SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OCI-486
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 injuries of a 42-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 injuries of a 42-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On November 22, 2023, at 1:38 a.m., the London Police Service (LPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.According to the LPS, on November 21, 2023, LPS officers responded to a residence on information the Complainant had been involved in a dispute with the occupants, threatened them with a pellet gun and threw a piece of asphalt through a window. The Complainant fled prior to the arrival of police officers; however, he was later arrested and transported to cells. While in custody, the Complainant was taken to Victoria Hospital for treatment of a pre-existing leg wound. While in an examination room under the guard of two LPS officers, a handcuffed Complainant ran from the room. The police officers gave chase, eventually tackling him within the hospital and taking him back into custody. The Complainant sustained a fractured clavicle during the interaction.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2023/11/22 at 7:20 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/11/22 at 7:54 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
42-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on November 22, 2023.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewedWitness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewedWO #2 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
The witness official was interviewed on November 30, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in and around the emergency department exit vestibule of the London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC), Victoria Hospital, 800 Commissioners Road East, London. Physical Evidence
The emergency department exit vestibule where the interaction took place was equipped with two separate automated sensor-controlled sliding glass doors. The first set acted as a wind block and separated the vestibule from the waiting room. The second set separated the vestibule from the exterior. Both sets of doors were designed with a safety break-out feature when force was applied - they would split apart in the middle and pivot by the side hinges. Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
Video Footage – LHSC – Victoria Hospital
Starting at about 12:37 a.m., November 22, 2023, the Complainant was captured seated on a chair with his hands handcuffed to the front. The SO and WO #1 stood close by watching the Complainant. Suddenly, the Complainant stood up and ran towards the exit door of the emergency department. The SO chased the Complainant with WO #1 following behind. The Complainant reached the exit doors and, as he pushed to go through, the SO arrived. The SO wrapped his arms around the Complainant’s shoulders and they both fell through the doors as the doors separated in the middle. The SO and the Complainant fell onto the exterior concrete walkway with the SO landing on top of the Complainant. The Complainant struggled to free himself while the SO held him to the ground. WO #1 and WO #2 assisted with controlling the Complainant. The Complainant was assisted to his feet and returned to triage.
Police Communications Recordings
The communications recordings were reviewed. They did not contain information related to the incident under investigation. Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the LPS between November 22, 2023, and February 7, 2024:- Names and roles of involved police officers;
- General Occurrence Report / Prosecution Summary;
- Computer-aided Dispatch Summary;
- Communications recordings;
- Notes – the SO;
- Notes – WO #1;
- Notes – WO #2;
- Policy – Arrest; and
- Policy – Use of Force.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following record from other sources on December 13, 2023:- The Complainant’s medical records from LHSC.
Incident Narrative
The events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.
In the early morning of November 22, 2023, the Complainant was in a room of the emergency department of LHSC, Victoria Hospital, waiting to see a doctor. He was handcuffed to the front and in police custody having been arrested the day before in connection with an altercation with occupants of a building. Police had initially taken him to the station before he was transported to hospital for treatment of a pre-existing leg injury. At about 12:37 a.m., the Complainant rose from his seat in the waiting room and ran off.
The SO and WO #1, who had transported the Complainant to hospital and had him under guard in the waiting room, gave chase. They pursued the Complainant down corridors and eventually caught up with him inside the emergency department exit vestibule. The Complainant had been forced to come to a stop at the automatic exterior doors, which were closed at the time. The SO took hold of the Complainant from behind and the two crashed through the doors, which opened with their combined momentum, falling to the ground. The Complainant was assisted to his feet and returned to the triage area. He would eventually be diagnosed with multiple rib fractures and a broken clavicle.
In the early morning of November 22, 2023, the Complainant was in a room of the emergency department of LHSC, Victoria Hospital, waiting to see a doctor. He was handcuffed to the front and in police custody having been arrested the day before in connection with an altercation with occupants of a building. Police had initially taken him to the station before he was transported to hospital for treatment of a pre-existing leg injury. At about 12:37 a.m., the Complainant rose from his seat in the waiting room and ran off.
The SO and WO #1, who had transported the Complainant to hospital and had him under guard in the waiting room, gave chase. They pursued the Complainant down corridors and eventually caught up with him inside the emergency department exit vestibule. The Complainant had been forced to come to a stop at the automatic exterior doors, which were closed at the time. The SO took hold of the Complainant from behind and the two crashed through the doors, which opened with their combined momentum, falling to the ground. The Complainant was assisted to his feet and returned to the triage area. He would eventually be diagnosed with multiple rib fractures and a broken clavicle.
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 LPS officers on November 22, 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 injuries.
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.
There is no issue in the evidence regarding the lawfulness of the Complainant’s custody. In the circumstances, when the Complainant attempted to escape, the SO and WO #1 were entitled to do what they reasonably could to re-establish control over him.
With respect to the force used by the SO, namely, a takedown, I am satisfied it was legally justified. The Complainant had led the officers on a spirited chase and was just about to make good on his escape through the doors when he was tackled from behind. On this record, it would appear the tactic was a reasonable one. As the Complainant had given indication that he was determined to get away, the officers could expect he would physically resist once they caught him. Taking him to the ground would position the officers to better manage that resistance while bringing the Complainant’s flight to an end.
In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injuries were incurred in the takedown executed by the SO, I am not reasonably satisfied that they are 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 21, 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.
There is no issue in the evidence regarding the lawfulness of the Complainant’s custody. In the circumstances, when the Complainant attempted to escape, the SO and WO #1 were entitled to do what they reasonably could to re-establish control over him.
With respect to the force used by the SO, namely, a takedown, I am satisfied it was legally justified. The Complainant had led the officers on a spirited chase and was just about to make good on his escape through the doors when he was tackled from behind. On this record, it would appear the tactic was a reasonable one. As the Complainant had given indication that he was determined to get away, the officers could expect he would physically resist once they caught him. Taking him to the ground would position the officers to better manage that resistance while bringing the Complainant’s flight to an end.
In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injuries were incurred in the takedown executed by the SO, I am not reasonably satisfied that they are 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 21, 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 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.