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 21-year-old man during his apprehension on August 21^st, 2017.

Notification of the SIU

At approximately 5:47 p.m. on Monday, August 21^st, 2017 the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU advising of a serious injury sustained by the Complainant.

The PRP reported that at about 2:25 p.m. that day, the SO and WO #1 responded to Terminal One Arrivals at Pearson International Airport in relation to the Complainant behaving strangely. The Complainant said he had ingested LSD (Lysergic acid diethylamide), a hallucinogenic drug, and because of his behaviour he was transported by ambulance to hospital. The SO accompanied the Complainant in the ambulance and, while en route to the hospital, he decided to apprehend the Complainant under the authority of the Mental Health Act (MHA).

At the hospital, the Complainant became further agitated and was aggressive and began struggling with hospital staff and police officers, who were restraining him on a stretcher in the emergency department (ER). During the struggle, a loud snap was heard. The Complainant was later diagnosed with a fractured left humerus bone.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Complainant:

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

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

CW #7 Interviewed

CW #8 Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

Subject Officers

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

On August 21^st, 2017, the PRP were contacted by the Pearson International Airport security staff to deal with a passenger who was behaving strangely. The SO and WO #1 were dispatched to the airport to investigate. Upon arrival, they came into contact with the Complainant, who advised them that he had ingested LSD. Because of the Complainant’s bizarre behaviour, it was determined that he should be transported to hospital to be seen to and treated, if necessary.

En route to the hospital, in the ambulance, the SO apprehended the Complainant pursuant to s.17 of the Mental Health Act, on the basis that he was unable to care for himself.

Upon arrival at hospital, while medical staff, hospital security staff, a doctor, and the two police officers were all trying to restrain the Complainant, who was very agitated, aggressive, and thrashing about wildly, the Complainant suffered an injury to his humerus bone.

Nature of Injuries / Treatment

X-ray examination of the Complainant’s left arm and shoulder found that he had sustained a transfer fracture, through the mid-shaft of the humerus bone, in his left arm. The x-ray revealed that the Complainant had an underlying congenital defect, or callus, in his arm bone, and the fracture had gone right through the callus. It was believed that the congenital defect in the Complainant’s left arm bone most likely pre-disposed him to sustain the type of fracture he did, as this would not have occurred if he had normal bone structure.

The Complainant’s left arm was put in a cast, with follow-up treatment to be done when he returned home to the United States.

The Scene

The scene was identified as ER room # six at the hospital. It was photographed and examined by SIU FIS; however, nothing of evidentiary value was found.

Forensic Evidence

No submissions were made to the Centre of the Forensic Sciences.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

This area of the hospital was not equipped with CCTV recording equipment.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Event Chronology
• Notes of WO #1 and the SO, and
• Occurrence Details

Section 17, Mental Health Act - Action by police officer

17 Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

1. has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself
2. has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or
3. has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself

and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

4. serious bodily harm to the person
5. serious bodily harm to another person; or
6. serious physical impairment of the person

and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician.

On August 21^st, 2017, the Complainant was taken from Pearson International Airport to hospital by ambulance because he was behaving erratically and indicated that he had ingested LSD. The SO from the Peel Regional Police (PRP) accompanied the Complainant in the ambulance and apprehended him under s.17 of the Mental Health Act. WO #1 followed the ambulance to the hospital. Once at the hospital, eight members of the hospital staff and both police officers were involved in attempts to restrain the Complainant in order to provide him with the medical care necessary to ensure his well-being. The Complainant was later diagnosed with having sustained a fractured left humerus bone (the long bone in the upper arm).

During the course of this investigation, nine civilian witnesses, including the Complainant, and one police witness were interviewed. The SO declined to be interviewed, as was his legal right, but he provided his memorandum book notes to SIU investigators for review.

The Complainant had no recall of his interaction with police, nor could he tell SIU investigators anything about how he came to be injured; however, based on the cooperation of all of the other witnesses, a clear picture of what occurred was able to be formulated. There is no dispute as to the facts.

