Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving police officers where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. The Unit’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation. If, after an investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the officer. Alternatively, in all cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director does not lay criminal charges but files a report with the Attorney General communicating the results of an investigation.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act (“FIPPA”)

Pursuant to section 14 of FIPPA (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 whose release 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 of FIPPA (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this document. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• subject officer name(s)
• witness officer name(s)
• civilian witness name(s)
• 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 (“PHIPA”)

Pursuant to PHIPA, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may have also 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.

The Unit’s investigative jurisdiction is limited to those incidents where there is a serious injury (including sexual assault allegations) or death in cases involving the police.

“Serious injuries” shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. “Serious Injury” shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault. Where a prolonged delay is likely before the seriousness of the injury can be assessed, the Unit should be notified so that it can monitor the situation and decide on the extent of its involvement.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injury sustained by a 32-year-old man (the Complainant) during his arrest on November 7, 2017.

Notification of the SIU

At approximately 7:54 a.m., on November 8, 2017, the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s custody injury.

The TPS reported that on November 7, 2017, at 11:00 p.m., TPS Drug Squad police officers arrested three parties, including the Complainant, for trafficking in cocaine in Peel Region. The three were taken to a TPS Division.

The Complainant complained of an injury and was taken to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with a nose fracture. The TPS were unable to confirm the injury with the hospital.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Complainant:

32-year-old male interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #7 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary

WO #8 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #9 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #10 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary

Subject Officers

SO Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

On June 19, 2017, the TPS Drug Squad commenced a drug investigation involving Civilian Witness (CW) #1. An undercover police officer contacted CW #1, who agreed to sell the police officer a quantity of Alprazolam (Xanax) in exchange for $85.00. Arrangements were made between them to meet in the area of 748 The Queensway, in the City of Toronto, to complete the deal. At the conclusion of the deal, CW #1 was not arrested.

On September 11, 2017, the Drug Squad continued with the investigation and CW #1 again sold a quantity of cocaine to an undercover police officer, but was not arrested.

On November 7, 2017, an undercover police officer contacted CW #1 again and he agreed to sell the police officer a quantity of cocaine in exchange for $270.00. They agreed to meet in the area of the Square One Mall in the City of Mississauga.

At about 11:00 p.m., the Complainant and CW #1 drove to the agreed upon area, where the undercover police officer met them. During the transaction, Drug Squad officers arrested the Complainant and CW #1. During the arrest, the Complainant was injured.

Nature of Injury/Treatment

On November 8, 2017, the Complainant was diagnosed with “a comminuted fracture of the nasal bone which was minimally displaced to the left. There are no additional facial bone fractures.”

The Complainant did not receive any treatment, and at 6:15 a.m. he was discharged from the hospital. A follow-up appointment with the plastics clinic was recommended.

The Scene

The scene was Parking Lot P2, near the north side of the Hudson’s Bay Store at the Square One Mall in the City of Mississauga. There was a Chevrolet Equinox with a small dent in the driver’s door. Under the Chevrolet’s driver’s door, on the parking lot surface, was an area of suggested blood staining in a pooling pattern and several articles of jewelry and personal effects. Also, there was suggested blood staining in a drip pattern out on the roadway portion of the parking lot.

Forensic Evidence

No submissions were made to the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

Summary of the CCTV video

The actions of the involved parties in the parking lot were blurred and indistinguishable; in summary, the recordings had no evidentiary value.

Summary of booking video

On November 8, 2017, Witness Officer (WO) #10 and WO #7 booked in the Complainant, who was paraded by WO #8 and WO #9. WO #10 informed the Complainant that he was being recorded while in the police facility. WO #8 identified the Complainant and said he had been arrested for trafficking in cocaine. When asked about injuries, the Complainant told WO #10 he had a “knee that was banged up and, of course, a fractured nose.” The Complainant said those injuries had occurred that night. The Complainant had already been taken to the hospital.

Summary of transportation to court

On November 8, 2017, the Complainant was brought into a booking hall. He was informed about his transportation to the court house. There was no discussion regarding the Complainant’s injuries. He was escorted out of the booking hall and placed in the prisoner truck.

Communications Recordings

Summary of communication recordings

WO #9 informed the dispatcher that they would be assisting the drug squad with the transport of a 23-year-old and a 32-year-old to the TPS Division. WO #8 reported they were transporting a 32-year-old man from the hospital to the Division.

Summary of Intergrated Computer Aided Dispatch (I/CAD)

Location: Hurontario Street to Highway 401 West. Police cruiser with WO #s 8 and 9 was transporting a 23-year-old and a 32-year-old to a TPS Division.

That same cruiser was then transporting two men, ages 23 and 32, from the TPS Division to the hospital. Subsequently, it had a 32-year-old man onboard en route to the TPS Division from the hospital.

Summary of Peel Regional Police (PRP) attendance

CW #3 reported: “By Earls. Some sort of disturbance, unknown what. Think it is gang related.” A Dodge Caravan involved. CW #3 ran away because she was scared.

Four PRP police cruisers with six undesignated police officers were dispatched and arrived at the Square One Mall. There was one man lying on the ground with another man holding him down with his foot. Four vehicles were still present. A PRP unit communicated that the TPS drug squad had made arrests, and that the officer in charge was WO #4.

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the TPS:

• Event Chronology Report
• Event Details Reports (x2)
• General Occurrence Report
• Notes of WO #s 1-10 and one undesignated police officer
• Procedure: Arrest
• Procedure: Appendix A
• Procedure: Appendix B
• Procedure: Use of Force
• Summary of Conversation (I/CAD)
• Police Transmission Communications Recordings
• Booking Video
• Booking Out Video
• TDS Surveillance Report[1], and
• Training Record for the SO

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from other sources:

• The Medical Records of the Complainant related to this incident, and
• Closed circuit television footage from Square One Mall

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

1. as a private person
2. as a peace officer or public officer
3. in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or
4. 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.

Section 4(1), Controlled Drugs and Substances Act - Possession of substance

4 (1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall possess a substance included in Schedule I, II or III.

Section 5(1), Controlled Drugs and Substances Act – Trafficking in substance

5 (1) No person shall traffic in a substance included in Schedule I, II, III or IV or in any substance represented or held out by that person to be such a substance.

Section 5(2), Controlled Drugs and Substances Act - Possession for the purpose of trafficking

(2) No person shall, for the purpose of trafficking, possess a substance included in Schedule I, II, III or IV.

On November 7, 2017, an arrangement had been made wherein an undercover Toronto Police Service (TPS) drug squad officer was to purchase drugs from an alleged drug dealer, Civilian Witness (CW) #1. There had already been two previous undercover buys from CW #1 and the intention of the drug squad was that following this third purchase, CW #1 was to be arrested.

The agreed upon location for the drug buy was to be at Square One Mall (SOM) in the City of Mississauga. The undercover officer attended the agreed upon location and, after the purchase was completed, gave the signal that the deal was done in order that the other officers could move in to arrest CW #1. During the course of the surveillance, it was observed that two other men also attended the drug buy; CW #2, from whom it appeared that CW #1 purchased the narcotics that he then went on to sell to the undercover officer, and the Complainant, who was driving the motor vehicle in which CW #1 had arrived.

Once the signal was given that the purchase was complete, the drug squad officers moved in and arrested all three men. During the course of the arrest of the Complainant, he was injured. He was later taken to the hospital where it was discovered that he had sustained “a comminuted fracture of the nasal bone which was minimally displaced to the left.” The Complainant’s nose was expected to heal properly without any medical intervention.

During the course of this investigation, four civilian witnesses (CWs) who were present during the interaction with the police were interviewed, including the Complainant. Of those four, only one was completely independent in that she was a bystander, but she could not make out what had occurred and her evidence did not assist in the investigation. The remaining three witnesses were all involved to some degree or other in the drug transaction, and contradicted each other in various material aspects.

In addition to the CWs, eight police witnesses and the subject officer (SO) all provided statements. Again, only very few of these witnesses actually observed, or were involved in, the arrest of the Complainant, that being the SO and WO #1 and, to a lesser degree, WO #3. While others were in the general area, they were either tied up with other persons, or their views were blocked by the SUVs flanking the location of the Complainant’s arrest.

The final witness interviewed, the doctor who examined the Complainant, advised that the injury sustained by the Complainant is one that “occurs very easily” and did not require a closed fist, but could be sustained by way of an open handed strike.

The medical records of the Complainant reveal that he informed the doctor that he had been “punched,” without any further clarification. Later on in the typewritten notes, the doctor indicated that:

Patient is brought in by the police handcuffed.

Patient according to him was punched by the police officers in the face as a result of an altercation with the police.

There is no dispute, on all of the evidence, that the Complainant was punched in the face by a police officer at some point, the only question remaining to be resolved was how often and whether or not it amounted to an excessive use of force in the circumstances.

According to the Complainant, he had driven CW #1 to Square One Mall for a drug transaction and parked in the parking lot, where he was approached by some men with handguns while he was seated in his motor vehicle, an Equinox. The Complainant advised that the windows of his vehicle were partially down and one man, the SO, approached the driver’s side with his gun out and pointed it at the Complainant. Another man, WO #3, approached the passenger side. This evidence is consistent as between the Complainant and both the SO and WO #3.

The Complainant indicated that after approximately ten seconds of believing that the man at the window was just some “random person,” the man identified himself as a police officer and told the Complainant to put his hands up, or on the steering wheel, and to get out of the car. The Complainant said that he was sure he panicked initially, when he was told to put his hands up, and therefore did not do so right away. He indicated that that was “when the punches started,” and he estimated that he was punched by the SO approximately five to six times in the head and chest area, through the open window.

According to the SO, once WO #4 gave the order to move in to arrest the three parties, he ran to the driver’s side door of the Equinox and initiated a gunpoint arrest. The SO described the area as dark, but with ample artificial lighting, and the driver’s window of the Equinox was down, with the Complainant seated in the driver’s seat with the engine running.

The SO, who is right handed, had his firearm in his left hand and pointed at the vehicle. He told the Complainant that he was under arrest and he clearly identified himself as a police officer and directed the Complainant to put his hands on the steering wheel. The SO advised that the Complainant complied and that he had no doubt that the Complainant knew he was a police officer.

The SO then reached in through the driver’s window and grabbed the Complainant’s left wrist with his right hand; the Complainant did not resist and the SO re-holstered his firearm. WO #3 then opened the passenger door of the Equinox and told the Complainant to turn off the vehicle.

The SO reached in through the window and attempted to open the driver’s door, but was unable to do so. Both the SO and WO #3 continued to instruct the Complainant to turn off the vehicle.

The Complainant then pulled his wrist away and reached into his inside coat with his right hand. The SO yelled at the Complainant to stop, and when he did not comply, the SO, who believed the Complainant was reaching for a weapon, struck the Complainant in the face with a closed fist.

The SO indicated that it is well known that drugs and weapons go hand in hand and that, when the Complainant reached into his jacket, the SO believed him to be reaching for a weapon and he punched the Complainant to distract him and prevent him from doing so. The SO stated that he did not punch the Complainant as hard as he could.

The SO then scrambled to try and open the door, while the Complainant grabbed at the SO’s arm with one hand, while again reaching into the same inside jacket pocket with the other, resulting in the SO striking him again in the head/facial area. At that point, WO #1 arrived at the driver’s door and assisted the SO and the door was opened and the Complainant was pulled out from the driver’s seat.

WO #3 confirmed that he was briefly at the passenger window of the Equinox when the SO was ordering the Complainant to turn off the vehicle. He indicated that when it appeared to him that the Complainant was complying, he left the window and did not observe any struggle or strikes between the Complainant and the SO.

WO #1 stated that he observed the SO half way inside the driver’s window, struggling with the driver, and he heard someone yell out, “Toronto Police,” but he could not identify the voice. WO #1 then ran to assist the SO, identifying himself as a police officer. WO #1 stated that he was concerned that the Complainant would try to drive away while the SO was stuck in the open window. WO #1 observed the Complainant to have a hold of the SO’s arm, while the SO was trying to open the driver’s door with his free hand.

WO #1 was then able to get the driver’s door open slightly, following which the Complainant moved further into the vehicle and pulled his arms underneath his chest, causing WO #1 concern that he was trying to access a weapon either in his jacket or from the centre console. Both the SO and WO #1 continued to yell at the Complainant to stop resisting, while identifying themselves as police officers. WO #1 then managed to pull the Complainant closer to the driver’s door and eventually out of the vehicle.

The Complainant stated that once the police officer opened the door, he was hit at least another five to ten times. He indicated that the hand striking him did not have a gun in it. The Complainant was then grabbed by the jacket and thrown to the ground, face down, whereupon he was punched in the back of the head. The Complainant was unable to say if he was kicked, kneed, or elbowed by the police officer, but only that he himself did not resist at all. He was then handcuffed behind his back. The Complainant identified the only police officer who used any force against him as being the SO.

CW #1 indicated that he did not see anyone strike the Complainant, as he was himself on the ground, but that he heard someone say, “Stop resisting” and heard the Complainant respond that he was not resisting. CW #1 indicated that he was himself punched twice in the head, over his left eyebrow and to his mouth, breaking his tooth, by one of the three police officers who approached him.

CW #2 observed that WO #4 came around to the side of the Complainant’s vehicle and pointed his gun at CW #2, pushing it into his head and taking him to the ground. CW #2, while on the ground, was facing the Complainant’s vehicle and he saw the Complainant trying to get out of the car and the police officers telling him to get on the ground.

He further observed WO #1 then grab the Complainant and try to pull him out of the car, following which he saw the Complainant on the ground, on his stomach and incapable of resisting, while the police officers beat him.

CW #2 professed that the officers were hitting the Complainant in the head and kicking him, but he could not see who the police officers were because it was dark and because he was himself on the ground.

CW #2 described two police officers punching the Complainant again, while holding him on the ground, and then handcuffing him. CW #2 described the Complainant as falling to his side and appearing as if he were unconscious or dead, as he was not moving.

CW #2 also observed that WO #1 had blood all over his hands and, as he was wiping the blood off his hands, WO #4 told him not to forget to clean off his gun, which CW #2 took to mean that WO #1 had hit the Complainant with the butt of his gun.

The SO stated that once they had pulled the Complainant from the vehicle, they continued to tell him that he was under arrest and to get on the ground, while the Complainant physically resisted. The SO stated that he and WO #1 eventually got the Complainant to the ground, face down, where he continued to resist and kept both hands pulled tightly under his chest, refusing to be handcuffed. When the Complainant moved his hands close to his pocket, the SO again became concerned that he was trying to access a weapon and he struck the Complainant in the head or body three to four times, in order to keep him from being able to access his jacket pocket and any potential weapon. The Complainant was then handcuffed, at which point he stopped fighting.

WO #1 stated that as the Complainant went to the ground, he and the SO fell with him. The Complainant continued to struggle violently once on the ground and kept his hands under his chest, alarming WO #1. WO #1 then struck the Complainant in the buttocks and legs using his fists and knees, trying to control the lower body of the Complainant, while the SO attempted to control the upper body. WO #1 stated that at one point the Complainant lifted his body off of the ground, lifting both officers up with him. WO #1 then grabbed one arm and the SO grabbed the other, and they were able to handcuff his hands together.

Pursuant to s. 25 (1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are exempt from prosecution if they are acting within their lawful duties and they use no more force than is necessary and justified.

Dealing first with the lawfulness of the apprehension of the Complainant, it is clear that he was a party to a drug transaction, in that he was driving the person carrying out the drug deal, and as such he was arrestable for that reason and the apprehension and arrest of the Complainant were therefore lawful and justified in the circumstances.

Turning next to the amount of force resorted to by the officers in arresting the Complainant, on all of the evidence, despite the confusion as to who did what, there does not appear to be all that much dispute as to what occurred. According to the SO, he punched the Complainant in the head/facial area twice while he was still seated in the car and another five to six times once he was on the ground, for a total of seven to eight punches to the head/face area.

The Complainant indicated that the SO punched him in the head or chest five to six times while he was still in the car, and then after the car door was opened, he punched him at least another five to ten times, then he was pulled to the ground, where he was punched once in the back of the head, for a total of ten to 16 punches in total. He attributes no use of force to any officer other than the SO. I note that whatever number of blows actually struck the Complainant, they did not cause significant bodily harm.[2] Other than the fractured nose which the doctor who treated the Complainant said could have occurred very easily (even with an open hand blow), the only other “injury” noted was a subcutaneous hematoma extending to the Complainant’s lower right eyelid.[3]

WO #1, on the other hand, openly conceded that he struck the Complainant a number of times once he was on the ground and refusing to give up his hands, in the legs and buttocks area.

The evidence of CW #2 with respect to the Complainant having possibly been struck in the head by WO #1, with the butt of his gun, is contradicted by both the Complainant and by the SO, and I do not find this evidence to rise above mere speculation.

The evidence of CW #1, however, in that he recalls hearing the police officers telling the Complainant to stop resisting and his response that he was not, appears to confirm the evidence of the Complainant and CW #2 to some degree.

In analyzing the evidence, I accept as fact that weapons, especially firearms, and drugs go hand in hand, and that every well-informed police officer would have heightened concerns as to the presence of weapons when dealing with a drug dealer.

I further accept from the Complainant’s comment that he panicked while in the car and did not react quickly enough when directed by police to exit the vehicle, that the police had a valid concern that he was refusing to comply with their orders and was possibly attempting to access a weapon.

I find that it was reasonable, therefore, in these circumstances, for the SO, when he saw the Complainant reach inside his jacket, to take whatever action necessary to incapacitate the Complainant and to deliver two punches to the Complainant’s head/face area. Clearly the SO could not expose either himself, or his fellow officers, to the tremendous risk that the Complainant would pose if he was able to get his hands on a weapon, or even if he was able to move the motor vehicle, which he still sat in and for which he still possessed the means to start up and could potentially use as a weapon against the officers.

While the Complainant estimated that he had been punched, while the car door was still closed, some five to six times, in this fast moving situation where the ultimate goal was to get the Complainant out of the car and onto the ground and handcuffed, I find it unlikely that the SO would have delivered that many blows. However, even had he done so, while the Complainant was still refusing to exit the vehicle and give up his hands, I cannot find that to have been an excessive use of force in these circumstances.

With respect to the Complainant’s allegation that once the door was opened, he was punched an additional five to ten times, which seems a very wide range, I find that to be inconsistent with the evidence of both the SO and WO #1 (and also with the evidence of CW #2) in that each indicated that as soon as the door was opened, they immediately dragged the Complainant out of the car and onto the ground.

I do, however, find that it is consistent between the evidence of the Complainant and the SO, that the SO did deliver a number of punches, which he estimated as being some five to six, once the Complainant was on the ground and was still refusing to give up his hands, again raising the concern in the SO’s mind that he was reaching for a concealed weapon. I find this evidence further consistent with that of WO #1, who indicated that he was also alarmed, for the same reason, and thereby inflicted a number of punches to the Complainant’s lower body area in order to get him to comply and give up his hands.

Again, in these circumstances, especially where no further blows were delivered after the Complainant had given up his hands and was handcuffed, I do not find these blows to amount to an excessive use of force, but rather find that the amount of force progressed with the Complainant’s resistance, and was necessary in order to eliminate the threat that he continued to pose until he was handcuffed.

Therefore, while I find that the Complainant sustained the fracture to his nasal bone when he was resisting and had to be forcefully removed from his motor vehicle, and then forcefully restrained and handcuffed, in order that he be unable to access a possible weapon, I cannot find that to have been an excessive use of force. In coming to this conclusion, I am mindful of the state of the law as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Nasogaluak [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206, as follows:

Police actions should not be judged against a standard of perfection. It must be remembered that the police engage in dangerous and demanding work and often have to react quickly to emergencies. Their actions should be judged in light of these exigent circumstances. As Anderson J.A. explained in R. v. Bottrell(1981), 60 C.C.C. (2d) 211 (B.C.C.A.):

In determining whether the amount of force used by the officer was necessary the jury must have regard to the circumstances as they existed at the time the force was used. They should have been directed that the appellant could not be expected to measure the force used with exactitude. [p. 218]

Additionally, I have considered the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Baxter (1975) 27 C.C.C. (2d) 96 (Ont. C.A.), that officers are not expected to measure the degree of their responsive force to a nicety. On this record, it is clear that the force used by the SO, and the other officers involved in the removal of the Complainant from his SUV, fell within the range of what was reasonably necessary in the circumstances to effect his lawful detention and to remove the risk that he continued to pose as long as he remained free to access any possible weapons.

In conclusion, I find that the evidence is insufficient to satisfy me that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the SO, or any other police officer involved in the arrest of the Complainant, resorted to an excessive use of force in these circumstances and I therefore lack the grounds to lay criminal charges and none shall issue.

Date: October 2, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] The report was not obtained until January 17, 2018. [Back to text]
• 2) [2] The injuries noted in the medical record were a comminuted nasal fracture and a subcutaneous hematoma in the right cheek. The nasal fracture was minimally displaced to the left making it less likely that it was caused from a blow coming from left to right (that is striking the right side of the Complainant’s face first and moving towards the left side of the face) when the Complainant was seated in the car, as the left side of his face would have been more exposed to a fist coming through the driver’s window. [Back to text]
• 3) [3] However, in photographs taken of the Complainant after the incident, I also noted two black eyes which were not recorded in the medical records, and which I presume would have resulted from the same mechanism that caused the injury to his nose. Although there was a considerable amount of blood at the scene and on the Complainant’s shirt (which might make one think that the injuries would have been very significant), all of it seems to have all come from a bloody nose, as there was no other cut or injury to the Complainant that could have been responsible for any significant amount of blood loss. The subcutaneous hematoma in this case, while formed by bleeding, would not have been the cause of the external blood at the scene as the hematoma was contained in the Complainant’s right cheek as opposed to bleeding on the exterior. [Back to text]