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 death of a 26-year-old man on May 22^nd, 2017.

Notification of the SIU

At approximately 12:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 23^rd, 2017, the Waterloo Regional Police Service (WRPS) notified the SIU to report an apparent drug overdose death. The WRPS reported that the EMS had been called to the address of the Complainant in Cambridge on the previous evening. Upon arrival, EMS found the Complainant, who was naked, being restrained on the floor of the residence by another occupant of the residence. The SO and WO #1 attended and assisted in controlling the Complainant. The Complainant, who had just been released from a rehabilitation facility, reportedly had a hypodermic needle embedded in his buttocks. The SO placed handcuffs on the Complainant at 10:33 p.m., following which the Complainant became Vital Signs Absent (VSA). The handcuffs were immediately removed and EMS began CPR. The Complainant was transported to the hospital where he was pronounced dead.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

The Forensic Investigators attended, recorded, and photographed the post-mortem examination.

Complainant

26-year-old male, deceased

Civilian witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary

WO #3 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary

WO #4 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary

Subject officers

SO #1 Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

On May 22^nd, 2017, the Complainant began to act very strangely, walking around the house with no clothes on and indicating he could see snakes everywhere. A hypodermic syringe was seen to be sticking out of the Complainant’s anus and it fell to the floor as he walked around. When despite efforts, the Complainant could not be calmed, but instead became more agitated and said he had to get outside to elude the snakes, 911 was called for assistance. When the Complainant then attempted to leave the house, other occupants of the residence tried to stop him by taking physical control of him.

A struggle ensued in the front room of the residence and a coffee table got overturned and a glass lamp got smashed on the floor. The Complainant was wrestled with and, while being held in a bear hug type manoeuvre, the Complainant was pinned down onto a love seat. The Complainant’s chest was on the seat cushion of the love seat and he was being held down from behind. The Complainant was held in that position for approximately eight minutes before an ambulance arrived.

Paramedics then entered the residence and saw an active struggle taking place. The paramedics determined they could not treat the Complainant while he was agitated and resisting, so they used their portable radio to call for police assistance.

Approximately eight minutes after the EMS crew had called the police, the SO arrived at the residence. The SO observed the paramedics standing inside the front door of the residence and that the Complainant was being restrained on the love seat. The SO immediately went to assist and handcuffed the Complainant’s left wrist. Due to the position of the person on the Complainant’s back, and the fact that the Complainant was attempting to pull his hands underneath his body, the SO had more difficulty with handcuffing the Complainant’s right wrist. After a very short struggle, the SO was able to pry out both of the Complainant’s arms out from under his body and placed them behind his back and applied the handcuffs.

At this point, the other occupant rolled off of the Complainant’s back and it became apparent that the Complainant was in medical distress. The Complainant was then positioned on his back on the floor with his hands still handcuffed behind his back. The paramedics moved in and requested the handcuffs be removed, which was immediately done, and a blood pressure cuff was applied to the Complainant’s arm. The Complainant was not breathing and was VSA. The paramedics worked on the Complainant while the fire department and WO #1 arrived. The Complainant was quickly placed on a back board and transported to hospital. At approximately 11:13 p.m., the Complainant was pronounced dead.

Cause of death

According to the records maintained by the Office of the Chief Coroner, the Complainant’s post-mortem examination was conducted at the hospital on May 23^rd, 2017.

The Pathologist performed a standard external examination of the Complainant and no injuries were identified to the Complainant’s neck. There were petechiae of the upper eyelids and cheeks. The Complainant had a 0.5 cm abrasion on his forehead, a 0.2 cm abrasion on his right cheek, and abrasions on both knees. Needle puncture marks were located on the Complainant’s right lower abdomen, left buttock, and left foot. A standard internal examination was conducted and no fractured bones were identified and all organs were intact and unremarkable.

The Pathologist concluded that the Complainant was known to abuse drugs in the past and used anabolic steroids to build muscle. There was evidence of previous and recent intravenous drug use. No significant injuries were found. Microscopy of the Complainant’s tissue revealed no underlying medical disease. There was verification of the presence of an illicit drug injection site on the dorsum of the left foot. The hospital testing revealed a presumptive positive for cocaine. The post-mortem vitreous analysis revealed a mild ketotic state. Post-mortem toxicology testing revealed cocaine and its breakdown product of metabolism. The Complainant’s cause of death was determined to be acute cocaine toxicity.

The scene

On May 23^rd, 2017, one SIU forensic investigator was requested to attend the hospital to take possession of the now deceased Complainant, and to secure his body for escort to the Pathology Unit of the hospital. At 3:30 a.m., the SIU FI took custody of the Complainant, who had already been placed into a body bag. A forensic seal was affixed to the bag and the Complainant was transported.

No examination, photographs or video were recorded at the scene.

Forensic evidence

No submissions were made to the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

Expert evidence

See Cause of Death above.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• File Cancellation - RCMP
• Letter to SIU re Disclosure
• List of Occurrence Involvements
• Notes of WO #s 1-4 and the SO
• Occurrence Reports and Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Details for numerous prior incidents involving the Complainant

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 May 22^nd, 2017, the Complainant was at his home in the City of Cambridge when it was noticed that he was behaving strangely. Apparently the Complainant had just been released after completing a 45 day rehabilitation program the day prior and was struggling with drug addiction including the abuse of cocaine, crystal methamphetamine and steroids. The Complainant was later located, in his basement bedroom, naked and appeared to be terrified, indicating that there were snakes in his room. As the Complainant was going upstairs, it was observed that he had a syringe stuck between his buttocks. When this was pointed out to the Complainant, he denied it and was obsessing that there were snakes everywhere. Once upstairs in the kitchen, the Complainant began to hallucinate and tried to leave the house, while the other occupants of the residence all tried to console and comfort the Complainant while preventing him from leaving the house. 911 was then called requesting ambulance assistance. As the occupants of the residence continued to try to control the Complainant, he was grabbed in a bear hug from behind and held onto a love seat.

A few minutes later, an ambulance arrived and paramedics were requested to give the Complainant Narcan (a medication used for the complete or partial reversal of opioid overdose) to calm him, but the paramedics advised that they did not have any and that they would have to wait for the police to arrive. The paramedics indicated that the Complainant was too violent for them to assess him and it would be unsafe for the paramedics to proceed prior to the police arrival to restrain him. One of the paramedics then called Waterloo Regional Police for assistance.

The SO received the call when he was three blocks from the Complainant’s residence and immediately attended. He observed the paramedics standing inside the front door of the house and he walked past them. The SO observed the Complainant being restrained by another occupant of the residence, who was lying on the Complainant’s back, and the SO entered the living room, grabbed the Complainant’s left wrist and, after a ten to 30 second struggle, the SO was able to handcuff the Complainant’s left hand. The other occupant then slid off of the Complainant and the SO was able to pull the Complainant’s other arm behind his back and handcuff both hands.

The SO then indicated to the paramedics words to the effect of “there you go”, whereupon they began to provide medical assistance to the Complainant, while the SO and the other occupants of the residence all moved out of the living room to give them room to work. Shortly thereafter, the SO and the other occupants were all advised that the Complainant had gone into cardiac arrest and was transported to hospital, where he was pronounced dead shortly thereafter.

On all of the evidence, and based on the statements of five independent civilian witnesses, it is not in dispute that the SO did not apply any force other than that required to handcuff the Complainant; at no time was any other physical force or any use of force option resorted to. One of the civilian witnesses specifically indicated in his statement that he had no issue with the actions of the SO and felt, with the Complainant hallucinating, that the SO did the correct thing by handcuffing him.

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 statements of all persons present that the Complainant was in medical distress and was violent as a result of his hallucinations. The assistance of paramedics was requested to get the Complainant the help that he needed. Due to his aggressive and violent actions, the paramedics could not, or would not, assess the Complainant until he was restrained and they, in turn, requested the assistance of police. On this evidence, it is clear that the SO was acting in the course of his duties in restraining and handcuffing the Complainant in order that the paramedics could provide him the medical assistance he required without putting themselves at risk. As such, the apprehension and handcuffing of the Complainant was legally justified in the circumstances.

With respect to the amount of force used by the SO in order to restrain and handcuff the Complainant, it is undisputed on all of the evidence that the force he used was minimal and only enough to handcuff the Complainant in order that the paramedics could assist him. As soon as the Complainant was handcuffed, the SO stepped back and allowed Emergency Medical Services to treat the Complainant and he had no further interaction with him. As the toxicology results confirm[1], there is no question on the facts here that the Complainant’s tragic death was not caused by the actions of the SO, who was acting at all times appropriately, professionally and in direct response to the emergency situation that was ongoing at that time for which both the other occupants of the residence and the paramedics were requesting his immediate assistance. It is further notable that at no time did any of the civilian witnesses make any complaint about the actions of the SO; on the whole, it appeared that there was a general feeling of relief when the SO arrived and subdued the Complainant so that he could get the help that he so desperately needed. In this particular instance, however, it was too late for the Complainant, whose life was tragically cut short.

In conclusion, on all of the evidence, there is no complaint regarding the actions of the SO and absolutely no evidence upon which I can find any reasonable grounds to believe that the SO did anything other than what was appropriate and pursuant to his duties. As such, there is no basis for the laying of criminal charges and none shall issue.

Date: March 15, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] The post-mortem report, which was received by the SIU on January 26th, 2018, concluded that acute cocaine toxicity was the cause of the Complainant’s death. [Back to text]