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, February 28, 2016, the complainant in this case was examined at hospital by a doctor. Serious injuries were confirmed.

Notification of the SIU

On February 28, 2016, Peel Regional Police (PRP) reported that the complainant sustained an injury while in the custody of PRP.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Complainant

Interviewed 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

Subject officers

SO #1 Declined interview and to submit notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right

SO #2 Interviewed but declined to submit notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right

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

• contact history with complainant
• disclosure logs;
• event chronology
• occurrence details, and
• shift summary

The SIU also obtained:

• 12 Division custody video
• photos of complainant
• Quality Inn CCTV recordings
• video statements given by CW #2 and her mother to PRP, and
• 911 communications tapes

On February 28, 2016, officers responded to a 911 call indicating that the complainant had assaulted a woman at the Quality Inn Motel in Mississauga and was keeping her there against her will. It was further reported that the complainant was known to carry knives.

PRP officers attended the motel in response to the call and saw the complainant in the hallway. Several uniformed officers walked towards the complainant and asked him to confirm his identity, which the complainant did. The complainant was advised that he was under arrest for assault, and SO #1 placed a handcuff on the complainant’s left wrist. The complainant then pulled away and tried to run. SO #2 took hold of the complainant and advised him to stop resisting. The complainant continued to struggle, and SO #1 and SO #2 grounded him. Once on the ground, the complainant concealed his right hand under his body. Concerned that the complainant may have a knife, SO #2 grabbed the complainant’s right elbow and instructed him to stop resisting. The complainant refused and started to reach towards his front pocket. SO #2 used four forceful knee strikes to the complainant’s back to gain control of his right arm. After the fourth knee strike, the complainant gave up his right arm and he was handcuffed. A spring assisted knife with a three to four inch blade was located in the complainant’s right front pocket.

Once the complainant was booked at the police station, he complained of a tooth ache and wanted to be taken to the hospital. That was his first complaint of any injury while in police custody. All videos of the complainant up to that time showed no signs of injury. His request was denied by the booking officer. The complainant suddenly became short of breath and complained that his entire body hurt, including his abdomen.

The complainant was transported to hospital and was x-rayed. The x-rays indicated two rib fractures, although the medical evidence was equivocal regarding when the fractures were sustained. Photos of the complainant were taken shortly after the SIU became involved, and his only injury was a small laceration near the outside edge of his left eyebrow. These injuries were inflicted upon the complainant by the woman he had assaulted at the Quality Inn. Photos of the complainant’s torso revealed no marks, bruises or injuries.

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 February 28, 2016, officers responded to a 911 call indicating that the complainant had assaulted a woman at the Quality Inn Motel in Mississauga and was keeping her there against her will. It was further reported that the complainant was known to carry knives. PRP officers attended at the motel in response to the call and arrested the complainant. Once taken to the hospital, it was discovered that the complainant had two fractures of the right ninth and tenth ribs. The complainant alleges that the attending officers used excessive force to apprehend him.

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 911 call that police had reasonable grounds to believe that the offence of assault had been committed by the complainant and that an offence of unlawful confinement was ongoing at the time. As such, the apprehension of the complainant was legally justified in the circumstances.

With respect to whether or not officers used excessive force in apprehending the complainant, it is unfortunate that the area of the motel wherein the interaction between police and the complainant took place was not monitored by any video surveillance. However, the statements provided by SO #2 and three other witness officers present at the time of the arrest of the complainant, as well as four civilian witnesses, paint a fairly clear picture of what occurred on the night in question.

None of the civilian witnesses advised that they saw any officer strike the complainant. The complainant made no complaint of injury or pain either at the motel, after his arrest, in the scout car en route to the station or, initially, at the station when he was being booked in. Video surveillance at the motel captured the complainant being escorted by police in handcuffs out of the motel and he is seen to be walking normally, showing no obvious signs of injury or pain. Once at the police station, the booking video shows the complainant initially walking into the booking area, again showing no obvious signs of pain or injury. As the booking process progresses, however, the complainant begins to act as if he were in pain and officers take him to hospital. At hospital, the complainant made various allegations of pain and/or injury. All areas of his body of which he complained were X-rayed. The only injuries noted by the doctor were two fractures of the right ninth and tenth ribs. The doctor who viewed and interpreted the X-rays, voiced a concern that these fractures may have been historic but, unfortunately, could not determinatively state the age of the fractures. There was no accompanying bruising or marks to the area on the complainant’s torso which would have been struck to cause these injuries. The complainant was photographed by forensic investigators to catalogue his injuries. His torso was photographed and there is no evidence of any marks, bruises or injuries as would be expected had he been beaten as alleged.

I find that in the course of making that arrest, the complainant was actively resisting officers as they tried to handcuff him. The officers had been advised that the complainant may be armed with a knife. Prior checks also indicated that he had a history involving violence and weapons. SO #2 delivered four forceful knee strikes to the complainant’s back until he gave up his free arm and the police were able to complete the handcuffing procedure. I find that these knee strikes likely occurred while SO #2 and two other officers (including SO #1) were on top of the complainant. In light of the fact that police were aware of the complainant’s history regarding violence and weapons and that they had been advised that the complainant was known to carry knives, I find that SO #2 delivering the distractionary knee strikes to the complainant while he continued to resist and kept reaching for his front pocket was not unreasonable. Coincidentally, that front pocket was later searched and a spring assisted knife located.

Given the evidence of the attending officers and civilian witnesses, coupled with the videos both from the motel and the booking hall which showed an absence of any indication from the complainant that he was suffering from any pain or injury, the medical findings that the only injuries to the complainant were two fractured ribs which may or may not have been historical, and the photos showing that there were no bruises or marks on the complainant’s torso, I find that it is unlikely that his injuries were caused by either SO #1 or SO #2.

Even if, however, the injuries to the complainant’s ribs were sustained during the course of police officers’ attempts to apprehend him, I find nevertheless that the officers acted within s. 25(1) of the Criminal Code and only exercised as much force as was necessary in order to take control of the complainant and effect a lawful arrest and ensure that no harm from secreted weapons came to any of the officers. 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: June 20, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit