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 injuries suffered by a 22-year-old man on September 30, 2016, during an interaction with police who were investigating allegations against another person.

Notification of the SIU

On September 30, 2016, at 10:15 p.m., the Peterborough Police Service (PPS) notified the SIU of the serious injuries sustained by the Complainant during an encounter with uniformed police officers on a railway trestle two and one-half hours prior.

PPS reported that at 7:35 p.m. on September 30, 2016, police officers responded to a large disturbance at the local Tim Hortons restaurant on George Street. As the police officers arrived, they were directed to a railway bridge where they saw a man and a woman engaged in a sexual act. The man was later identified as the Complainant and the woman was identified as Civilian Witness (CW) #1.

Police officers approached the pair and CW #1 fled. The Complainant walked across the train tracks and stood on a cement embankment. One of the police officers engaged the Complainant in conversation and during the encounter, the Complainant fell off the embankment to the hard ground 3.35 metres below. He suffered a massive skull fracture and was eventually rushed to the hospital in Toronto.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

SIU Forensic Investigators responded to the scene and identified and preserved evidence. They documented the relevant scenes associated with the incident by way of notes, photography, sketches and measurements. The Forensic Investigators assisted in making submissions to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS).

Complainant:

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

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed[1]

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

WO #5 Interviewed

Subject Officers

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

During the evening of September 30, 2016, the Complainant was with CW #1. CW #1 was alleged to be harassing and spitting on patrons in the parking lot of the Peterborough Tim Horton’s on George Street North. CW #2 called 911, and advised police that CW #1 and the Complainant were on nearby railway tracks, heading towards the railroad bridge.

The SO, WO #1 and WO #3 responded to the call and located the Complainant on the concrete embankment at the southwest end of the railroad bridge. CW #1 had run away and was located on the embankment underneath the bridge.

The SO spoke to the Complainant, who was agitated and angry. He was observed to be walking in circles, and so the SO directed the Complainant to sit down. The Complainant stepped backwards instead. He then fell off the side of the embankment and struck his head on the concrete slab over 3 metres below.

An ambulance was called and the Complainant was taken to a local hospital, and then to the CCU unit of a hospital in Toronto. His injuries consisted of a basal skull fracture, nasal bone fracture, left sphenoid and temporal bone fractures and a comminuted fracture of the left temporal bone, as well as fractures of the left lateral sphenoid, clivus and carotid canal.

Scene

Scene Diagram

Forensic Evidence

A vial of the Complainant’s blood was sent to the CFS for analysis.

On December 8, 2016, CFS results of the blood analysis were received. Analysis confirmed the presence of cocaine and cannabinoids. The blood/alcohol ratio was 300 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, just under four times the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence.

Surveillance video was obtained from the nearby Tim Horton’s. The video clearly shows the activities of CW #1 and the Complainant while inside the Tim Hortons and in the front parking lot. However the camera range does not show a view of anything east of the west curb of George Street North or in the area of the railway bridge.

A photo of the Complainant in the Critical Care Unit (CCU) of the hospital in Toronto was also received.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Arrest Report of CW #1
• Disclosure letter regarding radio transmissions
• Disclosure Letter
• Disclosure Log
• Event Details from the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) report
• Involved Officer List
• Involved Persons List
• Notes of WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4 and WO #5
• Person Detail File of the Complainant
• Property Receipt for Scenes of Crime Officer (SOCO) Photos
• Supplementary Occurrence Report of SOCO, and
• Unit History from CAD

On September 30, 2016, the SO, WO #1 and WO #3 were dispatched to the Tim Hortons restaurant on George Street North in the City of Peterborough in response to a call about a large disturbance in the parking lot. Upon arrival, the persons involved in the disturbance had left the scene and officers were directed to a nearby railway bridge where police interacted with the Complainant and CW #1. Following this interaction, the Complainant was transported to hospital and was found to have sustained fractures to his skull, nasal bone, left sphenoid, left lateral sphenoid, clivus, carotid canal, temporal bone and a comminuted fracture of the left temporal bone.

During the course of this investigation, two civilian witnesses, in addition to the Complainant, were interviewed and four police witnesses; the SO declined to make himself available to be interviewed and did not provide his memo book for review. Additionally, investigators had access to the memo books of five witness officers and the communications recordings and log.

The Complainant has no memory of any events after seeing a police officer on the scene and walking over to him, until waking up in the CCU several days later.

CW #1 also had limited recollection of the events of that evening. CW #1 had no recollection of what caused the Complainant’s injuries, nor did she see the Complainant have any interaction with any police officer.

WO #3 advised that he responded to a disturbance at Tim Hortons and was advised that CW #1 was harassing customers in the parking lot and spitting on people. Upon arrival, he spoke with CW #2 who described CW #1 as aggressive, agitated, harassing customers and spitting on them; CW #2 told him that she also believed CW #1 to be highly intoxicated. WO #3 was advised by CW #2 that CW #1 had left the parking lot and was walking along the train tracks with the Complainant. WO #1 and the SO then drove their cruisers to the train tracks in an attempt to locate CW #1; five minutes later WO #3 heard that CW #1 and the Complainant had been located on the bridge and WO #3 drove to that location and began to walk east along the tracks toward the bridge. WO #3 observed the SO speaking with the Complainant, who was about 3 metres south of the SO on the opposite side of the tracks; WO #3 observed both the SO and the Complainant to be stationary. From approximately 6 metres away, WO #3 heard the SO tell the Complainant to sit down, but the Complainant did not respond. WO #3 described the Complainant as shirtless, very agitated and irate and he began to walk in circles. WO #3 observed the Complainant standing on a concrete slab at the southwest corner of the bridge and he began to take a few steps backward, when he suddenly fell straight backwards. WO #3 ran toward the Complainant and found him about 3 metres below track level lying on his back on a slab of landscaping flagstone; the Complainant was unconscious and snoring, while drawing deep heavy breaths, and blood was oozing from his left ear. The SO immediately called for an ambulance. Within minutes, the Complainant’s breathing became very shallow and then stopped, whereupon the SO immediately began CPR; after approximately 15 to 30 seconds, the Complainant resumed breathing but was still unconscious and the SO ceased CPR.

After the arrival of emergency personnel, the Complainant, who was semi-conscious, actively resisted paramedics and had to be strapped onto the back board with restraints. WO #3 noted that the Complainant had substantial swelling to the left side of his head below the left ear. The Complainant continually told paramedics that he did not wish to go to hospital.

WO #1, who also attended at the railway bridge, observed the Complainant and was speaking with him when the Complainant lost his balance and fell forward towards WO #1; at that point, WO #1 told the Complainant to sit down on the concrete piling at the bridge. Upon the arrival of the SO, WO #1 left the area in search of CW #1 and did not see how the Complainant came to be injured.

In the absence of a statement from the SO, and with the lack of memory of both the Complainant and CW #1, the only available evidence as to how the Complainant was injured is that of WO #3, who saw the Complainant step backwards, of his own volition, and suddenly fall. At the time of this observation, no police officers were in physical contact with the Complainant. I also take the observations of WO #1, however, wherein he earlier saw the Complainant lose his balance and fall forwards, as some corroborative evidence of the condition of the Complainant leading up to his being injured. Additionally, the utterances made over the radio by the SO that the Complainant had fallen off the bridge and that he, the SO, was administering CPR and that an ambulance was urgently required, is also some further evidence corroborating the evidence of WO #3.

The medical records of the Complainant indicate that a blood sample was taken from the Complainant on October 1, 2016, and the toxicology screening of that sample revealed the Complainant to have 300 milligrams of ethyl alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood in his system, almost four times the limit at which one can legally operate a motor vehicle; the presence of cocaine and cannabinoids was also confirmed. It should be noted that this sample was taken the day following this incident, and that due to the rate of elimination of alcohol in the body, his blood/alcohol level would have been even higher at the time when he sustained his injuries.

I find that the Complainant’s injuries were caused by his own actions without any direct involvement by the police officers present; that the SO, WO #1 and WO #3 were each carrying out their duties in investigating allegations of a disturbance and possible assault having occurred at the Tim Hortons Restaurant and, having received information that CW #1 had left the area in the company of the Complainant, the officers had a duty to speak with the Complainant and CW #1 to obtain their version of events and to identify the parties involved. There is no evidence, on this record, that any police officer had any physical contact with the Complainant before he stepped backwards and fell. On the evidence of WO #3, which is the only evidence available, the Complainant was apparently very agitated, irate and walking in circles; the SO asked the Complainant to sit down but the Complainant neither responded nor did he sit down; the Complainant then took a few steps backwards, while the SO stood some 3 metres away, and suddenly fell straight backwards. As indicated earlier, I find some support for this evidence in the evidence of WO #1, wherein he earlier observed the Complainant to lose his balance and fall forward; in the communications recording where the SO is heard to state that the Complainant had fallen; and in the toxicology findings with respect to the extremely high level of alcohol and the presence of cocaine and cannabinoids in the Complainant’s system at the time that he was injured, which would most certainly have impaired his balance and judgment.

On a review of all of the evidence, it is clear that no police officer was involved in the Complainant’s fall and his subsequent injuries. The SO, WO #1 and WO #3 were carrying out their duties as required in searching for and speaking with the Complainant and CW #1, in order to further their investigation, when the Complainant fell and was seriously injured. On a review of the record, I can find no evidence to indicate that the Complainant’s fall was anything other than an unfortunate accident possibly brought about by his own significant state of impairment and there are no reasonable grounds to find that any criminal offence has been committed.

Date: December 4, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] WO #2’s involvement was limited to scene preservation. [Back to text]