SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OCI-463
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
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.
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.
- 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 the serious injury of a 60-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
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 60-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On November 8, 2023, at 12:44 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.On November 7, 2023, at approximately 5:59 p.m., a PRP officer was at the Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH) attending to an unrelated incident when he became aware of an incident between a male [later identified as the Complainant] and a hospital security guard. The PRP officer went over to the Complainant and the security guard to inquire into that matter. A struggle ensued between the officer and the Complainant, and the latter was grounded and arrested under the Mental Health Act. During the struggle, the Complainant suffered a fractured nasal bone.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 11/08/2023 at 9:56 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 11/08/2023 at 11:08 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
60-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on November 10, 2023.
Civilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 InterviewedCW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between November 10 and 24, 2023.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal rightThe subject official was interviewed on December 7, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in the Mental Health Assessment Zone of the Emergency Department of BCH.Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained the following materials from the PRP between November 8, 2023, and November 27, 2023:- Person Details Report – the Complainant;
- Occurrence Report;
- Undertaking;
- Body-worn camera footage;
- Photos of the SO’s injury;
- The SO’s training records; and
- Directive - Incident Response.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between November 8, 2023, and December 22, 2023:- Toronto Police Service General Occurrence Report;
- Incident Reports filed by hospital security guards;
- The Complainant’s medical record from BCH; and
- Video footage from BCH.
Incident Narrative
The events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.
In the evening of November 7, 2023, the Complainant was in the Mental Health Assessment Zone of the BCH with an acquaintance when he was approached by hospital security staff. Security guards had earlier intervened to keep the Complainant away from police officers with a detainee; it seems the Complainant was upset with the manner in which the detainee was being treated. The Complainant’s friend was also kept at bay by security guards. Now upset as well with how his friend was being treated, the Complainant challenged the guards. One of them grabbed the Complainant and pulled him to the floor. Other guards arrived to assist as the Complainant struggled to free himself.
Within seconds of his grounding, the SO, present at the hospital on an unrelated matter, injected himself in the struggle. He dropped his right knee on the Complainant’s right shoulder and kept him pinned for several seconds before rising to his feet and removing his handcuffs. The officer lowered himself to apply the handcuffs but was unsuccessful as the Complainant flailed his body. The SO rose again momentarily before again dropping to a single knee on the floor by the Complainant’s upper right side and grabbing at his arms. The Complainant raised his head and bit the officer’s right forearm, after which the SO kneed him three or four times. The first two strikes seem to have struck the Complainant’s face or head. The latter two impacted the Complainant’s upper torso.
The struggle on the ground continued for another couple of minutes before the SO and security guards were able to control the Complainant’s arms behind his back and handcuff them. That occurred soon after the officer delivered two knee strikes to the left side of a prone Complainant.
Following his arrest, the Complainant was examined at hospital and diagnosed with a broken nose.
In the evening of November 7, 2023, the Complainant was in the Mental Health Assessment Zone of the BCH with an acquaintance when he was approached by hospital security staff. Security guards had earlier intervened to keep the Complainant away from police officers with a detainee; it seems the Complainant was upset with the manner in which the detainee was being treated. The Complainant’s friend was also kept at bay by security guards. Now upset as well with how his friend was being treated, the Complainant challenged the guards. One of them grabbed the Complainant and pulled him to the floor. Other guards arrived to assist as the Complainant struggled to free himself.
Within seconds of his grounding, the SO, present at the hospital on an unrelated matter, injected himself in the struggle. He dropped his right knee on the Complainant’s right shoulder and kept him pinned for several seconds before rising to his feet and removing his handcuffs. The officer lowered himself to apply the handcuffs but was unsuccessful as the Complainant flailed his body. The SO rose again momentarily before again dropping to a single knee on the floor by the Complainant’s upper right side and grabbing at his arms. The Complainant raised his head and bit the officer’s right forearm, after which the SO kneed him three or four times. The first two strikes seem to have struck the Complainant’s face or head. The latter two impacted the Complainant’s upper torso.
The struggle on the ground continued for another couple of minutes before the SO and security guards were able to control the Complainant’s arms behind his back and handcuff them. That occurred soon after the officer delivered two knee strikes to the left side of a prone Complainant.
Following his arrest, the Complainant was examined at hospital 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.
Section 31(1), Criminal Code -- Arrest for Breach of Peace
31 (1) Every peace officer who witnesses a breach of the peace and every one who lawfully assists the peace officer is justified in arresting any person whom he finds committing the breach of the peace or who, on reasonable grounds, he believes is about to join in or renew the breach of the peace.Section 175 (1), Criminal Code -- Causing a Disturbance
175 (1) Every one who
(a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,(i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting language,(ii) by being drunk,(iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,
Is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Analysis and Director's Decision
The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by a PRP officer on November 7, 2023. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The SO was identified as 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.
At the time the SO intervened to assist the security guards, he had observed the Complainant acting in an unruly and violent way. In the circumstances, whether pursuant to section 31 (arrest for breach of the peace) or section 175 (causing disturbance) of the Criminal Code, the officer was within his right in seeking to arrest the Complainant.
With respect to the force used by the SO, namely, two sets of knee strikes, I am satisfied that it was legally justified. The first set of strikes occurred right after he had been bitten by the Complainant. The officer was entitled to deter that assault and he did so, reasonably, in my view, by directing force to the source of the bite, namely, the face and head area of the Complainant. The number of strikes delivered by the SO is subject to legitimate scrutiny. However, upon my review of the video footage that captured the incident in parts, I am unable to reasonably conclude the officer exceeded the remit of authorized force when he delivered four blows. These occurred in quick succession moments after the SO had been bitten and some latitude must be allowed for the heat of the moment and the need to quickly and decisively thwart any further bites. Moreover, it is important to note that the Complainant continued to struggle vigorously even after the knee strikes. The second set of knee strikes also appears a proportionate use of force. Having attempted to wrestle control of the Complainant’s arms behind the back for close to two minutes in concert with the security guards, the SO was entitled to escalate his force to bring the situation to an end. Two knee strikes to the torso that did not cause injury but were successful in helping to free the Complainant’s arms would not appear excessive in the circumstances.
In the result, while I accept that one or more of the initial set of knee strikes delivered by the SO caused the Complainant’s nose to break, I do not accept that the injury was 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. The file is closed.
Date: March 6, 2024
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
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.
At the time the SO intervened to assist the security guards, he had observed the Complainant acting in an unruly and violent way. In the circumstances, whether pursuant to section 31 (arrest for breach of the peace) or section 175 (causing disturbance) of the Criminal Code, the officer was within his right in seeking to arrest the Complainant.
With respect to the force used by the SO, namely, two sets of knee strikes, I am satisfied that it was legally justified. The first set of strikes occurred right after he had been bitten by the Complainant. The officer was entitled to deter that assault and he did so, reasonably, in my view, by directing force to the source of the bite, namely, the face and head area of the Complainant. The number of strikes delivered by the SO is subject to legitimate scrutiny. However, upon my review of the video footage that captured the incident in parts, I am unable to reasonably conclude the officer exceeded the remit of authorized force when he delivered four blows. These occurred in quick succession moments after the SO had been bitten and some latitude must be allowed for the heat of the moment and the need to quickly and decisively thwart any further bites. Moreover, it is important to note that the Complainant continued to struggle vigorously even after the knee strikes. The second set of knee strikes also appears a proportionate use of force. Having attempted to wrestle control of the Complainant’s arms behind the back for close to two minutes in concert with the security guards, the SO was entitled to escalate his force to bring the situation to an end. Two knee strikes to the torso that did not cause injury but were successful in helping to free the Complainant’s arms would not appear excessive in the circumstances.
In the result, while I accept that one or more of the initial set of knee strikes delivered by the SO caused the Complainant’s nose to break, I do not accept that the injury was 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. The file is closed.
Date: March 6, 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]
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.