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 suffered by the Complainant, a 22 year-old female, that came to light following her arrest for public intoxication on April 15, 2016 at about 2:42 a.m.

Notification of the SIU

On April 15, 2016, at 6:40 p.m. the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of the custody injury to the Complainant. The OPP advised that on April 15, 2016, at about 2:42 a.m., the Complainant was arrested for public intoxication at the Lamplighter Motel in Sioux Lookout by the OPP. Following the arrest, the Complainant was taken to the hospital and diagnosed with a fractured and dislocated shoulder. The Complainant required surgery. The Complainant reported to the doctors at the hospital that she had been grounded by the police.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Complainant

Interviewed, medical records could not be obtained and reviewed[1]

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

CW #7 Interviewed

CW #8 Interviewed

Police Employee Witnesses

PEW #1 Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

WO #5 Interviewed

WO #6 Interviewed

Subject Officer

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

Materials obtained from the OPP

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

• operation briefing
• AVL-GPS data - Apr 15, 16
• AVL-GPS data-CAD -Apr 15, 16
• AVL-GPS data-map
• list of officers on duty
• email from OPP re COMM audio file
• event details
• notes of WO #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6
• prisoner custody report; and
• prisoner security check.

Policing Standards / Internal Police Service Policies

The OPP Arrest and Detention, Prisoner Care and Control, Prisoner Care Manual and Use of Force Policies were reviewed. On page 1 of the Prisoner Care and Control Policy it directs that:

Initial Medical Attention

Where a uniform member has placed a person under arrest who requires medical aid, the arresting uniform member shall ensure that the prisoner has access to appropriate medical attention prior to processing, and at all times thereafter, for as long as the prisoner remains in OPP custody.

On April 15, 2016, the OPP received a call from CW #3, who was staying at the Lamplighter Motel in the Town of Sioux Lookout, reporting that the Complainant, CW #1 and CW #2 were present in the motel, intoxicated and causing disturbance. As a result of this call, the SO and WO #2 of the OPP Sioux Lookout Detachment attended the motel located at 326 Highway 72 in the Town of Sioux Lookout and arrested the Complainant, CW #1 and CW #2 for being intoxicated in a public place. The SO arrested the Complainant and CW #2, and transported both women to the Sioux Lookout OPP detachment. WO #2 arrested and transported CW #1. All three women were extremely intoxicated at the time.

When the Complainant was being booked at the detachment, she complained to WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, and PEW #1 that her left shoulder was sore. The only explanation provided by the Complainant at the time for the cause of the injury was when she stated to WO #5 that her arm was hurt the previous day during a broomball game. No medical assistance was provided at that time and the Complainant was placed in a cell for the night. The Complainant again mentioned her injury to WO #5 and WO #6 when she was released at 9:28 a.m. that morning with no charges. WO #6 took the Complainant to the hospital where she was diagnosed as having a fractured left shoulder and partial dislocation of the joint. At the hospital, the Complainant alleged that her injury had been caused by the SO in the course of her arrest.

Section 31(4), Liquor Licence Act - Intoxication

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

(a) in a place to which the general public is invited or permitted access;

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.

On April 15^th, 2016, a call was placed to police by CW #3, who was staying at the Lamplighter Motel in the Town of Sioux Lookout, reporting that three young women were present in the motel and were intoxicated and causing a disturbance. WO #2 and the SO of the OPP Sioux Lookout Detachment responded and attended at the motel. While at the motel, officers arrested the Complainant, CW #1 and CW #2 for being intoxicated in a public place, contrary to the Liquor Licence Act. Following their interaction with police, the Complainant complained that she had a sore shoulder and was eventually taken to hospital where she was diagnosed with a fracture of the humerus bone (her left shoulder) and a partial dislocation of the joint.

The evidence in this particular matter is less than clear with two diametrically opposed versions proffered to SIU investigators. The Complainant declined to provide a statement to investigators, other than to advise that her left shoulder had been fractured on April 15^th, 2016 when she was arrested at the Lamplighter Hotel. The SO also declined to be interviewed, as was his legal right.

All witnesses agree on the following factual scenario: During the early morning of April 15^th, the Complainant, CW #1 and CW #2 were intoxicated and at the Lamplighter Motel. CW #3 contacted police and two cruisers arrived at the motel.

In his interview with SIU investigators, WO #2 indicated that at 2:01 a.m. on April 15^th, 2016, he and the SO were each separately dispatched to the Lamplighter Motel for a complaint of intoxicated females. WO #2 advised that upon his arrival, the SO was already in the parking lot, as were the three females, and that the SO had already handcuffed CW #2 and was placing her in the rear of his vehicle. He described CW #2 as crying but cooperative and there was no issue when she was escorted to the police cruiser. WO #2 further advised that he arrested CW #1 and she was also handcuffed with her hands behind her back and placed into WO #2’s cruiser. He describes CW #1 as also being cooperative. WO #2 stated that he observed the SO dealing with the Complainant and that she had been standing with CW #3 after which she was handcuffed with her hands behind her back while still standing. WO #2 described the Complainant as argumentative but cooperative and there was no issue when the SO escorted her to his cruiser and placed her into the rear seat. WO #2 stated that at no time did he enter the motel room nor did he observe the SO do so and that neither of them had any physical altercation with the Complainant.

I find it of concern that WO #2, WO #4, WO #3 and PEW #1 were all advised (some as early as 2 a.m.) that the Complainant was complaining that she had been injured and required medical assistance and nothing was done to assist her, contrary to the Prisoner Care and Control Policy which required officers to ensure that a person under arrest who required medical aid had appropriate access prior to processing and at all times thereafter for as long as the person remained in custody. Despite this policy and the many complaints that the Complainant made to various persons at the OPP station, she was not provided any medical assistance until after her release the following morning at 9:25 a.m.

It is further troubling that once WO #1 was notified by a nurse at hospital that the Complainant’s shoulder was broken and that she had complained that police were responsible, rather than immediately contacting the SIU, he chose to attend the hospital and privately speak with the Complainant on the justification that he needed to assess her injury to see if it met the threshold for contacting the SIU, despite qualified medical personnel already having determined that the shoulder was broken. It is also troubling that WO #1, in his own statement, concedes that he then spoke to the Complainant at the hospital and obtained her version of events, rather than leaving that to the SIU investigators.

Despite these concerns, I am mandated to determine whether police, in their interaction with the Complainant, used excessive force and thereby caused her injury. On a review of all of the evidence before me, and paying particular attention to the evidence of CW #3 and CW #5 who confirm the evidence of WO #2[1], I am unable to find that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the injury to the Complainant was caused by her interaction with police. The evidence is clear in that neither police officer ever entered the motel room as alleged nor was there any physical force used by either officer towards either the Complainant or CW #2, as both were cooperative with police and were handcuffed and lodged in the cruiser without incident.

As there is no allegation of any use of force by officers against the Complainant either in the police cruiser or at the station, or in fact at any time after her arrest, I must base my findings on the evidence related to the arrest of the Complainant at the Lamplighter Motel. On a review of all of the evidence, I find on the record before me that the allegations made by the Complainant to various individuals falls far short of the standard of reasonable grounds to believe that an offence of assault causing bodily harm has been committed. While the Complainant’s injury and other evidence may have been compelling in other circumstances, when directly contradicted by two independent witnesses, both of whom were sober, I find that I am unable to determine with any degree of certainty exactly how the Complainant sustained her injury. Alternatively, even if I could conclude that the injury was caused by an officer, there is no way for me to determine who that officer might be who caused that injury. As such, in the absence of some clear and cogent evidence I am unable to find that there are any grounds for the laying of criminal charges.

Date: July 31, 2017

Original signed by
Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] On April 15, 2016, an SIU investigator spoke with the Complainant on the phone. The Complainant confirmed that her left shoulder was fractured earlier that day when she was arrested at the Lamplighter Hotel in Sioux Lookout. Despite many future attempts, the SIU was unable to arrange an interview with the Complainant, as she never returned their phone calls, refused to meet in person at the hospital and did not respond to a letter sent by mail. Additionally, the SIU was unable to obtain a release of medical information from the Complainant. [Back to text]
• 1) [1] On April 15, 2016, an SIU investigator spoke with the Complainant on the phone. The Complainant confirmed that her left shoulder was fractured earlier that day when she was arrested at the Lamplighter Hotel in Sioux Lookout. Despite many future attempts, the SIU was unable to arrange an interview with the Complainant, as she never returned their phone calls, refused to meet in person at the hospital and did not respond to a letter sent by mail. Additionally, the SIU was unable to obtain a release of medical information from the Complainant. [Back to text]