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 reportedly sustained by a 22-year-old man during his arrest on September 28, 2017.

Notification of the SIU

At approximately 2:15 a.m. on September 29, 2017, the Windsor Police Service (WPS) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s custody injury.

The WPS reported that at about 11:45 p.m. on September 28, 2017, plainclothes officers from the Property Crime Unit (PCU) located the Complainant, who was wanted on several outstanding arrest warrants, in the area of a housing complex in the City of Windsor. After a brief struggle, the Complainant was subdued and taken into custody. He was returned to the Windsor Police station but was then transported to the hospital to be examined as a result of several cuts and bruises that the Complainant appeared to have sustained. The Complainant was later diagnosed with a fractured bone in his wrist (bone chip).

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Complainant:

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

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed, notes and written statement received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed, notes and written statement received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed, notes and written statement received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed, notes and written statement received and reviewed

Police Employee Witness

PEW #1 Notes received and reviewed

The notes of one undesignated police officer were also received and reviewed.

Subject Officers

SO #1 Declined interview, as is the subject officer’s legal right. Notes and written statement received and reviewed.

The Complainant had eight outstanding warrants for his arrest on criminal charges. The PCU received information that the Complainant was at a housing complex in the City of Windsor and, on September 28, 2017, the SO, WO #1, and WO #3 set up in the area to attempt to locate and arrest the Complainant. The Complainant was observed coming out of the front entrance of a building and the officers gave pursuit on foot. The SO and WO #1 caught up to the Complainant and he was taken to the ground, where he landed face first on the driveway. During a struggle to handcuff the Complainant, the SO took control of the Complainant’s right arm and brought it behind the Complainant’s back, where he was successfully handcuffed.

The Complainant was then transported to the police station. While being fingerprinted, the Complainant indicated that his right wrist had been injured and he was transported to hospital where he was assessed.

Nature of Injuries / Treatment

The Complainant was diagnosed with a mildly displaced fracture of the scaphoid (one of the bones of the wrist on the thumb side of the hand) in his right hand. The x-ray also revealed a minimal irregularity at the base of the fifth metacarpal (little finger). The Complainant’s right hand was put in a cast and he was given a follow up appointment with the fracture clinic.

The Scene

The housing complex where the Complainant was arrested is located on Glengarry Avenue, which runs in a north/south direction with 333 Glengarry Avenue facing east toward the street. 445 Glengarry Avenue is to the south of 333 Glengarry Avenue. Assumption Street is an east/west roadway that T-intersects with the north side of Glengarry Avenue, across from the grassy area between the two apartment building parking lots.

Forensic Evidence

No submissions were made to the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

Video from Community Housing Corporation

The camera system was new and installed about three weeks prior to this incident. The time stamp and the sensitivity for the system sensors had not yet been set up. The camera time was about three hours ahead of EST. The actual arrest was not captured because the camera stopped recording just before the take down and started recording again 20 seconds later. The camera supported the statements of the police regarding the foot pursuit they described, even though it stopped recording at different intervals.

When the recording started up, the Complainant was face down in the parking lot just to the south of the front entrance to 333 Glengarry Avenue and the SO appeared to be on his knees on the left side of the Complainant. WO #3 stood on the right side of the Complainant and appeared to be letting go of the Complainant’s waist area as she stood upright. WO #1 was standing on the right side of the Complainant. There were no use of force or other interaction seen as the officers waited for and put the Complainant into the prisoner transport wagon.

WPS Custody Video Report

The custody video revealed that upon the Complainant’s arrival at the detention unit, he complained about the handcuffs hurting. During the booking process, the Complainant never complained about the injury to his right hand and was seen to use it in removing his clothing and property. Specifically, when speaking of an injury to the back of his head, the Complainant spoke of a police officer tackling him and again never mentioned his hand.

The Complainant did not cause any injury to himself while in his cell.

When being fingerprinted, which was not audio recorded, PEW #1, while holding and fingerprinting the Complainant’s right hand, appeared to have a conversation with the Complainant. PEW #1 left the Complainant and, while PEW #1 was in an area being recorded, he was heard saying the Complainant had mentioned an injured right hand and his ankle. PEW #1 returned and finished fingerprinting the Complainant.

Further recording indicated that the Complainant did not want to go the hospital, but paramedics were called because of protocol. The injury to the Complainant’s ankle was a previous injury that he kept aggravating. When speaking to paramedics, the Complainant said he did not punch anything and his hand had never been fractured before. The Complainant did not report how his hand was injured.

Communications Recordings

Police Transmissions Communication Recordings were obtained and reviewed.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Custody Video Report
• Custody Video DVD
• Detailed Call Summary
• Known Offender Hardcopy for the Complainant
• Notes of WO #s 1-4, PEW #1, one non-designated police officer, and the SO
• Offender Person Query for the Complainant
• Person Hardcopy for the Complainant, and
• Written Statements from WO #s 1-4 and the SO

Upon request the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents:

• Medical Records of the Complainant related to this incident, and
• Video from the Community Housing Corporation

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.

On September 28, 2017, the Property Crime Unit (PCU) of the Windsor Police Service (WPS) was on the look-out for the Complainant, who was wanted on several outstanding arrest warrants. After having received information that the Complainant may be in the area of a housing complex in the City of Windsor, the SO, WO #1, and WO #3 set up in the area to attempt to locate and arrest the Complainant. The Complainant was observed in the area, and a foot pursuit ensued resulting in the Complainant being taken to the ground, handcuffed, and arrested. After arrival at the police station, and upon observation that the Complainant’s right wrist appeared injured, he was transported to hospital where an x-ray revealed that he had sustained a mildly displaced fracture of the scaphoid (one of the bones of the wrist on the thumb side of the hand) in his right hand and a minimal irregularity of the fifth metacarpal (pinky finger).

The Complainant, in his statement to SIU investigators, indicated that he was aware that he had outstanding warrants for his arrest. On September 28, 2017, he was in the area of 333 Glengarry Avenue when he observed WO #1 start to run toward him. WO #1 yelled for him to stop. The Complainant then observed the SO coming from the street area, also moving toward him. The Complainant ran into the parking lot of 333 Glengarry Avenue, when he observed WO #3 coming from his left side and he heard her yell, “Windsor Police, stop or I will Taser you!” The Complainant advised that he then stopped and turned and saw that WO #3 had her police identification around her neck. WO #3 was the first to contact the Complainant and, within two seconds, he was knocked to the ground by all three officers.

Both WO #3 and the SO landed on top of the Complainant, and the Complainant described his right hand as being underneath his body while WO #3 had a hold of his left hand. After WO #3 brought his left hand behind his back, the SO and WO #1 took over his arrest and WO #3 stood back.

The Complainant alleged that the SO then began punching him on the right chin and head area, above his right ear. The Complainant described being punched some four to six times, his head being smashed on the ground, and he felt a forearm against his head. The Complainant advised that he was not resisting and he brought his right hand out, as it was being pulled from underneath his body.

The Complainant further alleges that the SO then grabbed his right hand and began bending the wrist backward, as he brought the Complainant’s right arm behind his back. The Complainant indicated, “I don’t know if his body is on my hand bending it like just like … as he’s hitting me, I don’t know.” The Complainant advised that he was screaming in pain and asked the SO to stop bending his wrist, but the SO kept beating the Complainant and whispering in his ear that the Complainant was lucky that this was all he got.[1] The Complainant advised that once he was handcuffed, there were no more punches. The Complainant described “Two maybe” police officers hitting him, but he was sure that it was the SO who injured his wrist.

During the course of this investigation, other than the Complainant, there were no civilian witnesses present who came forward to be interviewed. Four police witnesses were interviewed, the subject officer declining to be interviewed, as is his legal right. All four police witnesses and the subject officer, however, provided their memorandum book notes as well as their prepared witness statements to SIU investigators for review. The doctor who treated the Complainant was also interviewed and CCTV footage from the area was reviewed.

The doctor who treated the Complainant advised that it was impossible to determine exactly how the Complainant injured his wrist but, in his opinion, this type of injury was most likely caused by a fall versus having his wrist hyper extended. This is consistent with various medical websites I consulted (https://orthoinfo.aaos.org/en/diseases – conditions-fracture-of-the-wrist; www.assh.org/handcare/hand-arm-injuries/scaphoid-fracture; https://radiopaedia.org/articles/scaphoid-fracture, etc.) which all indicated that the most common cause of this type of injury is a fall onto an outstretched hand, although it is also consistent with occurring during sports activities or motor vehicle collisions.

