SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OCI-413

Warning:

This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.

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.

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. 
Pursuant to section 21 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following: 
  • 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 injuries of a 45-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

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 Team

Date and time team dispatched: 10/11/2023 at 10:14 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 10/11/2023 at 11:44 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
 

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

45-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on November 27, 2023.


Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right


Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Not Interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on October 23, 2023.


Evidence

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.

CEW Deployment Data - SO #1

At 4:32:59 p.m., the trigger was pulled, and cartridge one was deployed and electricity discharged for 0.853 seconds.

At 4:33:00 p.m., the trigger was pulled, and cartridge two was deployed and electricity discharged for 4.958 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [3]


Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

Starting at about 4:26 p.m., SO #1 was captured speaking to a man, who was alleging that the Complainant had kicked out the glass door to the building and tried to stab him with a knife. He had cut his right hand struggling to disarm her. SO #1 advised over the police radio that there were grounds to arrest the Complainant for assault with a weapon.

Starting at about 4:32 p.m., SO #2 and WO #2 were in the back behind the building when the Complainant emerged from a narrow alleyway carrying a knife in her right hand and advancing towards them. SO #2 and WO #2 slowly walked backwards while directing the Complainant to drop the knife. The Complainant told the police officers to shoot and kill her. SO #2 and WO #2 repeatedly directed the Complainant to drop the knife while telling her they were there to help but that they could not help her while she had a knife in her hand. The Complainant was crying and told the police officers to shoot her and to put her out of her misery.
Starting at about 4:33 p.m., WO #2 deployed his CEW, which was ineffective. WO #2 requested another police officer respond with a CEW because the Complainant was armed with a knife. SO #1 ran towards the back of the building to assist. The Complainant continued to slowly walk towards SO #2 and WO #2 before throwing the knife over a fence and turning to walk back towards the building. SO #1 exited the back door and encountered the Complainant as she was approaching him. She was crying and yelling at the police officers to shoot her. SO #1 deployed his CEW, striking the Complainant in the back. The Complainant seized-up and fell to the ground landing on her back. Her left hand was positioned behind and underneath her back as she fell to the pavement. SO #2 handcuffed the Complainant.

Starting at about 4:34 p.m., SO #1 advised over the police radio they had the Complainant in custody. The Complainant cried as SO #2 and WO #2 assisted her to a seated position. She told them she wanted to be shot and wanted to die.

Communications Recordings

Starting at about 4:18 p.m., a man contacted PRP and reported that he had been attacked by the Complainant with a knife. The caller had been outside walking when the Complainant exited the building and tried to stab him.
 
Starting at about 4:30 p.m., SO #1 advised there were grounds to arrest the Complainant for assault with a weapon.
 
Starting at about 4:32 p.m., WO #2 advised that the Complainant was walking at them with a knife. A CEW had been deployed but was ineffective. A police officer was requested to respond to the back with a CEW.
 
Starting at about 4:33 p.m., WO #2 warned of crossfire and indicated that the Complainant had dropped the knife.
 
Starting at about 4:34 p.m., SO #1 advised the Complainant was in custody and an ambulance was required for CEW probe removal.
 
Starting at about 4:47 p.m., SO #1 advised he had recovered the knife the Complainant had thrown in the backyard of a nearby property.
 

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

The footage was unremarkable. It captured the Complainant in the back of a police vehicle and being transported to the police station.
 

Custody Footage

The footage was unremarkable.


Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following materials from the PRP between October 17 and 26, 2023:
  • Names and roles of involved police officers;
  • Civilian witness statements;
  • Incident History Report;
  • Occurrence Details Report;
  • CEW deployment data;
  • BWC recordings;
  • ICC recordings;
  • Custody recordings;
  • Communications recordings;
  • Duty book notes – WO #1;
  • Duty book notes – WO #2;
  • Policy - Criminal Investigations; and
  • Policy - Incident Response.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on December 28, 2023:
  • The Complainant’s medical records from MGH.

Incident Narrative

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.

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 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

Endnotes

  • 1) Unless otherwise specified, 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 times are derived from the internal clocks of the weapons, and are not necessarily synchronous between weapons and with actual time. [Back to text]
  • 3) 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.