested anything. The Complainant replied, “I just don’t feel good,” and laid back down on the cruiser seat.
Starting at about 12:24 a.m., WO #4 asked the Complainant if he wanted to wait for the ambulance. The Complainant said he did not want to see paramedics and wanted to go home. WO #4 radioed a request to cancel the ambulance.
The Complainant was released at 12:27 a.m.
Video Footage – 33 Kennedy Road South
A camera at 33 Kennedy Road South captured a view of a person who appeared to be carrying a satchel, now known to be the Complainant, as he ran across the parking lot from 11:12:40 p.m. to 11:13:15 p.m. About five seconds after entering the field of view, the Complainant appeared to fall onto the pavement while running across a median. He stood and moved forward but fell again in a laneway. After standing again, the Complainant stumbled as he walked a short distance before he continued running.At 11:13:08 p.m., a police officer, now known to be WO #1, appeared in the camera field of view running in the same direction.
Another camera captured a vehicle, now known to have been the SO’s unmarked police vehicle, enter the building parking lot at 11:13:16 p.m. The vehicle quickly entered with emergency lighting activated and stopped abruptly in the laneway behind parked vehicles before the driver exited. Parked vehicles, a tree, and a garbage dumpster obstructed the view of what transpired thereafter.
Radio Communications Recordings
Radio communications recordings captured what sounded like a female and a male police officer, seemingly short of breath, running as they reported a fleeing male who “appears to be armed and dangerous”. When the dispatcher asked if the police officers saw a weapon, the female police officer responded, “We were detaining them. Once we said, ‘Get your hand out of your pocket,’ he took off on foot. Appears that he had a gun.”A male police officer, now known to have been WO #1, then reported they were at 33 Kennedy Road with one person in custody.
At 11:37 p.m., a police officer requested an ambulance for the arrested man who reported being dizzy. The police officer added they were not sure if the suspect ingested something.
At 11:56 p.m., a police officer asked for an update on the ambulance arrival time. The dispatcher advised the ambulance had not yet been dispatched. In a later transmission, a police officer, now known to have been WO #4, cancelled the ambulance.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from PRP between September 8 and 18, 2023: - Incident Details Report;
- Incident History;
- Person Details Report;
- Occurrence Report;
- Notes – WO #1;
- Notes – WO #2;
- Notes - WO #5;
- Notes – WO #3;
- Notes – WO #4;
- Notes - WO #6;
- Communications recordings;
- BWC recordings; and
- Security camera video recordings from scene of the arrest.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
On September 8, 2023, the Complainant provided the SIU with a copy of his medical records. Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, gives rise to the following scenario.
In the evening of September 2, 2023, officers with the PRP Strategic and Tactical Enforcement Policing Unit, including the SO, came across a gathering of persons drinking alcohol and playing loud music at the southern end of Trueman Street, Brampton. The officers cautioned the group that they were not allowed to drink alcohol in public. When one of the officers – WO #2 – attempted to speak to one of the individuals, he ran in an easterly direction along Orenda Court. The officers gave chase as WO #2 broadcast they were in foot pursuit of a male who was potentially armed.
The male was the Complainant. He had been wearing a satchel at the time containing controlled substances. The Complainant fled east on Orenda Court and north on McCallum Court before scaling a fence into the parking lot of the apartment building at 33 Kennedy Road South. He ran northwards in the lot, fell on two occasions, and made it as far as some dumpsters near the rear exit of the building when he was confronted by a police cruiser.
The SO had heard WO #2’s radio transmission and responded to the area to assist in apprehending the Complainant. The officer brought his vehicle to a stop, exited and identified himself as a police officer, and ordered the Complainant to show his hands before he approached the Complainant and took him to the ground.
WO #1, one of the officers who had chased after the Complainant on foot from the Trueman Street scene, arrived shortly after the grounding. He assisted the SO in handcuffing the Complainant behind the back.
The Complainant was arrested on charges of drug possession and drug trafficking, and released at the scene.
Days later, on September 5, 2023, the Complainant went to hospital and was diagnosed with an orbital fracture.
In the evening of September 2, 2023, officers with the PRP Strategic and Tactical Enforcement Policing Unit, including the SO, came across a gathering of persons drinking alcohol and playing loud music at the southern end of Trueman Street, Brampton. The officers cautioned the group that they were not allowed to drink alcohol in public. When one of the officers – WO #2 – attempted to speak to one of the individuals, he ran in an easterly direction along Orenda Court. The officers gave chase as WO #2 broadcast they were in foot pursuit of a male who was potentially armed.
The male was the Complainant. He had been wearing a satchel at the time containing controlled substances. The Complainant fled east on Orenda Court and north on McCallum Court before scaling a fence into the parking lot of the apartment building at 33 Kennedy Road South. He ran northwards in the lot, fell on two occasions, and made it as far as some dumpsters near the rear exit of the building when he was confronted by a police cruiser.
The SO had heard WO #2’s radio transmission and responded to the area to assist in apprehending the Complainant. The officer brought his vehicle to a stop, exited and identified himself as a police officer, and ordered the Complainant to show his hands before he approached the Complainant and took him to the ground.
WO #1, one of the officers who had chased after the Complainant on foot from the Trueman Street scene, arrived shortly after the grounding. He assisted the SO in handcuffing the Complainant behind the back.
The Complainant was arrested on charges of drug possession and drug trafficking, and released at the scene.
Days later, on September 5, 2023, the Complainant went to hospital and was diagnosed with an orbital fracture.
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 his arrest on September 2, 2023. The SIU initiated an investigation of the incident and named one of the arresting officers 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 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 accept that the SO was engaged in the lawful execution of his duties as he sought to detain the Complainant at the tail end of the foot pursuit. By that time, the officer had heard that the Complainant was armed and seen him jettison a satchel he was wearing. In the circumstances, I am satisfied the SO was justified in detaining the Complainant for investigation based on a reasonable suspicion that he was implicated in criminal conduct: R v Mann, [2004] 3 SCR 59; R v Nesbeth (2008), 238 CCC (3d) 567 (Ont. CA).
With respect to the force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s detention, I am unable to reasonably conclude it was anything other than legally justified. The officer says that he forced the Complainant to the ground after he refused to show his hands. That would appear a reasonable tactic as it would have been imperative in the moment to immediately place a recalcitrant suspect thought to be in possession of a weapon in a disadvantageous position. The punch to the upper body or head that the SO says he struck when the Complainant struggled against his efforts to control his arms behind his back would also seem reasonable for the same reasons. On the other hand, there is evidence in which it is alleged that the Complainant was taken to the ground and kicked or kneed in the head by the SO despite offering no resistance to his detention. This evidence, however, is called into question by the account of a civilian witness, who says the Complainant struggled with the officer on the ground. Moreover, the Complainant’s injury, which in other circumstances might have tipped the credibility contest in favour of this evidence, could well have happened as a result of the blow described by the SO. On this record, there being no reason to believe that this rendition of events is any likelier to be closer to the truth than that proffered by the SO, and some reason to doubt it, I am satisfied that the incriminating evidence is insufficiently reliable 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: 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 accept that the SO was engaged in the lawful execution of his duties as he sought to detain the Complainant at the tail end of the foot pursuit. By that time, the officer had heard that the Complainant was armed and seen him jettison a satchel he was wearing. In the circumstances, I am satisfied the SO was justified in detaining the Complainant for investigation based on a reasonable suspicion that he was implicated in criminal conduct: R v Mann, [2004] 3 SCR 59; R v Nesbeth (2008), 238 CCC (3d) 567 (Ont. CA).
With respect to the force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s detention, I am unable to reasonably conclude it was anything other than legally justified. The officer says that he forced the Complainant to the ground after he refused to show his hands. That would appear a reasonable tactic as it would have been imperative in the moment to immediately place a recalcitrant suspect thought to be in possession of a weapon in a disadvantageous position. The punch to the upper body or head that the SO says he struck when the Complainant struggled against his efforts to control his arms behind his back would also seem reasonable for the same reasons. On the other hand, there is evidence in which it is alleged that the Complainant was taken to the ground and kicked or kneed in the head by the SO despite offering no resistance to his detention. This evidence, however, is called into question by the account of a civilian witness, who says the Complainant struggled with the officer on the ground. Moreover, the Complainant’s injury, which in other circumstances might have tipped the credibility contest in favour of this evidence, could well have happened as a result of the blow described by the SO. On this record, there being no reason to believe that this rendition of events is any likelier to be closer to the truth than that proffered by the SO, and some reason to doubt it, I am satisfied that the incriminating evidence is insufficiently reliable 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: January 4, 2024
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) 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]
- 2) This PRP officer was not designated as a witness or a subject official. [Back to text]
- 3) At 11:38:50 p.m. in WO #4’s BWC recording. [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.