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 54-year-old woman during her arrest on May 18^th, 2017.

Notification of the SIU

At approximately 12:10 p.m. on June 23^rd, 2017, the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) notified the SIU of the custody injured sustained by the Complainant.

The OPS reported that on June 22^nd, 2017 at 4:00 p.m., the Complainant called to report that she had been arrested under the Mental Health Act (MHA) on May 18^th, 2017 at 4:00 p.m., near Orleans Boulevard and Fortune Drive in the suburb of Orleans in the City of Ottawa.

The Complainant indicated that her wrist had been fractured during the apprehension and that she wanted to report the injury to the OPS.

The OPS confirmed that on May 18^th, 2017, at 4:00 p.m., OPS Communications had received a call regarding a distraught woman.

WO #2 had located the Complainant, who indicated to her that she wanted to jump from the overpass into traffic. The Complainant smelled of an intoxicant and was sitting on the sidewalk.

The Complainant was then apprehended under the MHA and agreed to go to the hospital. En route to the hospital, in the cruiser, the Complainant complained about her wrist being sore and an ambulance was called and paramedics transported her to hospital.

The Complainant was examined but no fracture was located.

The Complainant reported that she then received a call from the radiology department and was informed that there had been an error on the initial diagnosis and that she did, in fact, have a fracture to her right wrist.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Complainant:

54-year-old female interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

Subject Officers

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

On May 18^th, 2017 at 4:00 p.m., WO #2, WO #1, the SO, and WO #3, responded to a distraught woman threatening to jump off the bridge near Orleans Boulevard and Fortune Drive in the Suburb of Orleans in the City of Ottawa.

The Complainant was apprehended under the MHA and agreed to go to the hospital with WO #2. While en route to the hospital, WO #2 noticed that the Complainant had lapsed into unconsciousness and was in medical distress.

WO #2 immediately stopped her police vehicle and requested EMS to attend. The Complainant was carefully removed from the rear of the police vehicle and placed on the ground by the attending police officers.

While on the ground, the Complainant regained consciousness and immediately became aggressive and combative with the officers, kicking WO #3 in the thigh and glancing the SO’s chin with her fist.

The Complainant was immediately restrained and carefully and gently taken to the ground, at which time the paramedics injected a sedative to calm her down. The paramedics transported the Complainant to hospital, where she was examined and x-rays were taken because of a complaint of a sore wrist.

The Complainant was subsequently released and no fracture was detected.

The Complainant was then contacted by the radiology department the following day and advised that she did, in fact, have a fracture to the right wrist.

The Complainant reported the injury to the OPS on June 22^nd, 2017.

Nature of Injury/Treatment

The Complainant’s x-rays were reviewed relating to the May 18^th, 2017 incident and compared to images on file for the Complainant dating back to 2015. The Complainant had previously been diagnosed with osteoarthritis and she suffers from degenerative arthritis in her right wrist.

It was confirmed that the Complainant did in fact have an un-displaced fracture of the right ulna-styloid. The severity of the fracture was likened to that of a serious sprain and no surgery or further treatment was recommended. The Complainant had been provided with a splint at the time of her initial treatment for the purposes of immobilizing her wrist for a few days.

The mechanism to cause this injury was opined as not needing to be significant and could have occurred from a squeeze of the wrist, contact with metal, such as handcuffs or the rails of the gurney, or from a fall.

The Scene

There was no scene examined in relation to this incident due to the passage of time.

Forensic Evidence

No submissions were made to the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

None located due to the passage of time.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Detailed Call Summary
• General Occurrence Report
• Notes of WO #s 1-3

Materials obtained from other sources :

• Medical records of the Complainant and ambulance call report

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.

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 May 18^th, 2017 at approximately 4:00 p.m., a 911 call was received by the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) reporting that a woman was on the bridge near Orleans Boulevard and Fortune Drive in the City of Ottawa and was threatening to jump. WO #2, WO #1, the SO, and WO #3 responded and the Complainant was ultimately apprehended under the Mental Health Act and was taken to hospital. Once at hospital, the Complainant was not committed involuntarily, and refused to remain on a voluntary basis, and was released after having x-rays performed of her wrist in which no fractures were discovered. The Complainant, however, received a call from the radiology department two days later and was told that her right wrist was indeed fractured.

On June 22^nd, 2017, the Complainant contacted the OPS and indicated that she had been injured during her apprehension on May 18^th, 2017 and the SIU was notified.

