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.

On March 5, 2016, the complainant in this case was examined at hospital by a doctor. Serious injuries were confirmed.

Notification of the SIU

On March 5, 2016, the Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) notified the SIU of the serious injury sustained by the complainant during the execution of a Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) search warrant at a townhouse complex in Sudbury.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Complainant

Interviewed twice and medical records 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 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

Subject Officers

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is a subject officer’s right

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

Materials Obtained from GSPS:

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

• CAD Report
• scene photographs and photographs of the complainant
• CDSA TeleWarrant to Search
• disclosure Log of Mar 7, 2016
• involved officer actions list
• involved officer list
• involved persons list
• list of civilian witnesses
• list of GSPS officers involved with the complainant
• notes of WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4, and
• will States of WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4.

On March 5, 2016, at approximately 3:30 p.m., members of the GSPS Tactical Unit attended at a residence in Sudbury to execute a CDSA search warrant. The residence was a two story townhouse that was part of a larger townhouse complex. Three officers were assigned to search the premises, SO #1, WO #3 and WO #4. At the time, there were three people present in the home, an older male in the living room (CW #3), a female in an upstairs bedroom (CW #2), and the complainant in another upstairs bedroom. In the bedroom where the complainant was located, there was an air conditioning unit. There were also curtains on the window.

Upon arriving at the residence, officers discovered that the front door was locked. SO #1 breached the front door using a metal ram. Once the door was opened, police presence was announced. Upon entering the home, WO #4 remained on the main floor and detained CW #3 in the living room. WO #3 and SO #1 went immediately upstairs, with WO #3 in front. At the top of the stairs was a hallway with several closed doors. WO #3 announced that police were present to execute a search warrant. WO #3 opened the first door on his left and observed CW #2 standing in a bedroom. WO #3 identified himself and CW #2 was detained. SO #1 approached a door further down the hallway. The door was blocked or locked, and he had to use his shoulder to open it. There was a loud bang when he did this and the door opened. Upon entering the room, SO #1 yelled that the complainant had gone out the window. WO #3 ran to assist, and saw SO #1 trying to grab at the complainant in the window. WO #4, from the living room window, saw something fall to the ground. WO #3 ran downstairs and outside to the front of the house where he saw the complainant lying in the snow directly below the bedroom window. The distance from the window sill to the ground was 4.36 metres. The curtains from the bedroom were hanging outside the open window. WO #4 then cleared the residence, and noted that the air conditioner in the bedroom where the complainant had been was on the floor, underneath the window.

SO #2 was outside the residence and attempting to take the complainant into custody. The complainant was on his back and actively resisted SO #2’s efforts to handcuff him. WO #3 assisted SO #2 with moving the complainant onto his stomach and handcuffing him to the rear. Once handcuffed, the complainant complained of pain in his foot. An ambulance was requested, and the complainant was moved from the ground to a chair in front of the residence. An ambulance was called.

While enroute to the hospital, the complainant told the paramedic that an officer had pushed him out of the window. At the hospital, however, the complainant told WO #1 that he had been outside playing in the snow with the children, and the police suddenly arrived and jumped or stomped on his leg. The complainant also alleged that an officer threw him over a fence and punched him in the face. The complainant denied jumping out of the window. At the hospital, the complainant was diagnosed with a compound fracture of his left leg.

The complainant was arrested for possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking.

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 March 5, 2016, shortly after 3:30 p.m., SO #1 of GSPS was a member of a team executing a CDSA search warrant at a townhouse in the City of Sudbury. During the course of the execution of the warrant, the complainant went out a second floor window landing on the ground below and sustained a severe fracture to his lower leg.

It is alleged that SO #1 pushed the complainant out of the second floor window and was holding on to him by his clothing, when he fell to the ground below. It is also alleged that the same officer came to the area below the window where the complainant had landed and jumped on his fractured leg, following which the officer punched him in the face.

The evidence as a whole indicates quite definitively that the complainant, upon hearing that police had breached the door and that they were about to execute a search warrant, decided to make a hasty exit out of the window. I find that the evidence of the civilian witnesses leaves little doubt that the complainant was attempting to shimmy down the curtains to the ground below in order to evade police, when he lost his grip and fell to the ground injuring his lower left leg. This conclusion is confirmed by all of the evidence of both police and civilian witnesses, and the complainant himself, when he tells conflicting versions of events to the police and medical staff. With respect to the allegation that SO #1 then stomped on the complainant’s leg outside and punched him in the face, I again find that this allegation has no credence at all, in light of the fact that SO #1 never dealt with the complainant once he landed outside and the civilian witnesses, who observed the complainant on the ground after he fell, advised that no officer was observed either punching, kicking or striking the complainant in any way.

On all of the evidence, I find that the complainant went out of the second floor window of his own free will in order to evade police and that, in attempting to shimmy down the curtain, he lost his grip and fell and thereby fractured his leg. I find that no police officer had any hand in the complainant going out of the window or injuring his leg and that no officer used any force against the complainant whatsoever, other than to lift him up after he was injured and place him into a chair to await ambulance assistance. On this basis, I am satisfied on reasonable grounds on this record that none of the actions exercised by the officers fell outside of the limits prescribed by the criminal law and there are no grounds for proceeding with charges in this case.

Date: June 21, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit