Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.

Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019

Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following: 

Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.

A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.

In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injury of a 22-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On October 29, 2023, at 4:45 a.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On October 29, 2023, at 2:35 a.m., the Complainant was causing problems at a restaurant in London. He was removed by security staff but returned with a knife. LPS were called, and the Complainant fled. He was arrested a short time later near Talbot Street and Kent Street. The Complainant resisted arrest and was grounded, after which he went in and out of consciousness. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called to render medical attention. While in the ambulance, paramedics noted that the Complainant’s right [now known to be his left] arm was broken. The Complainant was taken to the London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) University Hospital where it was confirmed that his left arm was fractured.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the intersection of Talbot Street and Kent Street, London.

The area was canvassed and video footage was located; however, it did not capture the interaction under investigation.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

Police Radio Communications

On October 29, 2023, at 2:23 a.m., a police officer attended a restaurant in London and radioed for assistance. A later broadcast from LPS communications requested that officers return to the restaurant as the man they had initially dealt with – the Complainant – had returned and pulled a knife on security staff. The Complainant then left and walked on Kent Street towards Talbot Street. A subsequent transmission advised that the Complainant was in custody.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following materials from the LPS between October 31, 2023, and November 23, 2023:

• General Occurrence Report;
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
• Notes – the SO;
• Notes – WO #2;
• Notes – WO #1;
• Notes – WO #3;
• Written statement – the SO; and
• Communications recordings.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between November 14, 2023, and February 5, 2024:

• Cellphone video footage, provided by the Complainant; and
• The Complainant’s medical records, received from the LHSC.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police officers who assisted in his arrest, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU. He did submit a written statement and his notes.

In the early morning of October 29, 2023, LPS officers were dispatched to a restaurant in London. Staff at the establishment had contacted police to report that a male – the Complainant – had brandished a knife at security personnel. The police had been to the restaurant a short time before in relation to another disturbance also involving the Complainant, who had left before their arrival. The Complainant had again departed the scene, but he was quickly located by officers based on a description provided by the restaurant’s employees. He was walking west on Kent Street towards Talbot Street.

The SO was the first officer to encounter the Complainant having turned east in his cruiser onto Kent Street from northbound Talbot Street. He positioned his vehicle in front of the Complainant and told him to stop. The Complainant continued to walk westward before another cruiser – this one operated by WO #1 – blocked his path. The SO took the Complainant by the left arm and forced him up against the front passenger side hood of WO #1’s vehicle. By this time, WO #2 and WO #3 had also arrived in their cruiser, the former grabbing the Complainant’s right arm.

The Complainant resisted arrest and struggled against the officers’ efforts to control his arms behind the back so they could be handcuffed. He was met with a knee to the left leg by the SO, several punches to the head by WO #1 and a knee to the head by WO #2. The Complainant was eventually handcuffed and promptly became unresponsive. The officers lowered him onto the ground in a recovery position and called for paramedics. A folding knife – its blade exposed – was subsequently found in one of the Complainant’s pockets.

The Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left arm.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code -- Protection of persons acting under authority

(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,

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by LPS officers on October 29, 2023. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming the SO the subject official. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s arrest and injury.

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.

The Complainant was subject to arrest when the SO and the other officers sought to take him into custody. They had information to believe the Complainant had just brandished a knife at the security personnel of a nearby restaurant.

With respect to the force used by the police in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was unlawful. The weight of the evidence indicates that the Complainant did not surrender to arrest peacefully but, rather, struggled against the officers’ efforts to have him restrained. The officers wrestled with him to overcome his resistance and resorted to a number of strikes. The strikes, in particular, were delivered out of concern that the Complainant was attempting to access a weapon on his person. It seemed to the officers that the Complainant’s right arm was reaching towards his waistband throughout the altercation. The officers would have had reason to be concerned given the report of the Complainant using a knife in a threatening fashion just a short time before. On this record, it would seem that the strikes, though an escalation of the force used by the officers, constituted a proportionate increase in the nature of the force brought to bear against the Complainant.

For the foregoing reasons, while I accept that the Complainant’s left arm was broken in the physical struggle that marked his arrest, there is no reason to believe the injury is attributable to any unlawful conduct on the part of the SO or the other officers. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.


Date: February 26, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit