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 45-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On October 8, 2023, at 5:37 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the PRP, on October 7, 2023, at approximately 4:30 p.m., PRP officers responded to a ‘weapons dangerous’ call in the area of Lakeshore Road East and Hurontario Street, Mississauga, where the Complainant was reported to be armed with a knife. PRP officers had an interaction with the Complainant and two police officers deployed their conducted energy weapons (CEW). The Complainant was arrested and transported to 12 Division.

At 11:00 p.m., while in custody, the Complainant complained of soreness to her wrist and was taken to the Mississauga General Hospital (MGH) where she was diagnosed with a fractured wrist.

The Scene

The events in question transpired at the rear of a building situated in the area of Lakeshore Road East and Hurontario Street, Mississauga.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data - WO #2

At 4:32:47 p.m., [2] the trigger was pulled, and cartridge one was deployed and electricity discharged for 0.436 seconds.

At 4:32:48 p.m., the trigger was pulled, and cartridge two was deployed and electricity discharged for 4.955 seconds.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and a police eyewitness, and video footage that captured the events in question, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the afternoon of October 7, 2023, PRP officers were dispatched to the area of Lakeshore Road East and Hurontario Street to investigate a knife attack. A male had called police to report that his neighbour – the Complainant – had just stabbed him as he was out walking. SO #1 was among the officers assigned to the call. He spoke to the injured male and proceeded to make a radio broadcast advising that there were grounds to arrest the Complainant for ‘assault with a weapon’.

SO #2 and WO #2, also responding the 911 call, took up positions behind the address to contain the scene. Shortly after their arrival, they were confronted by the Complainant holding a knife.

The Complainant was distraught and suicidal at the time. She emerged from a building and walked down a narrow path towards the rear of the address. Intent on having the officers shoot her, the Complainant walked towards them with the knife in her right hand asking that they put her out of her misery.

SO #2, his firearm drawn and pointed at the Complainant, and WO #2, initially with a firearm but then with his CEW in hand, backed away from the Complainant while directing her to drop the knife. As the Complainant neared, WO #2 angled towards her for a better line of sight and fired his CEW twice. Neither discharge had an effect on the Complainant, who continued her slow approach towards the officers.

SO #2 and WO #2 implored her to drop the knife. They indicated they had no desire to shoot her and were there to help. WO #2 asked over the radio for another officer to attend the scene with a CEW as he had exhausted his CEW cartridges. Within seconds, SO #1 made his way to the rear of the building, his CEW at the ready.

At about the same time as SO #1 arrived on scene, the Complainant threw the knife away and started walking back towards the building. The officer approached the Complainant from behind and fired his CEW twice. The Complainant locked-up and fell backwards, striking her head on the pavement. SO #2 and WO #2 approached her on the ground and the former secured her in handcuffs.

Later that day, the Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left wrist and brain bleed.

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 her arrest by PRP officers on October 7, 2023. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming two officers subject officials – SO #1 and SO #2. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the subject officials 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.

Given what they knew of the 911 call, the information provided at the scene from the 911 caller, and the Complainant’s behaviour on scene with the knife, the officers were within their rights in seeking to take her into custody for ‘assault with a weapon’.

With respect to the force used by the officers, I am satisfied it was no more than was reasonably necessary to effect the Complainant’s arrest. The Complainant was armed with a weapon clearly capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm or death and she had already demonstrated a proclivity that day for using it when she stabbed another person in an unprovoked attack. In the circumstances, when the Complainant failed to stop her advance and drop the knife despite repeated requests that she do so, WO #2 had cause to try to temporarily incapacitate the Complainant from a distance with his CEW. If it worked, the CEW discharge would have allowed the officers a safe window of time to safely approach, disarm and arrest the Complainant. For essentially the same reasons, I am also satisfied that SO #1’s CEW deployments were legally justified. It is unclear whether the officer was aware that the Complainant had thrown her knife away. But even if he was, SO #1 could not be sure that the Complainant did not have another weapon on her person. After all, he had spoken to the man stabbed by the Complainant and come to learn that she had used a different knife against him. No further force was used against the Complainant by any of the officers; the handcuffing process, in particular, was unremarkable.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injuries were the likely result of her falling after the second set of CEW discharges, I am unable to reasonably conclude that they are associated with any unlawful conduct on the part of the involved officers. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: February 5, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit