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 of an 18-year-old man discovered after his arrest on April 27, 2017 for a home invasion.

Notification of the SIU

On April 27, 2017 at 10:30 a.m., the West Nipissing Police Service (WNPS) called the SIU to report a custody injury.

WNPS advised that at 4:00 a.m. on that date, police officers responded to a report of a home invasion at a residence in West Nipissing. The Complainant apparently jumped from a second floor apartment. Police officers searched and arrested the Complainant and two other accomplices.

While in custody, the Complainant complained of a back injury and was examined at hospital and diagnosed with a possibly fractured coccyx bone at the base of the spine. The Complainant and the other two would be held for a bail hearing.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Complainant

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

Civilian witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

WO #5 Interviewed

WO #6 Interviewed

WO #7 Interviewed

Subject officers

SO #1 Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

The scene

There were two scenes of note:

The incident scene was at a two story building in Sturgeon Falls. The Complainant had been in a second floor apartment at that address. He exited through a window and dropped 4.8 metres to the ground below. The ground surface where he landed was asphalt that was angled down from the wall of the building to the sidewalk.

The arrest scene was in the backyard of another residence in Sturgeon Falls. The Complainant was face-down on top of a raised wooden platform on the ground when he was arrested. The top of the wooden platform was 1.05 by 1.00 metres and it was 0.12 metres in height off the ground.

Video/audio/photographic evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence, but was not able to locate any.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Duty roster
• Event chronology
• Communications recordings
• Video of WNPS sally port, booking room and cell
• General Occurrence Report (Notes and Supplementary Report)
• Notes of WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5, WO #6 and WO #7
• Occurrence Summary
• WNPS photos of scene and the home invasion victim
• Prisoner Log Sheets
• Procedure - Use of Force
• Procedure - Arrest
• Procedure - Prisoner Care and Control
• Training Records – WO #1, SO #1 and SO #2
• Use of Force Report
• Statement of witness to home invasion
• Video statement of CW #1, and
• Video statement of the Complainant

During the early morning hours of April 27^th, 2017, the Complainant was inside a second floor apartment when a witness called 911 to report a disturbance coming from that residence.

When SO #1 and WO #1 responded to the call and announced their presence at the apartment door, the Complainant climbed out the second story window and fell to the ground below, hitting his back on the pavement. The Complainant then got up and ran. He was arrested some distance away. In the course of his arrest, SO #2 placed his knee on the Complainant’s back while attaching handcuffs.

The Complainant complained of pain in his back and was transported to hospital where he was diagnosed with a stable compression fracture of the L2 vertebrae.

On April 27^th, 2017, at approximately 3:35 a.m., a 911 call was received by the WNPS regarding a disturbance at a residence in Sturgeon Falls, West Nipissing. SO #1, SO #2 and WO #1 were dispatched to the call. WO #1 and SO #1 arrived at the residence first and made their way upstairs to a second floor apartment where SO #1 knocked on the door and both officers announced themselves as police. SO #1 then heard a thud followed by SO #2 announcing over the radio that a man had jumped out of a window. SO #2, as he approached the residence, observed the Complainant rolling on the sidewalk on the east side of the building and then he got up and ran away.

It is not in dispute that the Complainant dropped from the second floor window of the building and landed on the ground below.

SO #2 indicated that during the arrest of the Complainant he put his knee on the upper part of the Complainant’s back, near the left shoulder area, to handcuff him. He further advised that there was no need for either he or SO #1 to apply any force to the Complainant, as the Complainant was compliant throughout. SO #2 specifically indicated that no force was applied to the area of the Complainant’s tailbone. At the time of his arrest, the Complainant told SO #2 that he had dropped out of the top floor window and landed on his butt and hurt his tailbone.

SO #1, in his statement, also indicated that the Complainant did not resist and was cooperative with SO #1’s commands and there was no force applied to the Complainant’s lower back area. SO #1 also believed that he heard the Complainant say his buttock was hurt when he jumped out the window. The Complainant’s medical records confirm that he gave the doctor who assessed him the same explanation for his injury.

Upon inspection of the scene inside the apartment that was the location of the robbery, a police officer located an open window in the living room area.

On this record, it is clear that the Complainant’s injury was caused by his own actions without any direct involvement by the police officers who responded to the call and had not yet even entered the apartment when the Complainant chose to attempt to make a quick exit out of the second story window; that SO #1 and WO #1 were carrying out their duties as required when they knocked on the door of the second floor unit and announced themselves as police in order to investigate a disturbance call; and that at no time did either officer have any physical contact nor any significant verbal interaction with the Complainant prior to his going out the window. The action undertaken by the Complainant, in exiting through the second floor window, was clearly the result of a conscious decision to attempt to elude police and make good his escape. It is clear on this evidence that no fault lies with SO #1 nor with WO #1, who were merely carrying out their duties as they were required to do and had no part in the Complainant’s exit through the window other than announcing their presence.

Furthermore, despite the Complainant’s indication that a second possible source for his injury was as a result of SO #2 placing his knee on his back during the handcuffing, I find that the description of the arrest and handcuffing as detailed by the two police officers, and as confirmed by the Complainant, did not involve any significant use of force due to the fact that the Complainant did not resist and was fully compliant. Both officers indicated that there was no force whatsoever applied to the Complainant’s lower back and that SO #2 placed his knee on the upper part of the Complainant’s back near the left shoulder area. Regardless of exactly where SO #2 placed his knee on the Complainant’s back, it appears on the evidence of not only SO #1 and SO #2, but of the Complainant himself, that the action of SO #2 in placing his knee on the Complainant to hold him down was not of sufficient force to have caused the injury.

It is notable that at no time were any allegations made against these officers by anyone, with respect to any inappropriate actions on their part. On this record, I am satisfied that the officers used the minimal amount of force required to handcuff the Complainant and that the Complainant alone caused his injury by going out of a second floor window and falling backward onto the asphalt below. 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: October 16, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit