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 an 86-year-old man during his interaction with police on June 22^nd, 2017.

Notification of the SIU

At approximately 1:18 a.m. on June 23^rd, 2017, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of the custody injury to the Complainant.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Complainant:

86-year-old male, due to a medical condition, was unable to provide a comprehensive statement; medical records were obtained and reviewed

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

Subject Officers

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right

At approximately 8:30 p.m. on June 22^nd, 2017, OPP police officers responded to a nursing home in St. Thomas. At the time, the Complainant, age 86 and suffering from dementia, was threatening staff with a wood carving and an umbrella. When the police officers arrived, they tried to reason with the Complainant; however, he swung the carving at the police officers and subsequently lost his balance and fell to the floor. The Complainant complained his head hurt and was transported by ambulance to hospital.

Nature of Injury/Treatment

The Complainant was admitted to hospital where he was diagnosed with an ‘intertrochanteric (to the upper part of the hip bone) fracture without significant angulation or alignment and some mild comminution in the level of the lesser trochanter’ of the right hip. Surgery was required to mend the fractured hip.

The Scene

On Monday, June 26^th, 2017, at 9:45 a.m., an SIU forensic investigator attended the nursing home and took photographs of the Complainant’s room. The Complainant lived alone in his room. The room had a bed with a night table, an armchair, a reclining chair, and a bathroom. Across from the bed, a chest of drawers and a desk top were built into the cabinetry. A photograph was taken of the umbrella on the bed and a piece of driftwood that was brought to the room by staff.

Forensic evidence

No submissions were made to the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

Video/audio/photographic evidence

None located.

Communications recordings

The police transmission communication recordings were obtained and reviewed, as well as the communications log.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Brief Mental Health Screener
• Event Details Report
• General Occurrence Report
• Notes of WO #s 1 and 2
• Occurrence Details Report
• Occurrence Summary Reports (x2)
• Police Transmission Communications Recordings
• OPP Interview Report of CW #1
• Procedure-Managing the Mentally Disordered, and
• Supplementary Occurrence Report

Material obtained from other sources:

• Ambulance call report and medical records of Complainant

On June 22^nd, 2017, the Complainant, an 86-year-old resident of a nursing home suffering from dementia, became aggressive and began to threaten staff members with an umbrella and a jagged piece of driftwood. Staff members managed to convince the Complainant to return to his room; however, they were unable to administer the necessary medication in order to calm him. Subsequently, the Elgin County Detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) was contacted and the SO, WO #1 and WO #2 attended, along with two paramedics. The Complainant was later transported to hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured hip which required surgery to repair.

During the course of this investigation, six civilian witnesses were interviewed. The Complainant was unable, due to his medical condition, to provide a statement. Additionally, two police witnesses were interviewed and provided their memorandum book notes for review. The subject officer declined to either provide a statement or his memo book notes, as was his legal right. Due to the Complainant’s inability to provide a statement, and the fact that none of the civilian witnesses present in the hall of the nursing home were able to see what occurred inside of the Complainant’s room during his interaction with police, SIU investigators had only the direct evidence of the two witness police officers as to what transpired inside the Complainant’s room that led to his injury.

According to staff at the nursing home, the Complainant was aggressive and in an uncontrollable rage on June 22^nd, 2017, insisting that he wished to leave the nursing home and threatening staff with an umbrella that he held over his head, and later a piece of driftwood, while indicating that he was going to kill them. Nursing staff contacted the on-call doctor and it was decided that police should be called.

Several civilian witnesses observed the first police officer, the SO, arrive and he was observed standing in the doorway of the Complainant’s room for about 45 minutes, trying to speak to the Complainant and to calm him. Two additional officers, WO #1 and WO #2, then attended and the Complainant was observed to exit his room from time to time and swing one of his weapons at them. The two paramedics then also arrived and waited in the hallway while the officers continued to attempt to negotiate with the Complainant. A civilian witness advised that during her observations, the police officers were at all times professional in their attempts to calm the Complainant, while a second witness, who also heard the police officers talking to the Complainant from where they were standing outside of his room, described them as appearing very calm and using good communication skills to distract the Complainant.

At one point, the Complainant was heard to tell the police officers to “Just shoot me. Just kill me. Get it over with”. The three police officers entered the Complainant’s room and then, shortly thereafter, a noise was heard coming from the room and then an umbrella and a wood carving came sliding out of the room into the hallway.

Upon looking into the room, a witness then observed the Complainant sitting on the floor with the three officers and possibly a paramedic around him and the Complainant said something about his head hurting and later that his right hip hurt. One of the officers was overheard to say that the Complainant may have struck his head on the wall when he fell and that he tried to take the Complainant’s weight when he was falling.

Another civilian witness advised that the three police officers had tried to negotiate with the Complainant from outside of his room for about an hour, when he raised the wood carving over his head, and the officers converged on him and entered the room. The umbrella and the wood carving were then seen to come sliding out of the room and an officer was overheard to say that the Complainant had fallen backwards and struck his head against the wall and that one of the police officers had tried to break his fall.

The two paramedics also observed the police officers speaking with the Complainant, trying to get him to set his weapons down, and both paramedics described the police officers as remaining calm throughout. The three police officers were then seen to enter the room, and the umbrella was heard to come out of the room and the wood carving drop to the floor, immediately following which an officer called for the paramedics to come into the room. One of the police officers was overheard to say that they tried to grab the Complainant and that the Complainant’s fall was a controlled fall in that the police officers had the Complainant by his arms and were able to lower him slowly. No police officer was observed at any time with his use of force equip.m.ent in hand.

Another civilian witness observed the Complainant then sitting on the floor, with the shortest of the three police officers kneeling behind him, and it appeared to the witness as though the Complainant and the police officer had fallen backwards. The witness advised that that police officer then told her that the Complainant had fallen backwards and it was a soft fall but he had hit his head on the wall on the way down; the officer also explained that he had tried to guide the Complainant down gently.

The evidence of both WO #2 and WO #1 is fully consistent with the evidence of the five civilian witnesses who were present as to what occurred up until the point when the officers entered the Complainant’s room. WO #2 advised that after about one hour of unsuccessful negotiations with the Complainant from outside of the room, it was decided by all three officers that they would have to disarm the Complainant, at which point the SO stepped toward the Complainant and lunged for the wood carving in his right hand, followed by WO #1 and WO #2. WO #2 advised that he saw the wood carving slide across the floor and out of the room just as he was entering.

WO #1 advised that WO #2 asked the Complainant to hand over the piece of wood, while at the same time the SO moved towards the Complainant. The Complainant then moved to strike the SO, when he suddenly lost his balance and began to fall. WO #1 indicated that as soon as the Complainant began to fall, he tried to grab his left side while the SO reached for his right side, in order to prevent the Complainant’s fall; however, each police officer was only able to slow the Complainant’s fall and he subsequently landed on his buttocks, striking his head on the nearest wall, before either of the SO or WO #1 made any physical contact with him.

WO #2 advised that he observed the Complainant stumble and fall backwards, while the SO simultaneously reached out to keep him from falling. WO #2 saw the Complainant strike the back of his head on the wall prior to any contact between either of WO #1 or the SO, and WO #2 advised that the Complainant was already falling and had struck his head before the SO was able to reach for him to soften the fall.

I accept the evidence of WO #1 and WO #2 as to what occurred inside the room with the Complainant, for the following reasons:

The five civilian witnesses fully confirmed the evidence of the two police officers as to what occurred prior to their entry into the Complainant’s room;

The evidence of the civilian witnesses of what they heard going on inside the room, after the entry of the police officers, is consistent with the evidence of both police officers;

The evidence of the civilian witnesses as to what they were told by the police officers immediately after the incident as well as the utterances of the three police officers which were overheard by civilian witnesses, are all fully consistent with the evidence of WO #1 and WO #2 as to what happened inside the room; and, finally

The evidence of both of WO #1 and WO #2 is not contradicted in any way by any of the other witnesses, nor is it contradicted by the physical evidence at the scene.

As such, I accept, on all of the available evidence, that as the three officers were entering the Complainant’s room and the SO was reaching for the makeshift weapon in the possession of the Complainant at the time, that the Complainant attempted to strike the SO, resulting in his losing his footing and falling to the floor. I further accept that both of WO #1 and the SO reached out to either prevent, or soften, the Complainant’s fall, but that they were unable to reach him in time.

I find support in this conclusion based on the evidence of CW #5, wherein she observed one police officer seated on the floor directly behind where the Complainant was seated and she opined that they had fallen to the floor together, and that she formed that opinion prior to the officer then relating to her that that was in fact what had occurred.

In conclusion, based on the facts as I have found them and as are outlined above, I am unable to find reasonable grounds to believe that any police officer assaulted the Complainant or resorted to an excessive use of force. On all of the evidence, it appears that all three police officers behaved calmly and professionally in their dealings with the Complainant, and that other than reaching out to take the weapon from him, there was in fact no physical contact between police and the Complainant prior to his losing his balance and falling to the floor, striking his head and injuring his hip. Even in reaching for the weapon in the Complainant’s possession, I accept that the SO did not actually make any physical contact with the Complainant prior to him suddenly attempting to strike the SO with the piece of wood, and in doing so, losing his footing and falling to the floor.

In the final analysis, there is no evidence upon which I can reasonably find that any police officer resorted to an excessive use of force against the Complainant, nor even that any police officer made any physical contact at all with the Complainant, prior to his fall and subsequent injury, and that therefore there is no causal connection between the actions of the SO, WO #1, or WO #2, and the injury sustained by the Complainant. I am, therefore, satisfied on reasonable grounds on this record that the actions exercised by the officers fell within the limits prescribed by the criminal law and there are no grounds for proceeding with charges in this case.

Date: March 26, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit