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 a 72-year-old woman discovered after her arrest on November 12, 2016 for public intoxication.

Notification of the SIU

On November 16, 2016, at 11:55 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU and reported the following information.

On Saturday, November 12, 2016, at 11:56 p.m., PRP responded to a condominium in Mississauga, in relation to a disorderly female [now known to be the Complainant]. When they located the Complainant in an intoxicated condition in a common area of the condominium, she was arrested for public intoxication and eventually lodged in a police cell overnight. She was released the next morning.

On Wednesday, November 16, 2016, the Complainant was once more arrested on an unrelated matter. At the time of her arrest, the Complainant’s left arm was in a sling. When asked about her left arm, the Complainant said that her left shoulder had been broken by the police during her November 12, 2016 arrest. It was later determined via hospital records that the Complainant had suffered a non-displaced fracture of the proximal humerus bone.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Complainant

72-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

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

Subject officers

SO #1 Declined interview, as is the subject officer’s legal right. Notes received and reviewed.

SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right

Physical evidence

CW #1 provided the SIU with photos taken on November 13, 2016, of the Complainant’s injuries.

Video/audio/photographic Evidence

PRPS cell video cameras

12:44:26 a.m.: The cruiser with the Complainant enters the sally port.

12:56:27 a.m.: The Complainant is removed from the cruiser. She had been lying on the rear seat and SO #1 assisted her to a sitting position. She needed assistance to stand up. She is then led to the booking area. There is no indication that the Complainant had an injury to her left arm.

1:00:08 a.m.: The Complainant is placed on a bench. No indication of arm injury.

1:02:45 a.m.: The Complainant’s rings, a bracelet, and a necklace are removed. No indication of an injury.

1:06:23 a.m.: The Complainant is removed from the booking area. No indication of an arm injury.

1:08:46 a.m.: The Complainant is placed in Cell F5. She sits on the bench.

1:09:55 a.m.: The Complainant is seen to continually rub her left shoulder. She bangs on the cell bars with her right hand. WO #2 is seen speaking with her for a short period then leaves. It would appear the Complainant is favouring her left arm.

9:36:37 a.m.: The Complainant is removed from her cell to be released. As she is led down the hallway, she is favouring her left arm.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Activity log for the complainant
• Event chronology
• Communications recordings:
• In-custody video (2 parts)
• Event chronologies
• Notes of WO #3 and WO #4
• Occurrence details
• Prisoner details report
• Prisoner management report
• PRP audio copy report-phone
• PRP audio copy report-radio, and
• PRP disclosure log

During the evening of November 12, 2016, the Complainant was in her apartment in Mississauga and consumed a significant amount of alcohol. She was very intoxicated. In that state, the Complainant called 911 three times, starting with a silent call and ending with a call where she threatened to kill police officers.

Three PRP officers responded to each call made by the Complainant – first WO #4, SO #1 and a non-designated PRP officer, then WO #4, SO #1 and SO #2. On the first two calls, the Complainant was cautioned about her behaviour and advised to go to sleep. On the last call, however, when the Complainant was ranting in the common hallway of her building and then fell to the ground, she was arrested for public intoxication and transported to the police station. Once at the station, the Complainant was booked and held in a cell over night. Although at one point during the night the Complainant began to favour her left arm, at no point did she indicate to any officer that she was injured.

The next morning, the Complainant advised CW #1 and CW #3 that she was in pain. She also had several bruises on her left and right arms. On November 15^th, the Complainant attended the hospital and x-rays revealed a non-displaced fracture to the left proximal humerus.

Section 31(4) and 31(5), Liquor Licence Act – Unlawful Possession or Consumption

31 (4) No person shall be in an intoxicated condition,

1. in a place to which the general public is invited or permitted access; or
2. in any part of a residence that is used in common by persons occupying more than one dwelling in the residence.

(5) A police officer may arrest without warrant any person whom he or she finds contravening subsection (4) if, in the opinion of the police officer, to do so is necessary for the safety of any person.

On November 12, 2016, the Complainant was at her residence in the City of Mississauga. Over the course of the evening, three 911 calls were received by PRP from that residence and on each occasion three officers, WO #4, and two Constables, first SO #1 and a non-designated PRP officer, and then SO #1 and SO #2, attended at the residence. Following the third response, the Complainant was placed under arrest for being intoxicated in a common area pursuant to section 31(4)(b) of the Liquor Licence Act and transported to the police station, where she was lodged for the night and released the following morning. It is alleged that while in police custody, the Complainant suffered a non-displaced fracture to the left proximal humerus.

In her statement to investigators, the Complainant could not specify if the officers attending her apartment were male or female, or why or where she went with the police officers. Once she left with the officers, the Complainant had no further recollections until she woke up the next morning in a police cell. She could not recall how her shoulder came to be injured.

During the course of this investigation, in addition to the Complainant, CW #1 and CW #3 were interviewed; neither was present during the Complainant’s interaction with police. Both SO #1 and SO #2 declined to be interviewed, as was their legal right; SO #1, however, provided her notebook with the entries of her contacts with the Complainant on November 12, 2016 to investigators for review. The third officer, WO #4, as well as three other witness officers and CW #2 were all interviewed and all witness officers provided their notebooks for review. Additionally, investigators had access to the communications recordings and log, the medical records of the Complainant relating to this incident, the video from the sally port, the booking area and the cell area of the police station where the Complainant was lodged for the night and the photographs taken by CW #1 of the Complainant’s injuries.

I have indicated above that it is alleged that the Complainant broke her shoulder while in police custody. In order to raise a matter from a mere allegation to reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed, evidence is required. There is no dispute that the Complainant suffered a bone chip and a small fracture to her left shoulder. There is, however, an absolute absence of any evidence capable of shedding light on how the Complainant’s shoulder came to be broken, when it was broken, by what means it was broken and by whom, if anyone, her injury was inflicted. In a case where, as here, there are no independent witnesses to the interaction with police, and the Complainant has no recollection of the incident, it is almost impossible for the evidence to rise from mere speculation to the level required to satisfy the “reasonable grounds to believe” test for the laying of criminal charges.

The evidence here, in the form of the communications recordings and log, reveals that a 911 call was received from the Complainant’s apartment in the City of Mississauga at 9:44:01 p.m. The call was initially non-verbal, but the line remained open and eventually a female voice is heard to yell “Go to Hell!” The voice is then heard to rant and rave at the 911 call taker.

According to the notes of SO #1 and the statement of WO #4, the SO and a non-designated PRP officer were dispatched to the call, but as there was some concern because the caller appeared incoherent and possibly suffering from mental health issues, WO #4 advised he would also attend as he had a Conducted Energy Weapon. When WO #4 arrived, all three police officers entered the building, knocked on the door of the Complainant’s unit and entered. The Complainant was described by WO #4 as intoxicated and had to steady herself by leaning against a counter. SO #1, in her notes, described the Complainant as falling back onto her bum but was ultimately “coherent, happy and able to take care of herself”. As such, the police officers exercised their discretion and did not charge the Complainant, but instead cautioned her and left.[1]

At 10:33:19 p.m., a second call was received from the same number; this time the Complainant indicated that the police are stupid and need to clean up her mess. On this second occasion, WO #4, SO #1 and SO #2 returned to her residence. The Complainant was less congenial on this second occasion, and WO #4 described her as holding onto the door to steady herself, but her grip slipped and she fell backwards onto her backside, at which point either SO #1 or SO #2 assisted her to her feet, where she held onto the counter. SO #1 described the Complainant as upset, belligerent and unsteady on her feet, and indicated that she was yelling about police presence, and denying that she had called the police. Again, police officers exercised their discretion and told the Complainant to go to bed.

At 11:23:04 p.m., a third call was received from the same number; on this occasion the Complainant is heard to say that if the same police officers responded to her address again, she would kill them. She also indicated that ‘they” were lucky that she did not have a gun, and then added that maybe she did have a gun. On this third occasion, WO #4, SO #1 and SO #2 returned to the Complainant’s residence and, upon arrival at her unit, WO #4 indicated that the Complainant was ranting at them with respect to her level of education and she stumbled and fell forward into the common hallway of the building. WO #4 indicated that officers again helped her to her feet and that SO #2 then placed the Complainant under arrest for being intoxicated in a common area, she was handcuffed behind her back and transported to the station. SO #1’s notes indicate that she observed the Complainant again to be belligerent and upset and that she “falls into hallway. Female advises she cannot stand on her own. Needs to hold on to something or someone”.

Upon arrival at the police station, at 12:56:27 a.m. on the morning of November 13, the video from the sally port reveals the Complainant lying down in the police cruiser and is observed to require assistance to stand up. Upon entering the station, the video from the booking hall does not reveal the Complainant indicating that she has any injury, nor does she appear to be favouring one arm over the other or appear to be in any type of pain. It is not until after she had been lodged in a cell that the cell video, at 1:09:55 a.m., for the first time, reveals the Complainant continually rubbing her left shoulder and favouring her left arm. The following morning, when she is removed from the cell to be released, the Complainant is seen on the video again favouring her left arm. During the course of the Complainant’s stay at the police station, she is constantly monitored on video and personally observed by the booking officers, and it is without question that however the Complainant sustained her injury, it was not at the police station.

It is clear on all of the evidence in this matter, that the Complainant herself does not know how she came to suffer her injury; she has speculated that it must have happened while she was in police custody, but that is not evidence and does not form the basis for reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed. On the only eyewitness evidence that is available, that being the statement of WO #4 and the notebook entries of SO #1, it is clear that they observed the Complainant to fall on two occasions, totally due to her own lack of balance and her level of intoxication. Having fallen twice in the presence of police, it is not a stretch to infer that she may have fallen on other occasions that were not observed and, on any of these occasions, she may have suffered her injury. The notes of SO #1 recorded the Complainant as stating that she was unable to stand on her own; that statement appears to be amply confirmed both by the two falls that were witnessed by police officers, as well as the sally port video.

On this record, it is clear that the Complainant, on the evening of November 12, 2016, was extremely intoxicated; so much so, that she has no recollection of the incidents leading up to her incarceration nor how she came to have injured her left shoulder. What appears also to be clear from all of the evidence, is that the Complainant was not “feeling any pain” due to her level of intoxication, and did not begin to exhibit any signs of injury until after a passage of time when it can be inferred that the anesthetic effects of the alcohol began to wear off. On that basis, it is impossible to confirm when exactly the Complainant was injured and if anyone else was involved, or if she merely fell. I have no difficulty finding, on the basis of the evidence of CW #2, that the Complainant’s bruising to her arms likely occurred due to someone holding onto her arms, as she was twice lifted up from the floor by police officers and later was being physically held by the arms both when she exited from the police cruiser and later when she was lodged in the cell. Clearly, that does not constitute an excessive use of force as it involved no more than the minimal physical contact required to assist the Complainant, who was too intoxicated to help herself. With respect to the injury to the Complainant’s shoulder, I find that there is an absolute absence of any evidence that is capable of raising a mere allegation based on speculation to that required to satisfy that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence has occurred here. On all of the evidence, it appears that police officers were very patient with an extremely intoxicated and insulting individual and exercised their discretion to allow her to remain in her home and sleep it off, until after she had tied up valuable police resources for a third time, when she was arrested for being intoxicated in a public place. The fact that she had fallen a number of times and had trouble staying upright gave the police ample grounds to believe she constituted a danger to herself.

On a review of all of the available evidence, there is no basis here for the laying of criminal charges and no evidence that any police officer acted inappropriately toward The Complainant.

Date: October 3, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] A public mischief charge was considered by the officers, but I am not sure that the police officers would have been able to establish the grounds for such a charge based on the first 911 call. [Back to text]