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 the Complainant, a 47 year-old male, while being apprehended by police pursuant to the Mental Health Act (MHA) on April 15, 2016 at approximately 3:50 p.m.

Notification of the SIU

The SIU was notified of the serious injuries to the Complainant by the Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) on April 15, 2016.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Complainant:

Interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

Subject Officer

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

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• arrest report,
• CAD-event details,
• notes of WO #1 and WO #2,
• supplementary report, and
• will state of WO #1 and WO #2.

On April 15^th, 2016, the Complainant was at his residence in the City of Sudbury, when he consumed illegal narcotics. Two 911 calls were placed regarding the Complainant. One requested police and an ambulance to attend regarding a man holding a piece of wood and causing disturbance within the building. The other was to assist a male with respiratory difficulties. Paramedics attended and met the Complainant in the building lobby. The Complainant was aggressive and confused, and went outside where he indicated his intent to walk into oncoming traffic. The SO apprehended the Complainant under the MHA, but the Complainant actively resisted any efforts to be restrained. In the course of his resistance, the Complainant and the SO fell to the ground. Eventually, the Complainant was handcuffed, but continued to resist any efforts to be taken to the hospital. The Complainant was grounded by the SO and WO #2 a second time. After paramedics administered a sedative, the Complainant began to relax and was taken to the hospital. Once at hospital, the Complainant was diagnosed with cocaine psychosis, a fractured rib and pneumothorax (a collapsed lung).

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

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) 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,

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) 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

(c) 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,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) 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 April 15^th, 2016, the Complainant was at his residence in the City of Sudbury, when he consumed some illegal narcotics and had an adverse reaction. 911 was called and an ambulance and police were requested. Subsequently, the Complainant was arrested under the authority of the MHA by the SO and transported to hospital. Once at hospital, the Complainant was diagnosed with cocaine psychosis, a fractured rib and pneumothorax (a collapsed lung).

It is clear on the evidence of the many persons who were present during the interaction with police as to what occurred during the incident. All the witnesses indicated that the Complainant was very combative and aggressive. Several of the witnesses also confirmed that the Complainant made various utterances that appeared to indicate that he had an intention of walking into live traffic and taking his own life. It was only after the Complainant had indicated his intention to take his own life in traffic and then began to walk in the direction of a busy four lane road, that the SO took any steps to physically restrain the Complainant. It is clear on the evidence that the SO, at that point with the information that he had, would have been derelict in his duties had he not taken action to prevent the Complainant from approaching the road.

The evidence indicates that when paramedics arrived at the building, the Complainant was only wearing trousers, and was very agitated and appeared confused. Witnesses observed a laceration to the Complainant’s neck and an abrasion to his left chest or shoulder area. The Complainant began to scream and went outside. Police were requested to attend to assist. The SO was the first officer to arrive, followed by WO #2 approximately 15 minutes later. Prior to the arrival of WO #2, witnesses reported that the Complainant stated his intent to walk into traffic and began to walk onto the road. The SO apprehended the Complainant under the MHA. When the SO attempted to handcuff the Complainant, however, he became physically aggressive and actively resisted being restrained. At one point, the Complainant dropped to the grass beside the road, landing on his one side, and the SO landed on top of him. Once on the ground, the Complainant kicked his feet like he was riding a bicycle in an effort to resist any efforts by the SO to restrain him. On behalf of the SO, paramedics called for additional police assistance. Witnesses observed the SO put his knee onto the Complainant’s upper body in order to complete handcuffing him.

WO #2 told investigators that upon his arrival, the Complainant had already been handcuffed by the SO. WO #2 observed the Complainant to be struggling and yelling while the SO was holding him down. WO #2 moved in to assist the SO, and the SO advised him that he had to arrest and handcuff the Complainant as he was going to walk into traffic. WO #2 heard the Complainant yelling “They’re out to get me” and “They are cutting my hands off!” WO #2 corroborates the evidence of all of the civilian witnesses that when the Complainant was escorted to the stretcher, he kicked it away and he and the SO had to take him to the ground. He described this second grounding as being controlled and soft.

None of the witnesses present observed the SO, or any police officer, strike, kick or punch the Complainant.

It is not possible, on the evidence, to determine with any certainty whether the Complainant injured himself prior to interacting with police or if he was injured when he was taken to the ground by the SO after indicating that he was going to kill himself by walking into live traffic and then acting in furtherance of that intention. What is abundantly clear, however, is that if the Complainant’s injury was caused by the actions of the SO in attempting to save the Complainant’s life, that the SO used no more force than was justified in the circumstances.

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 the witnesses that the Complainant was out of control and combative and had made statements that it was his intention to walk into live traffic. Pursuant to s.17 of the MHA, a police officer who has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person has threatened to cause bodily harm to himself and is suffering from a mental disorder that will likely result in serious bodily harm to himself, may take that person into custody and deliver him to a place for examination by a physician. On a review of the evidence before me, I find that the SO had the necessary reasonable and probable grounds as required under s.17; as such, the apprehension of the Complainant was legally justified in the circumstances.

With respect to the amount of force used by the SO in attempting to take custody of the Complainant and to thwart him in his intention of taking his own life, I find that his actions were justified in the circumstances and that he used no more force than necessary to apprehend the Complainant, who was clearly out of control and not thinking clearly due to the consumption of illegal narcotics. In light of the fact that he had already made statements to the SO that it was his intention to end his life by jumping into traffic, that he then began to act on that statement despite the efforts of the SO to reason with him, and that he was ignoring the SO’s commands to stop, it was incumbent on the SO to do everything in his power to prevent the Complainant from acting on his threat. Further, in light of the Complainant’s violent opposition to being taken to hospital and his combative and aggressive behaviour towards both the paramedics and the SO, I find that if his injury occurred when he fell to the ground with the SO, and he landed on top of him, the SO was using only as much force as was necessary in the circumstances and he was duty bound to do so to prevent the Complainant harming himself or taking his own life. On this record, it is clear that the force used by the SO progressed in a measured and proportionate fashion to meet and overcome the Complainant’s resistance and his desire to end his own life, and fell within the range of what was reasonably necessary in the circumstances to effect his lawful detention.

In the final analysis, I am satisfied for the foregoing reasons that the Complainant’s detention and the manner in which it was carried out were lawful notwithstanding the injury which he may have suffered, if the injury was indeed caused by the SO, which I am unable to determine on the evidence before me. I am, therefore, satisfied on reasonable grounds on this record that the actions exercised by the officer fell within the limits prescribed by the criminal law and there are no grounds to believe a criminal offence has been committed and thus no charges will issue.

Date: August 9, 2017

Original signed by
Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit