SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OCI-450

Warning:

This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.

Mandate of the SIU

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.

Information Restrictions

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: 
  • The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person. 
  • Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault. 
  • Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person. 
  • Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.  
  • Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.  
  • Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published. 

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

Pursuant to section 14 (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 that 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 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following: 
  • The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials; 
  • 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

Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may also have 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.

Mandate Engaged

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 a serious injury sustained by a 25-year-old male (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU [1]

On November 1, 2023, at 8:03 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the PRP, on November 1, 2023, at 3:45 a.m., [2] PRP received a 911 call from a residential address near Williams Parkway and Main Street North in Brampton. The caller reported that the Complainant was threatening individuals in the residence. Upon their arrival at the residence, officers were confronted by the Complainant armed with a knife. The officers attempted to arrest the Complainant and a struggle ensued in which the Complainant attempted to disarm the Subject Official (SO) of his firearm and conducted energy weapon (CEW). The Complainant was grounded and sustained a broken nose. He was taken by ambulance to the Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH), where he was involuntarily admitted under the Mental Health Act.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2023/11/01 at 8:30 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/11/01 at 12:09 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
 

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

25-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on November 1, 2023.


Subject Official

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

The subject official was interviewed on December 13, 2023.


Witness Official

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on December 8, 2023.


Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the main floor kitchen of a house situated near Williams Parkway and Main Street North.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [3]


Police Communications Recordings

Starting at about 6:17 p.m., officers were dispatched to an address near Williams Parkway and Main Street North in relation to a male reportedly in possession of a knife. The male – the Complainant – had threatened to harm his co-residents, and himself, with the knife, and burn the residence down because of an argument over the payment of rent.

Starting at about 6:30 p.m., officers – the SO, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4 – arrived on scene.

At 6:35 p.m., the Complainant was taken into custody.

At 6:36 p.m., officers requested an ambulance as the Complainant was bleeding from the face.

At 7:12 p.m., the Complainant left for BCH, arriving at 7:26 p.m.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – The SO

The SO’s BWC footage started at 6:22 p.m. The SO and WO #2 were captured arriving at the address near Williams Parkway and Main Street North, Brampton. They met a group of men standing on the street in front of the residence. The men advised that the Complainant was alone inside the residence. He had threatened to burn the residence down with himself inside because of an argument over the non-payment of rent. They described his substance use, and that he was mad and aggressive. WO #2 updated the road sergeant of the situation. The SO and WO #2 approached the residence with their firearms drawn. They opened the front entrance door and the SO called-out to the Complainant to announce the presence of the police. He requested that the Complainant come downstairs with his hands raised above his head. The Complainant screamed down at them.

Starting at about 6:30 p.m., the Complainant threw an object down the stairs. The SO told WO #2 to transition to his CEW. Soon, the Complainant yelled, ‘‘Kill me man, kill me.’’ The officers announced on the radio that the Complainant was asking them to kill him. The Complainant said, ‘‘Okay, I leave.’’ The SO told him to raise up his hands and slowly come down. The Complainant yelled, ‘‘Come kill me then, I'm dying man, I'm already dead.’’ WO #3 and WO #4 arrived. They advised they would go around the side to the back of the residence. The SO advised the Complainant that everything would be okay, and he should just come down the stairs backward. Soon, the Complainant came into view as he descended backward with hands over his head. The SO told him to keep coming down, slowly.

At 6:33 p.m., the Complainant reached the main floor. The SO directed the Complainant to lay prone on the floor. The Complainant complied and laid flat on his stomach. His head and upper body were positioned in the kitchen area, and his lower body and legs were positioned in the hallway towards the front entrance door. The SO told the Complainant not to move as he began to holster his firearm. The Complainant began to move. He looked over his left shoulder and moved his hands to push himself up from the floor. The SO yelled, ‘‘Hey, don’t move.’’ He grabbed the Complainant by the back of his neck and shoulder area and straddled his back. A struggle ensued and the SO was bucked off the Complainant’s back, onto his right side, near the Complainant’s head. The Complainant got on his knees and attempted to stand. WO #2 bear-hugged him from behind and tried to get him back down on the floor. The SO delivered four quick strikes (punches) to the Complainant’s head and face area as he continued actively resisting and pushing up to get on his feet.

At 6:34 p.m., WO #3 entered the kitchen area and assisted in getting the Complainant under control. The Complainant's right arm was placed behind his back. There were droplets of blood on the kitchen floor. The Complainant continued to struggle and was told to stop resisting. Eventually, his left hand was placed behind his back and WO #4 handcuffed the hands. The dispatcher was advised the Complainant had been taken into custody.

Starting at about 6:35 p.m., the Complainant began to yell incoherently about not wanting to live. He was bleeding from the face. WO #2 began to search the Complainant on the floor. The Complainant began to apologize, stating that he missed his mother. WO #5 arrived and assisted with securing the Complainant. The SO soon advised that he had hurt his hand and the pain was killing him.

At 6:38 p.m., it was reported that no weapon had been found on the Complainant, but that the Complainant had tried to reach for something during the struggle with the officers.

At 6:39 p.m., the Complainant began to spit blood on the kitchen floor. WO #2 and WO #5 raised him to his feet and dragged him to a police vehicle where he was further searched. It was reported that no knife was seen on scene. The SO informed the officers, ‘‘He was fighting with us,’’ and, ‘‘Yah, I punched him, he was trying to reach for something on my belt.’’

At 6:43 p.m., WO #1 arrived. She asked the SO what happened. The SO explained that when they arrived the Complainant was upstairs. He yelled and threw something down the stairs. The Complainant kept saying ‘‘Come and shoot me, just kill me now.’’ The Complainant then came down and laid prone on the floor as he was told. As soon as officers got on top of the Complainant to handcuff him, he began to flail his hands and legs. The Complainant threw the SO off his back and WO #2 jumped on him to hold him down. The SO tried to get back up to control the Complainant, but he reached for and pulled the SO’s police vest apart and lunged at him. The SO then delivered several strikes with his closed hand to regain control of the Complainant.

At 6:45 p.m., WO #5, who had been listening with other officers, asked the SO, ‘‘Did he grab at your belt? Disarm police officer too?’’ The SO replied, ‘‘That would be an appropriate charge as well.’’ Shortly, an ambulance arrived. WO #1 got an ice pack from the ambulance for the SO and advised him he would likely require an X-ray.
 

BWC Footage - WO #2

Stating at about 6:34 p.m., WO #3 was seen with the SO and WO #2 in the residence. One of the officers, who could not be identified, yelled ‘‘I've got a hand.’’ The Complainant said, ‘‘Okay, okay.’’ The SO said, ‘‘Stop fucking fighting.’’ WO #3 said, ‘‘Stop resisting,’’ as the Complainant’s left arm was brought behind his back. WO #3 asked, ‘‘Who is bleeding?’’ The SO responded, ‘‘He is.’’

At 6:35 p.m., the Complainant’s hands were handcuffed behind his back by WO #4, who had also joined and assisted in controlling the Complainant. The Complainant continued to move his body, and WO #3 told him, ‘‘Stay where you are, don't move.’’ WO #4 advised on radio that the Complainant had been taken into custody. The Complainant laid prone on the floor. He was bleeding from the mouth and nose, and he kept crying and yelling, ‘‘Kill me now, I'm not a good guy.’’

At 6:36 p.m., WO #2 searched the Complainant while WO #3 and WO #4 went upstairs to clear the rooms. The SO advised that they did not find weapons, but the Complainant resisted and tried to “reach for something”.

At 6:47 p.m., an ambulance arrived. The Complainant was placed in the back of the ambulance. WO #5 accompanied the Complainant in the ambulance. He read the Complainant his rights. He cautioned the Complainant and informed him of the charge of ‘disarm an officer’.

At 7:04 p.m., the SO informed WO #1 that the Complainant had reached for the area of his duty belt, and he struck the Complainant. WO #1 stated they would have to see if the Complainant’s nose was possibly broken.

BWC Footage - WO #3

WO #3's BWC captured his approach towards a back patio sliding door with his firearm drawn.

Starting at about 6:34 p.m., the flailing legs of a police officer in the kitchen area [now known to have been the SO] came into view. WO #3 ran into the kitchen and saw the SO and WO #2 struggling with the Complainant on the floor. The Complainant was up on his knees and reaching around the SO’s duty belt area. WO #3 attempted to grab the Complainant’s right hand. The SO struck the Complainant on the head and face area. The Complainant pulled his right hand away from the SO’s duty belt area and continued to struggle with the officers. WO #3 grabbed the Complainant’s left upper arm to take hold of his hand again and called out to WO #4 to assist. The Complainant said, ‘‘Okay, okay.’’ The SO yelled, ‘‘Stop fucking fighting.’’ The Complainant’s left arm was placed behind his back, but he continued to resist. WO #3 said, ‘‘Stop resisting.’’ Momentarily, WO #3 asked, “Who is bleeding?” The SO replied that it was the Complainant. WO #4 assisted with placing the Complainant’s hands in handcuffs, and announced, ‘‘One in custody.’’ The Complainant remained visibly upset. He yelled, cried, and began to say he was sorry. WO #3 requested an ambulance stating the Complainant was bleeding from the face, mouth and nose.

Starting at about 6:37 p.m., WO #5 arrived on scene and took over control of the Complainant from the SO, who began to search the Complainant. WO #3 asked if the Complainant had a weapon on him. The SO said, ‘‘No, but he was reaching for something.’’ Shortly thereafter, WO #3 and WO #4 went upstairs.

At 6:39 p.m., WO #5 and WO #2 brought the Complainant to his feet and walked him out of the residence by the front entrance to a police vehicle. The Complainant was searched again and seated in the back of a police vehicle.

At 6:42 p.m., it was reported on the radio that the SO had injured his hand.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the PRP between November 2, 2023, and December 4, 2023:
  • BWC footage;
  • Photographs;
  • Involved Officers List;
  • Communications recordings;
  • Communications reports;
  • Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
  • Person Details Report;
  • Incident Details Report;
  • Incident History;
  • Officers’ Training Summary;
  • Occurrence Report;
  • Notes of witness officials;
  • Incident Response Policy; and
  • Criminal Investigations Policy.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical record from the BCH on November 30, 2023.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the evening of October 31, 2023, the SO and his partner, WO #2, were dispatched to an address near Williams Parkway and Main Street North, Brampton. A tenant of the address had called police to report that another resident – the Complainant – had threatened to burn down the property and brandished a knife at him over a rent dispute.

The officers arrived on scene at about 6:20 p.m. They spoke to the 911 caller and other tenants of the property, who confirmed that the Complainant was upstairs with a knife and behaving belligerently. The SO and WO #2 drew their firearms, entered the residence through the front door, and stopped at a set of stairs to the second level. The SO called up to the Complainant, announcing their presence as police. The Complainant called down, telling the officers to kill him. The SO directed the Complainant to descend the stairs backward with his hands behind the head. The Complainant complied. Once at the bottom of the stairs, the Complainant was directed to lie face first on the floor. He did that as well.

The SO holstered his firearm and climbed on top of the Complainant’s back intending to secure him in handcuffs when the Complainant began to resist. He moved his torso off the floor and bucked the SO off him. WO #2, who had been holding onto his legs, grabbed the Complainant from behind and tried to force him to the floor again. The Complainant, face-to-face with the SO on the floor, was met with four right-handed punches to the head and face area by the officer. He was also on the receiving end of several knee strikes to the abdomen by WO #2. WO #3 and WO #4, arriving on scene and entering the residence from the back, inserted themselves in the struggle. The Complainant reached with his right hand in the direction of the SO’s duty belt and was punched two to three more times to the head and face area by the officer, after which his arms were controlled and handcuffed behind the back.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was transported to hospital, admitted under the Mental Health Act, and diagnosed with a broken nose.

Relevant Legislation

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.

Analysis and Director's Decision

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by PRP officers on October 31, 2023. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming one of the arresting officers – 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.

Given what the SO knew of the 911 call and from speaking with the caller upon arrival on scene, he and WO #2 were with their rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody on one or more weapons-related offences.

With respect to the force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, I am satisfied that it was justified. The Complainant had just thrown the SO from his back when the officer reacted with four rapid punches to the head and face area. At the time, the officer could not be sure that the Complainant was not in possession of the knife that had been described by the 911 caller. There was a need in the moment to immediately deter the Complainant lest he should access a weapon. There was an even greater need to immediately deter the Complainant when he reached for the SO’s duty belt, threatening to dispossess the officer of his firearm, prompting an additional two to three punches. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the totality of the force brought to bear by the SO was excessive in light of the exigencies of the situation.

In the result, while I accept that one or more of the SO’s punches likely broke the Complainant’s nose, I am not reasonably satisfied that the injury is attributable to any unlawful conduct on the part of the officer. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.


Date: February 27, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

  • 1) Unless otherwise specified, the information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s finding of facts following its investigation. [Back to text]
  • 2) The date, November 1, 2023, was reported in error by PRP liaison officer. The correct date of occurrence was October 31, 2023. [Back to text]
  • 3) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]

Note:

The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.