WO #1 indicated that when he was within about ten feet of the Complainant, the Complainant turned and looked at him and WO #1 called out, “Hey (Complainant’s name).” When the Complainant then started to run, WO #1 yelled, “Stop, police!” again using the Complainant’s given name, and he gave chase.

According to the statement provided by the SO, he observed the Complainant running toward 333 Glengarry Avenue with WO #1 in pursuit, and he exited his unmarked police vehicle and yelled, “Police! You’re under arrest!” The SO was wearing his WPS issued badge clearly visible on his belt. The SO also began to run after the Complainant.

WO #3 stated that when she saw the Complainant running in her direction, she yelled, “Police stop!” She was wearing her police badge displayed on a chain around her neck and observed the SO to have his badge on his belt. WO #3 advised that at no time did she yell anything about a ‘Taser’ to the Complainant. WO #3 told the Complainant to stop running, and she grabbed the strap of his backpack, which was on his left shoulder at the time, and she began to pull the Complainant in a downward direction, resulting in the Complainant losing his balance. The SO then either tackled or pushed the Complainant, at the same time, and all three of them went to the ground, with the Complainant landing face down with his hands underneath his body.

WO #3 indicated that she was in the area of the Complainant’s legs and buttocks, while the SO was to WO #3’s left and WO #1 was to her right. The SO continuously told the Complainant to put his hands behind his back, but he would not comply.

WO #3 advised that she was pulling on the Complainant’s left arm when the SO punched the Complainant in the left torso area as he continued to give him commands. WO #3 had noted in her notebook that the SO delivered several punches to the Complainant’s face and torso area. The SO then got the Complainant’s left arm out from underneath his body and WO #3 grabbed hold of the arm. WO #3 advised that other than bringing the arm behind the Complainant’s back for handcuffing, there was no manipulation of the arm. The Complainant’s right hand was still underneath his body, but after a short struggle, the arm was brought out and he was handcuffed. After the Complainant was handcuffed, there were no further distractionary blows. WO #3 stated that she believed that she was the officer who pulled the Complainant’s right arm from under his body, but she could not specifically recall doing so. WO #3 at no time observed any manipulation or pain compliance technique used on the Complainant’s injured arm or wrist.

The SO, in his written statement, advised that the Complainant landed on his right side and then turned onto his stomach and the SO told him he was under arrest and to place his hands behind his back, but that the Complainant drew his arms underneath his body instead.

The SO advised that he was concerned that the Complainant might have had access to weapons concealed on his body. When the Complainant did not comply, the SO struck the left side of his face three times with a closed fist; this was effective and the SO was able to secure the Complainant’s left hand.

The SO then ordered the Complainant to surrender his right hand, but the Complainant refused to do so, whereupon the SO again delivered a closed fist strike, this time to the Complainant’s left side torso area; this strike was not effective in getting the Complainant to give up his right hand. The SO then placed the Complainant’s left arm into a shoulder lock for pain compliance, which was effective, and the SO was able to secure the Complainant’s right arm and he was handcuffed with his hands behind his back. A search of the Complainant located a fixed blade knife in the front pocket of his shorts.

WO #1 stated that he observed WO #3, the SO, and the Complainant all go down to the ground together as they were running, with the Complainant ending up face down on the pavement. WO #1 advised that he took a position to the right side of the Complainant’s head and he was of the view that the Complainant was being actively resistant, struggling, and was trying to put his hands underneath his body, possibly to try to access a weapon.

WO #1 observed the SO on the Complainant’s back yelling at him to give up his hands. The SO then delivered a couple of strikes to the side of the Complainant’s head and got control of his left arm. WO #1 instructed the Complainant to put his hands behind his back, but he refused to bring his right hand out from underneath his body, at which point WO #1 delivered a distractionary punch to the right side of the Complainant’s head/face area, which was ineffective.

WO #1 indicated that he then placed his knee on the Complainant’s upper back and below his neck to keep him from squirming and, within five to ten seconds, the SO gained control of his right arm and the Complainant was handcuffed. WO #1 advised that he did not see how the SO was able to get the Complainant’s right arm out, but he did not see a manipulation of the Complainant’s right wrist nor did he ever hear the SO whisper anything into the Complainant’s ear, and he did not do so himself. WO #1 advised that he did not recall the Complainant saying anything during his arrest and he was unaware of how the Complainant could have been injured, other than when he fell to the ground.

The Complainant was then told he was under arrest and the SO observed the Complainant to have an abrasion to the right side of his head and a swollen lower lip, and he complained of pain to his right wrist. The Complainant attributed the scrapes and bruising to the right side of his face to when he was taken to the ground, which is also what he is recorded as saying on the booking video at the police station.

WO #2 indicated that upon his arrival at the scene, following the arrest of the Complainant and while they were awaiting the patrol wagon, the Complainant made no complaints other than to repeatedly ask for a cigarette. WO #2 later accompanied the Complainant to hospital, where he overheard the Complainant tell medical staff that he did not know how his wrist had been injured.

The CCTV footage from the area, although only recording intermittently, was consistent with the evidence of the three police officers as to the foot pursuit of the Complainant. It also revealed the Complainant face down in the parking lot with the SO on his left side on his knees, and WO #3 and WO #1 on his right side.

The video footage inside of the police station, in the booking hall, recorded the Complainant speaking of an injury to the back of his head, which he attributed to being tackled by police; the Complainant made no mention of any injury to his wrist or that a police officer had bent his wrist backward causing his injury.

On all of the evidence, there appears no dispute that if the fracture of the bone in the Complainant’s wrist occurred during his interaction with police, that it was caused by the police. I am unable to find reasonable grounds to believe, however, that it occurred in the fashion as described by the Complainant for a number of reasons, including the following:

• All three of the police officers present indicated that the SO was at all times to the left side of the Complainant, which appears to be confirmed by the CCTV footage, while the injury is to his right wrist
• No police officer heard the Complainant yell out or indicate that the SO was injuring his wrist during the arrest, while he alleges that he was screaming in pain and asking the SO to stop bending his wrist
• Once at the station, the Complainant does not complain about any injury to his wrist, but only to the back of his head, as is recorded on the booking video
• There is no mention in the medical records that the Complainant ever complained that his wrist was bent back by the police, therefore causing his injuries. In fact, he is overheard to tell medical staff that he was unaware as to how his wrist came to be injured, and
• The medical evidence indicates that this type of injury is most commonly seen in falls onto an outstretched hand

Additionally, I find that there are several areas of the Complainant’s evidence which do not accord with the other evidence, which causes me some concern as to the reliability of his evidence overall, some examples of which follow:

• The Complainant claims that once WO #3 told him that they were police, he voluntarily stopped running; this is not consistent with the evidence of WO #3, who advised that she forcefully pulled the Complainant to the ground by pulling on the strap of his backpack, and that WO #3 simultaneously tackled the Complainant resulting in both police officers and the Complainant falling to the ground together. The evidence of WO #3 is consistent with that of both the SO and WO #1
• The Complainant alleges that WO #3 yelled that she would use her ‘Taser’ on him if he did not stop, but agrees that at no time did he see a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW or Taser) and the CCTV reveals that at no time did WO #3 have a CEW in her hand. Additionally, WO #3 denies ever having threatened the Complainant with the use of a CEW; and
• The Complainant advised that he was not resistant but rather gave up his right hand voluntarily, which is inconsistent with the evidence of all three police officers, who described him as actively resisting, and the evidence of WO #1 specifically, who indicated that the Complainant might be trying to access a weapon, as a result of which he too delivered a distractionary punch to the right side of the Complainant’s head/face area, and then placed a knee on the Complainant’s upper back below his neck, to keep him from moving

Based on all of this evidence, I accept that the Complainant did not voluntarily stop running and give himself up to the police, but that he was brought down forcefully when WO #3 grabbed onto the strap of his backpack and pulled him down, while the SO simultaneously tackled him, with both officers falling to the ground with the Complainant. I accept that these actions of the police caused the Complainant to fall onto his front onto the pavement, with his hands underneath his body.

On all of the evidence, I also have reasonable grounds to believe that when the Complainant continued to refuse to give up his hands for handcuffing, the SO delivered three distractionary punches to the left side of his head/face area and a subsequent punch to his left torso, while WO #1 delivered one distractionary punch to the Complainant’s right side head/face area.

Based on the location of each of the parties, with WO #1 apparently first to the right and then with his knee in the Complainant’s back, and the SO on his left throughout, I cannot find that it is physically possible for the SO to have bent back the Complainant’s right wrist, as he alleges.

While I accept that the SO did use a pain compliance technique on the Complainant’s left arm, which he described as a shoulder lock, I am unable to accept on this evidence that the SO could have caused the injury to the Complainant’s right wrist, accepting instead, on the medical evidence and based on the locations of each of the police officers, that the Complainant’s wrist was injured as a result of a fall onto his outstretched hand when WO #3 and the SO forced him face down to the ground, while he was trying to escape.

I find further support in this conclusion in the Complainant’s failure to complain about being mistreated by the police on the booking video (although he is not reluctant to speak about an injury to his head), as well as his comments at hospital that he did not know how his wrist was injured.

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are restricted in their use of force to that which is reasonably necessary in the execution of a lawful duty. Turning first to the lawfulness of the Complainant’s apprehension, it is undisputed that the Complainant was wanted on several outstanding warrants[2] and that the police were acting lawfully and within their duties when they attempted to apprehend the Complainant in order to execute those outstanding warrants. As such, the pursuit and apprehension of the Complainant was legally justified in the circumstances.

Although I find that the Complainant’s injury was caused by the TPS officers taking him to the ground, with the Complainant falling onto his own outstretched hand causing the scaphoid fracture, I find that pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, WO #3 and the SO used no more force than was reasonably necessary in the execution of their lawful duties in taking the Complainant to the ground in order to stop and apprehend him while he was actively attempting to escape and was resisting their efforts to arrest him. On this evidence, I conclude that the actions of these two officers, in bringing the Complainant to the ground, which ultimately caused his injury, did not amount to an excessive use of force.

I also find that when the SO subsequently delivered three distractionary blows to the left side of the Complainant’s face, followed by a closed fist strike to the Complainant’s left side torso area, and then placed his left arm into a shoulder lock for pain compliance, and WO #1 delivered a distractionary punch to the right side of the Complainant’s neck/face area, they did not contravene s.25 (1) of the Criminal Code. I accept on the evidence of both the SO and WO #1 that each was concerned that the Complainant might be reaching for a weapon when he refused to give up his hands for handcuffing and that they had objectively reasonable grounds for that concern. I also note that the fact that a weapon was in fact later located in the front pocket of the Complainant’s shorts would appear to validate their concern.

Additionally, I note that the actions of the SO and WO #1 progressed proportionately to the Complainant’s resistance. In fact, it was only after the initial distractionary strikes to the Complainant’s left face by the SO (which appeared to be effective in getting the Complainant to surrender his left arm) as a result of the Complainant continuing to resist and refusing to give up right hand, that the SO then progressed to a strike to his left torso, following which WO #1 also felt it necessary to deliver a blow to the Complainant’s right facial area, and finally, the SO placed the Complainant’s left arm into a shoulder lock, which appeared to finally gain the Complainant’s compliance.

I also note that no further blows were delivered by any officer after the Complainant was handcuffed and, despite the delivery of the four blows to his head/face area, the Complainant openly indicated both on the booking video and to investigators, that the injuries to his face were caused when his face made contact with the ground, from which I infer that the blows were of not of such a degree as to have caused him concern, much less any injury.

On all of the evidence, I accept that this situation is just such a one as is discussed by the Supreme Court of Canada in its decision of R. v. Nasogaluak [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206, wherein the Court indicated 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 WO #1, in attempting to gain control of the Complainant’s hands and to prevent his having access to any weapons on his person, progressed to the point where they were effective, and the Complainant was handcuffed and relieved of the potential weapon in his front pocket. On all of the reliable evidence, it is clear that the force used by the SO and WO #1 in attempting to secure the Complainant’s hands in order to handcuff him and prevent his possible access to weapons 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 his hands were free.

As such, although I find that the Complainant’s injury was likely caused by the police officers going to the ground with him, and the Complainant landing on his outstretched hand, I find that pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, the officers involved used no more force than was reasonably necessary in the execution of their lawful duties, and I am therefore satisfied on reasonable grounds on this record that their actions fell within the limits prescribed by the criminal law and there are thus no grounds to believe they committed a criminal offence and no charges will issue.

Date: July 12, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] The Complainant initially attributed this comment to WO #1. [Back to text]
• 2) [2] Including offences involving both weapons and violence. [Back to text]