Initially, given the Complainant’s behaviour at the airport and in the presence of the police and paramedics, it was evident that he was unable to care for himself because of the ingestion of drugs (LSD as it turned out). He was incoherent, delirious and a danger to himself and others and thus his apprehension under s.17 of the Mental Health Act was fully warranted.

Once the Complainant arrived at hospital, he was extremely agitated and was described by witnesses as screaming, kicking his legs, trying to get up, convulsing and not in his right state of mind. CW #5, a doctor, described the Complainant as clearly psychotic, thrashing, agitated, kicking out, and not responding to verbal commands. CW #5 opined, based on his experience, that the Complainant’s behaviour was consistent with his having ingested LSD or some other illicit drug and that he was hallucinating and in an altered state of mind.

Three security officers, a registered nurse, a doctor, and the SO and WO #1 were all surrounding the Complainant on the hospital bed and were restraining him, while a fourth security officer, CW #4, was applying the four point restraint system. As CW #4 was applying the restraints to the Complainant’s right arm, a crack or popping noise was heard to come from his left side. It is unclear as to exactly where the two police officers were located at the time the sound was heard, with various witnesses indicating that they were either at the Complainant’s head, or holding onto his biceps, or holding the Complainant by his left arm and shoulders, or holding him down with their hands on his chest.

CW #5 advised that he was positioned on the Complainant’s left side when someone in the room said that they heard a crack and that they believed that the Complainant may have dislocated his left shoulder. He described one police officer as being close by and assisting in holding the Complainant down at the time, while one security officer was at his head, trying to hold his shoulders down on the bed, and a nurse was at his feet, attempting to establish an intravenous line (IV) into his left arm.

CW #5 advised that although he initially believed that the Complainant may have dislocated his shoulder, upon being x-rayed, it was revealed that he had sustained a transfer fracture through the mid-shaft of the humerus bone in his left arm.

CW #5 found the infliction of this injury incongruent with being sustained through being restrained while thrashing about and resisting, so he sought the opinion of an orthopedic surgeon who reviewed the x-ray and discovered that the Complainant had an underlying congenital defect, or callus, in his arm bone and that the fracture had gone right through the callus. CW #5 opined that it was most likely that this congenital defect pre-disposed the Complainant to this type of fracture and, in the absence of this defect, the fracture would not have occurred. CW #5 was further of the opinion that the fracture was likely sustained while the Complainant’s arm was being held down and he tried to pull his arm out by applying counter-pressure, thereby fracturing the arm. CW #5 indicated that a strike to the arm did not cause this injury.

While the evidence is unable to establish exactly where the SO and WO #1 were located at the time that the crack or pop was heard from the Complainant’s left arm, all of the witnesses are consistent in their evidence that the officers did no more than attempt to restrain the Complainant, as did all of the other witnesses present; that the officers were at all times calm and were attempting to reassure the Complainant; and, that no more force was used than was necessary to hold the Complainant down in order that he could be treated by medical staff and that intravenous lines could be attached to the Complainant in order that they could begin his medical care. The Complainant, unfortunately, only finally calmed when he was administered a sedative.

On all of the evidence, it is abundantly clear that no police officer struck, punched or kicked the Complainant and that all persons present, the four security officers, the nurse, the doctor, and the two police officers, were all acting collectively to attempt to restrain the Complainant for his safety, as well as their own, and that the injury sustained was not as a result of the actions of any one person, but a combination of the thrashing and resistance of the Complainant against the restraint and his pre-disposition to the injury based on his pre-existing condition.

On a review of all of the evidence, while the combined efforts of all eight of the medical and security staff and the police officers in restraining the Complainant (who could not care for himself), while he violently resisted, may have indirectly brought about his injury, there is absolutely no evidence upon which I can find reasonable grounds to believe that excessive force was applied by anyone, nor is there any allegation of excessive force, and no basis for the laying of criminal charges. The consensus of all of the civilian witnesses present was that the two police officers did nothing which could have caused the Complainant’s injury.

On all of the evidence, I accept that the two police officers present were carrying out their duties in assisting medical and security staff to ensure the safety of the Complainant and those around him, and that the injury sustained by him can only be described as an unforeseeable and unexpected anomaly.

Date: April 25, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit