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 23-year-old man during his arrest on November 11^th, 2016.

Notification of the SIU

At approximately 2:59 p.m. on May 29^th, 2017, the London Police Service (LPS) notified the SIU of an injury suffered by the 23-year-old Complainant on November 11^th, 2016.

The LPS reported that on November 11^th, 2016, at 10:30 p.m., the Complainant was arrested at his residence for uttering threats. The Complainant was taken to the police station and, while his handcuffs were being removed, he assaulted a police officer. Police officers gained control of the Complainant and he was lodged into a cell. The Complainant was released from custody on November 12^th, 2016 at 3:50 p.m..

The Complainant went to the hospital following his release.

On February 16^th, 2017, the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) forwarded a complaint from the Complainant to the LPS for investigation. The LPS began an investigation into the matter and collected relevant materials. On May 26^th, 2017, the LPS received medical records which indicated that the Complainant had suffered a partial loss of vision on November 11^th, 2016.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

The SIU obtained a copy of the Complainant’s medical records from the hospital and spoke with the attending physician regarding the nature of the Complainant’s injury, with the Complainant’s consent.

The SIU contacted the Complainant’s family to ascertain his location, and he was interviewed on June 5^th, 2017.

At the time of his arrest, the Complainant was residing with four other housemates at an address in the City of London. The property manager for that address was able to provide contact information for those parties.

The first housemate reported he was home earlier on November 11^th, 2016, but he left the residence due to the Complainant damaging the personal property of the housemates.

The second housemate reported he was at work that day, but he had seen the Complainant earlier and he was very aggravated about something. As a result, this housemate stayed away from the house and was not present when the LPS dealt with the Complainant.

The two other housemates reported they were not home that day.

Complainant:

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

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

WO #5 Interviewed

Subject Officers

SO #1 Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right.

On November 11^th, 2016, the Complainant was in a state of extreme agitation. He started to throw items around inside his residence and also onto the street. He also yelled at and threatened his neighbours and passersby.

Eventually the police were called and Witness Officer (WO) #2 and WO #1 responded to the residence in the City of London. The Complainant was immediately confrontational with the police, and he threatened to kill them. When the Complainant moved toward knives that he had thrown onto the driveway of the residence, WO #1 and WO #2 decided to apprehend the Complainant. He was handcuffed without incident and was placed onto the lawn to be searched. Once on the ground, the Complainant continued to issue threats, and he was then arrested for uttering threats and for resisting the efforts of the police to handcuff him.

The Complainant was taken to a police vehicle to be transported to the police station, but he placed his feet against the vehicle and fought the efforts of police to load him into the vehicle. The Complainant was once again placed onto the ground, in a controlled fashion, and WO #2 requested a prisoner wagon to transport the Complainant.

The Subject Officer (SO) was operating the prisoner wagon and he attended the scene. The Complainant was loaded into the rear of the prisoner wagon and all three police officers departed for the police station.

Once at the police station, the exterior rear doors of the prisoner wagon were opened and the Complainant may have kicked open the interior compartment door. The Complainant had been able to move his handcuffed hands to the front of his body and he had removed all of his clothing except for his tank top, which he could not remove due to the handcuffs.

WO #2, WO #1, and the SO took the Complainant over to a wall in the sally port area which was “covered” by video surveillance and WO #2 attempted to reposition the handcuffs to the Complainant’s back, while the SO held the left side of the Complainant and WO #1 controlled the Complainant’s right side. As WO #2 worked to reposition the handcuffs, the Complainant turned and brought his right knee up toward the SO’s groin. The SO immediately delivered three strikes to the Complainant, at least one of which struck the Complainant’s head. The SO then grabbed the Complainant around his neck and pulled him to the floor.

The handcuffs were then repositioned and the Complainant was carried directly to a cell, where he spent most of the next hours pacing about and acting in an agitated manner.

Nature of Injury/Treatment

The Complainant suffered a scotoma, which is a visual disturbance sometimes associated with a concussion. The Complainant told the SIU that the effects of the scotoma are transient, occurring most frequently when he moves between areas of differing light intensity. The effects occur briefly and soon disappear.

The Scene

The scene was not examined due to the passage of time.

Forensic Evidence

No submissions were made to the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

Videos from Sally port/Booking Hall/Cell area of LPS Headquarters:

On November 11^th, 2016, at 11:06 p.m., WO #1, WO #2, and the SO were at the rear of the prisoner wagon, which was parked in the sally port of the LPS headquarters. The SO opened the two rear doors of the prisoner van, and he appeared to be unlocking the doors to the inner cage, which then flew open. The Complainant was inside the prisoner van, lying on his back. The Complainant slid to the open rear of the van and he was dressed only in a tank top shirt. His handcuffed hands were in front of him.

The Complainant was escorted to a wall in the sally port, with the SO on his left arm and WO #1 on his right arm. As WO #2 worked to reposition the handcuffs, the Complainant lifted his right foot slightly backward, and WO #1 placed his own right foot onto the Complainant’s right foot, to keep the Complainant’s foot on the floor.

At 11:07:06 p.m., as WO #2 positioned herself behind the Complainant, the Complainant turned quickly to his left, toward the SO, and he raised his right knee toward the SO. Due to the positioning of WO #1, the viewer is unable to determine if the Complainant’s raised knee made contact with the SO or not. WO #2 and WO #1 reacted by pushing the Complainant toward the sally port wall, and the SO reacted by delivering three punches to the Complainant. The first punch appeared to land somewhere around the Complainant’s shoulder, the second punch to the back of his neck, and the third punch struck the left side of the Complainant’s head.

The SO then grabbed the Complainant around the neck and spun him to the floor of the sally port. The Complainant’s arms were not secured in handcuffs at that point, indicating WO #2 had been able to remove at least one handcuff prior to the Complainant being spun to the floor.

At 11:07:27 p.m., WO #5 and WO #4 entered the sally port to provide assistance.

The Complainant’s hands were fastened behind his back and the Complainant was carried directly through the booking hall and lodged into a cell, while WO #2 remained behind in the booking hall.

WO #2 reported to the booking officer, WO #3, that the Complainant had been throwing everything from his residence to the outside. She explained that she and WO #1 knocked on the front door of the residence and rang the doorbell. When the Complainant eventually came to the front door he was immediately aggressive. The Complainant started to walk toward a knife and was commenting that he would kill the police officers. WO #2 told WO #3 that she and WO #1 put the Complainant to the ground and called for a prisoner wagon.

Immediately after the Complainant was placed into the cell, and while lying on the floor, he brought his handcuffed hands from behind his back to his front without any difficulty. The Complainant moved about the cell for the next several hours. He was removed from the cell at 5:46 a.m.

Communications Recordings

The 911 call and the police transmission 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 LPS:

• Video recordings from the custody area of the LPS headquarters
• Police Transmissions Communications recordings
• The Booking Data Sheet
• The General Occurrence Report
• Summaries of telephone conversations between the Complainant and a sergeant with the LPS Professional Standards Bureau (PSB)
• A transcript of conversations captured on one of the custody area video recordings
• 911 Call recording
• The notes of WO #s 1 and 2, and
• A Written Statement from WO #s 1-3

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

• Medical records of the Complainant

Section 129, Criminal Code - Offences relating to public or peace officer

129 Every one who

1. resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer
2. omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or
3. resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure

is guilty of

4. an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
5. an offence punishable on summary conviction

Section 264.1, Criminal Code - Uttering threats

264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat

1. to cause death or bodily harm to any person
2. to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or
3. to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person

Section 270(1), Criminal Code - Assaulting a peace officer

270 (1) Every one commits an offence who

1. assaults a public officer or peace officer engaged in the execution of his duty or a person acting in aid of such an officer
2. assaults a person with intent to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of himself or another person; or
3. assaults a person
   1. who is engaged in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure, or
   2. with intent to rescue anything taken under lawful process, distress or seizure

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 November 11^th, 2016, a 911 call was received by the London Police Service (LPS) at approximately 10:10 p.m. requesting police assistance to an address in the City of London. The caller advised that “there’s a kid out here throwing beer bottles and smashing up the place”, he also indicated that he was throwing glass out his door and at cars. As a result, Witness Officer (WO) #1 and WO #2 were dispatched to the call.

Once on scene, they knocked at the door which was eventually answered by the Complainant. The Complainant appeared to be agitated and was confrontational with the police. When the Complainant threatened to kill the police officers, and appeared to be moving in the direction of a number of knives that he had thrown onto the pavement outside of his home, he was taken to the ground and arrested for uttering threats and resisting arrest. Thereafter, when the Complainant resisted being placed into the police vehicle for transport to the station, WO #2 called the dispatcher and requested that a prisoner transport wagon attend to transport the Complainant. The Subject Officer (SO) then attended with a prisoner transport wagon, and the Complainant was placed inside.

Once police arrived at the police division, the entire incident was captured on the closed circuit television (CCTV) footage from the sally port camera. As such, there can be no dispute as to the facts.

The video reveals the prisoner transport wagon parked in the garage (sally port), when at 11:06 p.m., WO #2, WO #1, and the SO attend at the rear of the wagon to remove the Complainant. The SO opens the two rear doors of the prisoner van, and he appears to unlock the door to the inner cage, when the doors fly open. The Complainant is then seen inside the prisoner van, lying on his back, and then slides to the open rear of the van. The Complainant is wearing only a tank top shirt and is otherwise completely naked. Despite having been handcuffed to the back at the scene, his handcuffed hands are now seen to be at the front of his body.

The Complainant is then removed from the wagon and is escorted to the sally port wall, with the SO on his left arm and WO #1 on his right. As WO #2 appears to be working to reposition the handcuffs, the Complainant lifts his right foot slightly backward, and WO #1 places his own right foot onto the Complainant’s foot, apparently to keep the Complainant’s right foot down on the floor.

At 11:07:06 p.m., as WO #2 positions herself behind the Complainant, presumably to reapply his handcuffs to the rear, the Complainant turns quickly to his left, toward the SO, and he raises his right knee toward the SO. Due to the positioning of WO #1, I am unable to determine if the Complainant’s raised knee actually made contact with the SO or not. WO #2 and WO #1 are seen to react by pushing the Complainant toward the sally port wall, while the SO delivers three punches to the Complainant; the first of which appears to land somewhere around the Complainant’s shoulder, the second to the back of his neck, and the third strikes the left side of his head.

The SO is then seen to grab the Complainant around the neck and spin him to the floor of the sally port. The Complainant’s arms appear not to be handcuffed at that point, which indicates that WO #2 had not yet been successful in reapplying the handcuffs behind the Complainant’s back. The Complainant is then carried inside to the police cells, where he is lodged for the night.

The following day, after being released, the Complainant went to the hospital where he was diagnosed as having sustained a concussion. A CT scan showed no abnormalities. The Complainant advised, however, that he now suffers from sensitivity to light in his right eye and he sometimes sees spots or flashes. The Complainant advised that when his eye adjusts from dark to light, or vice versa, he notices a sort of filmy appearance through the lens of his eye. The Complainant advised that other times he has no issues and that the issue he has with his right eye is minor in nature and he categorized it, on a scale of one to ten, with one being irritating and ten being unable to see, at a one.

While the Complainant was the only civilian witness present during his interaction with police at the police station, unfortunately he had little to no recall of the incident, other than what he had been told by others. In addition to the Complainant, during the course of this investigation, one other civilian witness to the incident at the house was interviewed, as was a medical doctor. Investigators also interviewed six police officers, including the SO, and reviewed the notes of two of those officers, along with written statements prepared by three of the officers. The SO did not provide his notes for review, as was his legal right. As indicated earlier, however, the entire incident wherein it appears that the Complainant was injured was captured on video and that video provided the bulk of the evidence upon which I relied to form my opinion.

According to the opinion of a medical expert as to the injury suffered by the Complainant, it was described as a ‘Scotoma’, which is a partial alteration in the field of vision that diminishes visual acuity. Other tests and scans ruled out a brain bleed or bleeding in the globes of the eyes. Unfortunately, without any tests having been done on the Complainant’s vision prior to his interaction with police on November 11^th, the doctors had only the Complainant’s own observations to go on. The expert further advised that Scotoma can be a possible symptom of a concussion, and like other concussion symptoms, such as dizziness or vomiting, Scotoma can last for only a brief period, or can have a longer lasting effect.

The 911 caller, who observed the Complainant throwing his property out onto the street and “going crazy”, observed WO #2 and WO #1 deal with the Complainant at the house. He described the Complainant as belligerent and saying terrible things to the police officers and that they were finally forced to subdue him by taking him to the ground on the grass and handcuffing him. The Complainant then resisted being placed into the police cruiser, so a prisoner transport wagon was called for. Once the Complainant was placed inside the wagon, it was observed to be rocking back and forth with the Complainant inside kicking and screaming. At no time was any police officer seen to strike the Complainant nor was he seen at that time to have any injuries.

The SO advised that he attended at the scene with the prisoner wagon and the Complainant was secured in the back where he began to kick the door and smash around. While en route to the division, the Complainant uttered death threats to the SO and continued to throw himself around the back of the wagon.

Upon arrival at the sally port area of LPS Headquarters, the SO advised WO #2 and WO #1 to be cautious of the Complainant when he exited, as his erratic behaviour appeared to have escalated.

The SO advised that as he and WO #1 opened the outer doors of the wagon, the Complainant kicked the inner doors open and they saw that he was wearing only a tank top and had moved his handcuffs to the front of his body. The SO described the situation as an officer safety concern, as the Complainant had already threatened to kill all three of the officers and their children, and he was now sweating profusely and appeared to be overheating. The SO opined that the Complainant may have been under the influence of illegal drugs. The SO advised that since the Complainant’s handcuffs were now in front of his body, and since he had already resisted police at his residence, the SO was of the view that the handcuffs should again be repositioned to the Complainant’s back.

The SO indicated that he and WO #1 took the Complainant to the search area of the sally port and he instructed WO #2 to take off the handcuffs and re-apply them to the rear. Once WO #2 had the first of the two handcuffs removed, the Complainant spun quickly and kicked the SO in the groin, causing the SO to lose control of the Complainant’s left arm. The SO then delivered three distractionary blows to the Complainant, one to his mid-section and two to his head. He advised that the blows were not delivered as retaliation for the kick to his groin, but to regain control of the Complainant who was assaultive and out of control. Additionally, the SO was of the view that the handcuff which was now dangling from the Complainant’s wrist could be used as a weapon.

The SO described the three blows as not being “haymakers”, which I assume to refer to wild, full force punches, but rather were ‘jabs’ that were used to regain control of the Complainant. The SO advised that he believed that these blows were the only option available to him at that time, since the police officers had lost control of a nimble and assaultive prisoner. Since the three officers were in such close proximity to the Complainant, the options of using the Oleoresin Capsicum (OC or pepper spray) or the Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW or Taser) were not viable options. The SO also opined that because the Complainant now had a handcuff he could use as a possible weapon, the SO had to act quickly.

When the blow to the Complainant’s side produced no reaction from the Complainant, the SO went on to deliver two blows to the Complainant’s head. The SO indicated that the blows were not meant to hurt the Complainant, but to distract him so that the police officers could regain control. The Complainant was then taken to the ground, onto his stomach, where he was again handcuffed behind his back and advised that he was now also being arrested for assaulting a police officer. When the Complainant was asked to stand, he refused to do so, as a result of which he was carried directly into the cell and the handcuffs were not removed.

The entirety of the SO’s evidence, with respect to what occurred and when, is consistent with the CCTV footage, with the exception of the knee to his groin, which I could not confirm on the video however the view in the area where the alleged kneeing occurred is blocked by the presence of WO #1.

Both of WO #2 and WO #1, however, advised that they observed that the Complainant made contact when he kneed the SO in the groin, with WO #2 describing the SO as moving backward immediately following being kneed and WO #1 indicating that as soon as the SO was assaulted, he punched the Complainant in the stomach and then in the face, in order to stop the threat and to gain compliance.

WO #4 advised that he heard someone yelling for help in the sally port area and he and WO #5 went to assist. WO #4 advised that he saw WO #1 and the SO trying to handcuff the Complainant, who was on his stomach on the ground and was flailing his legs while screaming and struggling with the officers as he attempted to break free. WO #4 advised that he put his foot on the Complainant’s heel in order to prevent him kicking the officers.

In these circumstances, it is fortunate that the CCTV footage of the sally port was available for review, as neither of WO #2 or WO #3, even after having reviewed the video which clearly revealed the SO delivering three punches to the Complainant, would admit that the SO had done so.

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 clear from the 911 call, as confirmed with witnesses at the scene, that the Complainant was behaving erratically, was throwing his property out onto his lawn and at passersby, and was “going crazy”. As such, the police were duty bound to attend and investigate to ensure the safety of both the Complainant and the community.

When the Complainant then became verbally aggressive, threatened to slit the officers’ throats, and began to make his way to an area where he had thrown a number of knives, police had reasonable grounds to arrest the Complainant for uttering threats. Additionally, while they did not verbalize as such, they also had reasonable grounds to apprehend the Complainant pursuant to the Mental Health Act due to his bizarre and illogical behaviour as being a danger to himself and others. As such, the apprehension and arrest of the Complainant was legally justified in the circumstances.

With respect to the amount of force used by officers, based on the evidence of the independent civilian witness at the scene, there is no question that no force, other than taking the Complainant to the ground to handcuff him, was used by the officers at the residence. In all likelihood, on all of the evidence, if the Complainant was injured, his injury occurred in the sally port area at the police station, although there is a possibility that he was injured either before the arrival of police[1] or while he was smashing about in the back of the prisoner transport wagon.

Turning then to the actions of the SO after the Complainant raised his knee to strike him in the groin, while WO #2 was attempting to re-apply the handcuffs to the Complainant behind his back. While it is unclear on the video whether or not the Complainant made any contact, I have no reason not to accept the evidence of all three of the officers, the SO, WO #1, and WO #2, that the Complainant did indeed knee the SO in the groin, there being no evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, while the entirety of the remaining evidence of the SO and WO #1 is fully confirmed by the CCTV footage, I find their version of events to be credible and I accept as truthful this one point that I could not observe as it is not captured by the video.

While it is true that if the SO punched the Complainant three times either out of anger at being assaulted by him, or as retaliation, that would not be a justified use of force, I have only the evidence of the SO as to his thinking process at the time. If I accept the SO’s reasoning for delivering the three jabs to the Complainant, that being that the Complainant was out of control, he was now in possession of a loose dangling handcuff which could be used as a weapon, and he had already assaulted the SO, I accept that his actions would have been justified in the circumstances and his actions would not amount to an excessive use of force.

I have further considered the SO’s rationale by which he discarded other possible use of force options as not being viable options in these particular circumstances where the Complainant and all three of the police officers were in close confines and any resort to either a CEW or the OC spray was as likely to disable one of the other officers, as it was the Complainant, and find his analysis to be well considered and reasonable in these respects.

While the SO’s evidence is fully confirmed by the CCTV footage, and the one particular which cannot be made out in the video[2] is consistent with the evidence of both of the other officers present, I find that I have no reason to reject the evidence of the SO and I accept it as being an accurate representation of his thinking process at the time. As such, while in all likelihood it was the punch to the Complainant’s head which caused his injury, I cannot find that the SO’s actions amount to an excessive use of force in these circumstances. I accept that the Complainant had been both combative and resistant at the scene, that he had fought the officers to avoid being placed in the police cruiser and then wildly and physically objected after he was placed in the prisoner transport van, he was verbally threatening to the officers, he had already assaulted the SO, the first punch to the Complainant’s mid-section had elicited no reaction from the Complainant, and he now had access to a potential weapon and was capable of doing even more harm if he was not subdued and subdued quickly.

In coming to the conclusion that the SO did not resort to an unjustified use of force when he delivered the three jabs to the Complainant, I have considered the ruling of 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.

Ultimately, while I find that the serious injury to the Complainant, if there was one, as the assessment was not entirely definitive, was caused by a blow by the SO to the Complainant’s head after the Complainant had assaulted the SO, and the Complainant was now in possession of a potential weapon with which he could inflict further injury against the police officers, I cannot find that the evidence is such as to satisfy me that I have reasonable grounds to believe that the SO’s actions were excessive and/or unjustified in these circumstances. I accept that the SO reacted quickly to what he perceived to be a dangerous situation and acted to bring the Complainant under control as quickly as possible and thereby ensure the safety of himself and his fellow officers. As such, I am satisfied on reasonable grounds that the actions resorted to by the SO, although not perfect, fell within the limits prescribed by the criminal law and that there are no grounds to believe that he committed a criminal offence and no charges will issue.

Date: April 4, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] he doctor’s notes indicate that the Complainant had indicated that he had had some sort of fight with his roommates. [Back to text]
• 2) [2] WO #1’s body obstructs the view as the Complainant moves towards the SO. [Back to text]