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 54-year-old male during his arrest on August 26, 2017.

Notification of the SIU

At approximately 3:30 a.m. on August 26, 2017, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of the custody injury sustained by the Complainant.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Complainant:

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

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Not interviewed (did not witness incident or arrest)

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary

WO #4 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary

Subject Officers

SO #1 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

During the early hours of Saturday, August 26, 2017, the Complainant broke into the Tim Hortons coffee shop at 184 Brant Road in Brant County. Entry was gained by making a hole in the roof. Once inside, the Complainant realized the police were in the area and he climbed back onto the roof of the coffee shop and tried to escape by jumping from the roof onto the concrete driveway below. The height from the roof to the ground was about 9.144 metres (30 feet).

The Complainant landed on his feet and attempted to break his fall using his left hand, as he fell to the ground. The pain in both his legs and ankles was immediate. The Complainant was then heard yelling. He stood and tried to run away but only managed to move about 50 metres before the Subject Officer (SO) caught him. The Complainant was then transported to hospital.

Nature of Injuries / Treatment

Once at hospital, the Complainant was x-rayed and a computerized tomography (CT) scan was conducted which confirmed the fractures to both his right and left calcaneus (heel bones). It was determined that surgery was required to repair the heel bones, and the Complainant was admitted to hospital as an in-patient because the heel bone fractures required non-weight bearing and immobilization, and there were concerns about his withdrawal from the chronic pain medication.

The Complainant also fractured the distal tip of the scaphoid carpal bone (one of the bones of the wrist situated between the hand and forearm on the thumb side of the wrist) along its radial aspect. A scaphoid cast was applied, following which the wrist injury was expected to heal on its own, without further medical intervention and no long term damage.

No other injuries were noted.

The Scene

The scene was located at a Tim Hortons coffee shop, which was a detached building located at 184 Brant Road in Brant County, in a rural area surrounded by open fields. The height from the roof to ground level was about 9.144 metres (30 feet).

Forensic Evidence

No submissions were made to the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

Security Video from Tim Hortons

The security camera was located on the back wall of the premises and offered a view of the concrete driveway at the rear of the building. A clear image can be seen as the Complainant jumped from the roof and landed on the driveway, attempting to break his fall with his outstretched left hand. Both feet and his left hand appeared to impact the concrete driveway simultaneously. He was alone and collapsed to the ground. He then stood and hobbled from view towards the fields. Seconds later, the SO appeared on the driveway and followed in the same direction taken by the Complainant. From the video, it is clear that no one else was present when the Complainant jumped or after he landed following his jump from the rooftop, and that the SO only appeared several seconds after the Complainant disappeared from view.

Communications Recordings

The recordings of the call reporting a break and enter in progress and the police transmissions communications recordings were obtained and reviewed.

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the OPP Brant County Detachment:

• Arrest Report
• Recording of Burglary Call from Security Monitoring Company
• Police Transmissions Communications Recording
• Duty Roster
• Event Details Report
• General Occurrence Report
• Notes of WO #s 1-4 and the SO
• OPP Scribed Audio Interview of two non-designated civilian witnesses, and
• OPP Written Witness Statement of a non-designated civilian witness

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

• Medical records of the Complainant relating to this incident

Section 348(1), Criminal Code - Breaking and entering with intent, committing offence or breaking out

341 (1)Every one who

1. breaks and enters a place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein
2. breaks and enters a place and commits an indictable offence therein, or
3. breaks out of a place after
   1. committing an indictable offence therein, or
   2. entering the place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein

is guilty

4. if the offence is committed in relation to a dwelling-house, of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and
5. if the offence is committed in relation to a place other than a dwelling-house, of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or of an offence punishable on summary conviction

On August 26, 2017, at approximately 12:15 a.m., the security alarm at the Tim Hortons coffee shop at 184 Brant Road in Brant County was activated and police were notified. The SO from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) responded to the call.

Fortunately, the store had CCTV cameras recording around the premises, which revealed the Complainant jump from the roof of the building to the concrete pavement below; upon later investigation, this distance was estimated to be approximately 9.144 metres or 30 feet. The Complainant is seen to land on the driveway while attempting to break his fall with his left outstretched hand. Both feet and his left hand are clearly seen on the video to impact the concrete driveway simultaneously, following which the Complainant is seen to collapse to the pavement. The Complainant is clearly seen in the video to be alone at the time of his jump and subsequent landing on the pavement.

The video then depicts the Complainant getting to his feet and hobbling out of view of the camera. Several seconds later, the SO is seen to attend on the driveway and then follow in the direction taken by the Complainant. Following the Complainant’s arrest, he was transported to hospital where he was assessed and it was discovered that he had suffered fractures to both heel bones. On August 28, 2017, the Complainant was re-examined after complaining of pain to his left wrist and an x-ray revealed a fracture of the left scaphoid carpal bone.

The Complainant was initially interviewed on August 27, 2017 and candidly admitted that while involved in a break and enter at the Tim Hortons coffee shop, he became aware of police presence and tried to escape by jumping from the roof of the building. The Complainant indicated that the height of the roof was roughly 30 feet, and he landed on his feet on the pavement below and collapsed to the ground, following which he experienced immediate pain to both legs and ankles. The Complainant advised that there was no police officer present when he jumped. He then tried to run, but collapsed after about 30 feet[1] and was arrested by the SO, who, the Complainant stated, treated him well. The Complainant was very clear that his injuries were self-inflicted, his decision to jump from the roof was a serious mistake on his part, and that no police officer caused him any injury. This version of events is fully corroborated by the CCTV footage and is consistent with the version of events provided by the SO in his statement to SIU investigators.

The medical records of the Complainant confirmed that he suffered fractures to both heels, and a subsequent wrist x-ray on August 28 indicated a wrist fracture. The expert medical opinion provided confirmed that the wrist injury sustained by the Complainant was most commonly caused by a fall on an outstretched hand, although the doctor could not rule out that it might also be consistent with a twisting motion. The doctor opined, however, that the majority of such injuries were as a result of a fall onto an outstretched hand.

On the basis of all of the above evidence, it is quite clear that the Complainant suffered all of his injuries as a result of jumping from the roof of the Tim Hortons and landing some 30 feet below, with both heels and his outstretched left hand making contact with the concrete, thereby causing the various fractures which he suffered. The initial statement of the Complainant, the CCTV footage, the statement of the SO, and the opinion of the medical expert are all fully consistent with this version of events. On the basis of this evidence, and the Complainant’s candid admission that his injuries were self-inflicted in his bid to escape police, and that he was well treated by police, it would have been clear that no basis existed to form reasonable grounds to believe that the SO used any excessive force whatsoever against the Complainant.

At the time of the Complainant’s initial statement to investigators, however, the x-rays had not yet been taken which revealed the existence of the wrist fracture sustained by the Complainant. Consequently, on September 11, 2017, some two weeks after his arrest, the Complainant contacted investigators to provide a follow-up statement. In this subsequent statement, the Complainant was no longer of the view that he was well treated by police, but instead alleged that after he had jumped from the roof and ran into the bushes, a police officer jumped on his back and placed one handcuff on his right hand, following which the Complainant began to struggle and refused to allow his other hand to be handcuffed because he was in pain. Both of the Complainant’s hands were then handcuffed and the Complainant opined that the handcuffs were closed too tightly for his large wrists. The Complainant then advised that during the struggle, he received a kick to his left ribs and someone stood on his wrists. The Complainant advised that once at hospital, his ribs were x-rayed and he was told that he had four cracked ribs.

While the medical records and the opinion of the medical expert were fully consistent with the Complainant’s initial version of events, they contradicted this second version in that there is no indication that the Complainant’s ribs were ever x-rayed, nor any evidence that he received any injury to his ribs. Additionally, while the opinion of the doctor that the injury to the Complainant’s wrist was most commonly caused by a fall onto an outstretched hand, as seen on the CCTV footage, or less likely by a twisting motion, neither scenario provided by the doctor supports the Complainant’s new version of events in which a police officer stood on his wrists. It is clear on the opinion of the doctor that this is not how the Complainant fractured the bone in his wrist.

Furthermore, I note that the SO provided a summary of what had occurred to WO #1 immediately upon the sergeant’s arrival on scene, and that version is also fully consistent with the initial version of events provided by the Complainant, and the statement later provided by the SO to SIU investigators.

The statement provided by WO #2, who attended and took over the custody of the Complainant from the SO, is also fully supportive of the Complainant’s initial statement in that he also indicates that the Complainant at no time struggled or was resistant towards police, as he was in too much pain. WO #2 also indicated that at no time was the Complainant ever kicked in the ribs nor did anyone, accidentally or intentionally, ever stand on or stamp on the Complainant’s wrists.

Again, the SO provided to WO #2, at the time, a summary of what had occurred, which was totally consistent with his later statement and the Complainant’s initial interview with SIU investigators.

In the absence of some collusion between the SO and the Complainant, which is not alleged by the Complainant, I am unable to reconcile how the initial statement of the Complainant and the statement of the SO could be totally consistent, except by reaching the obvious conclusion that it is the original statement of the Complainant which is accurate, and the later statement which is a fabrication. While the Complainant’s original statement is fully supported by the medical records, CCTV footage, and the opinion of the medical expert as to the mechanism by which he received his wrist injury, and is consistent with the statement of the SO and the evidence of WO #1 and WO #2, his later statement is contradicted by all of that same evidence.

On all of the evidence, I find I have reasonable grounds to believe the Complainant’s original statement that he was treated well by police and that all of his injuries were self-inflicted and as a direct consequence of his jumping from the roof of the Tim Hortons building and landing on both heels and his outstretched left wrist, some 30 feet below, on concrete. I have no basis upon which I can form reasonable grounds to believe that any police officer used any force, much less any excessive force, against the Complainant and as such there is no basis here for the laying of criminal charges.

Date: June 22, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] This estimate by the Complainant is clearly inaccurate because he is well off the Tim Hortons property when he was caught by the SO. [Back to text]