It is alleged that after the Complainant was apprehended by the OPS under the MHA, as a result of her attempt to take her own life, and while she was being transported to hospital, she lost consciousness due to her heavy alcohol consumption. It is alleged that after the police cruiser was brought to a stop, she was pulled out of the cruiser by her wrists and placed on the ground. She reached out with both arms to break her fall onto the asphalt. When she was handcuffed, she immediately felt pain in her wrist. It is alleged that the Complainant’s wrist was fractured in one of three ways: either when the police officers pulled her out of the SUV by her wrists, or when she was handcuffed on the roadway, or when she put her arms out to break her fall.

Based on the Complainant’s own evidence, I find that her version of events lacks the necessary elements which would give me reasonable grounds to believe that police officers exercised an excessive use of force in this matter as the Complainant attributed her injury as occurring in one of three ways, that being when they pulled her out of the SUV by her wrists, when she was handcuffed, or when she put out her arms to break her fall. On her evidence alone, I would not qualify any of these actions as an excessive use of force.

Furthermore, it is clear on the medical evidence that the Complainant had been previously diagnosed with osteoarthritis and that she suffered from degenerative arthritis in her right wrist; the medical expert who reviewed the Complainant’s x-rays opined that although the Complainant had sustained an un-displaced fracture of the right ulna-styloid, he likened the severity of the fracture to that of a serious sprain and indicated that the amount of force required to cause the injury would not need to have been significant, but could have been caused from a squeeze of the wrist, from a fall, or from contact between the wrist and metal, such as the handcuffs or the rails on the stretcher.

During the course of this investigation, four civilian witnesses were interviewed, including the Complainant herself; additionally, all four police officers who had contact with the Complainant, including the subject officer, were interviewed.

The Complainant, in her statement, confirmed the evidence of all four police officers in that there was no force whatsoever required to get the Complainant off the bridge and into WO #2’s police vehicle, as the Complainant entered the cruiser willingly and unassisted.

With respect to the allegations as to the Complainant being pulled from the cruiser by her wrists and then taken to the ground, while neither of the paramedics were present at that point, I note that all four police officers indicated that when the Complainant was removed from the vehicle she was unconscious, and each officer in turn described her as being gently pulled from the vehicle, feet first, not by her wrists, and then laid onto the grass nearby where she was placed in the recovery position and monitored until the arrival of paramedics. Each officer, in their statements, was also consistent in that the Complainant was not forcefully taken to the ground at that point, but rather that she was carried from the car, in her unconscious state, and laid down on the grass, and not on the roadway as alleged by the Complainant. This evidence is confirmed by the two paramedics who responded to the call to assist the Complainant and found her lying on the grass with police officers standing nearby when they arrived.

Both of the two attending paramedics also confirmed the evidence of the police officers present that the Complainant was lying unconscious on the ground upon their arrival; as such, I am unable to accept the Complainant’s version of events that she was either pulled from the cruiser by the wrists or that she was forcefully taken down to the ground on the roadway, and that she put out her arms in order that she not fall face down onto the roadway, as she was clearly unconscious from the time that the cruiser pulled over until after the arrival of the paramedics and as such she could not have been aware either of how she was removed from the cruiser or how she came to be on the grass.

The evidence of all four police officers to the effect that once the Complainant was on the grass (and was being attended to by the paramedics), she grabbed onto CW #2’s ankle and then suddenly got to her feet and began to shout profanities and swing her fists and kick her legs at the police officers and the paramedics, is also fully supported by CW #2, who described her ankle being vigorously grabbed by the Complainant, following which the Complainant quickly stood up and became very aggressive, combative, and angry, swinging both of her fists at CW #2. The two male police officers and WO #2 were described as then moving in to control and restrain the Complainant, who was very unsteady on her feet, displaying mood swings and intermittently slurring her speech. All of the police officers were further described as being very professional and speaking calmly to the Complainant while she began to swing her fists at the officers and physically charged at them. A civilian witness indicated that she believed a couple of the Complainant’s swings struck the officers in the face. This evidence corroborates the evidence of the police officers that the Complainant kicked WO #3 in the upper thigh and then directed a punch at the SO, which grazed his chin.

The civilian witness also confirmed the evidence of all four police officers that, in an attempt to restrain and subdue the Complainant after she began to attack all of the emergency personnel present, the police officers and a paramedic together took hold of the Complainant and gently took her down onto the grass on her stomach, where she continued to kick out and was actively resistant. The Complainant was then sedated by a paramedic and WO #2 indicated that she then placed handcuffs on the Complainant, behind her back. Once the Complainant was placed on the stretcher, she was then handcuffed to the rails of the gurney, as is police procedure, and was put in the ambulance, where she again lost consciousness while en route to hospital. Once at the hospital, the Complainant again regained consciousness and became combative, attacking the attending physicians and nursing staff, and had to be physically restrained by hospital staff.

While CW #3 was not always present with the Complainant, CW #2 was present during the entire interaction between the Complainant and police after the Complainant regained consciousness and she fully confirmed the evidence of all four police officers that they used very little force against the Complainant and were able to carefully take her to the ground, while her head was supported, so that she would not injure herself. Furthermore, CW #2 corroborated that the Complainant was not handcuffed when paramedics first arrived and that she was only handcuffed after she was taken down onto the lawn the second time after attacking emergency personnel. In her statement, in reference to the police officers’ handling of the Complainant, CW #2 used words such as ‘gently’ and ‘carefully’. CW #2 specifically indicated that at no time did she observe any police officer use any force by way of twisting or grasping tightly the hands or arms of the Complainant, while CW #3 verified that at no time did any officer resort to any of the use of force options in their possession, nor did any officer exert any physical force against the Complainant.

After having considered all of the evidence, I am unable to accept the version of events as proffered by the Complainant, due to the fact that she was unconscious both when she was removed from the SUV and when she was initially taken to the ground, that she was severely intoxicated, that she was suffering from an altered state of mind and that she was sedated by paramedics, but most importantly, that her version of events is fully contradicted by the two civilian witnesses, who fully support the evidence of all four police officers.

On the basis of the medical opinion that the Complainant’s fracture, which he described as the equivalent of a serious sprain, in combination with her medical condition, could have occurred in the absence of any significant force, and was consistent with being caused by as little as a squeeze of the wrist or contact with metal or from a fall, I find that her injury very likely occurred either when she was struggling with her handcuffs on, when she was handcuffed to the gurney, or when she was combative with medical staff and had to be subdued and restrained by them at hospital.

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 on all of the evidence that the police officers had reasonable and probable grounds to apprehend the Complainant under s.17 of the Mental Health Act as being a person who was threatening bodily harm to herself. As such, the apprehension of the Complainant was legally justified in the circumstances.

With respect to the amount of force used by police officers in their efforts to apprehend the Complainant and transport her to hospital, I find that they used no more than the minimal amount of force required to subdue her, when she was acting out violently towards all emergency personnel, and to place the handcuffs on her. I fully accept the evidence of CW #2, who was at all times present with the Complainant after she regained consciousness and during her subsequent interaction with police, in her description of the actions by the officers as being gentle and careful and using very little force, that they acted at all times to minimize any harm to the Complainant caused by her own actions, and that their behaviour was at all times very professional and calm.

While I accept that it is possible that the Complainant injured her wrist when she was placed in handcuffs and she continued to struggle and resist, or when she was handcuffed to the gurney, I find that it is as likely that she was injured when she regained consciousness at the hospital and was attacking the medical staff who then had to physically subdue her. If the Complainant’s injury was, however, caused by the police officers when they tried to restrain her and get her into the ambulance, I cannot find that to have been an excessive use of force. In coming to this conclusion, I am mindful of the state of the law that officers are not expected to measure the degree of their responsive force to a nicety (R. v. Baxter (1975) 27 C.C.C. (2d) 96 (Ont. C.A.)) nor should they be judged to a standard of perfection (R. v. Nasogaluak [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206.).

On all of the credible evidence, I find that the police officers were extremely patient and considerate of the Complainant’s situation and used only the absolute minimum amount of force to restrain her. While the police officers were not in possession of the information of the Complainant’s medical condition, nor did they know that something as slight as grasping onto her wrist could lead to a fractured bone, even had they had that information, I cannot find that they could have dealt with the Complainant in any gentler fashion than they did, while still protecting her from harm at her own hands.

In the final analysis, I am satisfied for the foregoing reasons that the Complainant’s apprehension and the manner in which it was carried out was lawful notwithstanding the injury which she may have suffered, even were I to find that the officers caused the injury, which is speculative at best. I am, therefore, satisfied on reasonable grounds on this record that the actions exercised by the officers fell well within the limits prescribed by the criminal law, that they used no more than the absolute minimum force required to protect the Complainant from harm, and that their actions, which exhibited patience, caring, and consideration of the state of crisis in which the Complainant found herself, were not only acceptable, but were commendable in the circumstances. On these facts, there is not a shred of evidence upon which I could form reasonable grounds to believe that these police officers committed a criminal act and there are therefore no grounds for proceeding with charges in this case.

Date: March 23, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit