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:

• 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 Personal 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.

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 78-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 15, 2024, at 4:06 p.m., the Sault Ste. Marie Police Service (SSMPS) notified the SIU of an injury to a 78-year-old man (the Complainant).

According to the SSMPS, on January 5, 2024, at 3:47 p.m., healthcare workers attended a home in the area of Wellington Street West and North Street to check on the Complainant’s well-being. They had concerns as the Complainant was increasingly displaying violent behaviour. When they arrived, the Complainant punched one of the workers in the face. The SSMPS were contacted to assist. At 4:45 p.m., police arrived, including the Mobile Crisis Rapid Response Team (MCRRT) accompanied by a civilian social/crisis worker. They interacted with the Complainant. When he shook hands with one of the police officers, he became aggressive and attempted to arm wrestle and punch the officer. The Complainant was subsequently taken to the ground to prevent continuation of the behaviour, and stood up when he calmed. A short time later, he grabbed a chair. At 5:12 p.m., the police officers apprehended the Complainant under the Mental Health Act (MHA). The Complainant was transported by police to the Sault Area Hospital (SAH) where, at 6:30 p.m., he was admitted on a mental health form endorsed by a hospital physician. The police officers left the Complainant under doctor’s care at 6:40 pm. While at hospital, the Complainant reported he had a sore finger. On January 15, 2024, Civilian Witness (CW) #1, the Complainant’s wife, attended the SSMPS and reported that during the interaction on January 5, 2024, her husband had suffered a fracture to his right ring finger.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/01/16 at 8:04 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/01/16 at 11:45 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on January 22, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on January 22, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on January 29, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired inside a house in the area of Wellington Street West and North Street, Sault Ste. Marie.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Police Telephone Communications

On January 5, 2024, at 3:47 p.m.,[3] CW #2 called police and requested a wellness check at the Complainant’s residence. She had earlier attended the home to assess the Complainant. During her visit, the Complainant had grabbed her hand and twisted her arm backward, charged at her three times, and tried to punch her colleague five times. She was concerned for the safety of both the Complainant and his wife. His violence was progressive, and he had not been taking his medication.

Police Radio Communications

At 4:37 p.m., the radio communications operator dispatched the WO [partnered with crisis worker CW #3] and the SO. They arrived at 4:45 p.m. At 5:12 p.m.,[4] a police officer broadcast, "[The Complainant’s] been apprehended."

The next broadcast asked the communications operator to call the hospital and have them prepare a room for them. The communications operator responded a room would be available when they arrived.

A broadcast was made when the Complainant arrived at the hospital[5] that a police officer was going to follow and relieve the WO from the hospital.

At 6:39 p.m., a police officer broadcast that the Complainant had been “formed” and police were leaving the hospital.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the SSMPS between January 16, 2024, and February 12, 2024:

• Involved Police Officer List;
• Civilian Witness List;
• Notes – the WO;
• Notes – the SO;
• Mental Health Contact Form;
• General Report;
• CAD Report;
• Police communications recordings; and
• SSMPS Policy – Use of Force.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on March 1, 2024:

• The Complainant’s medical records from SAH.

In the afternoon of January 5, 2024, two SSMPS officers arrived at the Complainant’s residence in the area of Wellington Street West and North Street. One of them – the WO – was a member of the police MCRRT. He was paired with CW #3 – a social worker. The other officer was the SO. The three were there following a call to police earlier that day from CW #2. CW #2, a registered nurse, and her partner, a mental health worker, had been to the house to check on the well-being of the Complainant, who was in cognitive decline. They had left following the Complainant’s confrontational and aggressive behaviour towards them, which CW #2 reported to police.

Inside the home, the officers explained that they were there to check on the Complainant and ensure he was okay following his earlier visit with CW #2. The Complainant was upset with their visit. At one point, in what appears to have started as horseplay when the Complainant engaged the WO in an arm wrestle of sorts but escalated as the former became increasingly aggressive, the Complainant was taken to the ground by the officers. He was shortly assisted to his feet, handcuffed behind the back and taken into custody under the Mental Health Act.

The Complainant was taken to hospital and admitted for 72 hours under the Mental Health Act for examination. While there, he was diagnosed with a broken left finger.

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 17, Mental Health Act - Action by Police Officer

17 Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest in Sault Ste. Marie on January 5, 2024. 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.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police witnesses to the events in question, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

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 aggressive and volatile in his interactions with the police and mental health workers. That behaviour, they had reason to believe, was attributable in some measure to his cognitive decline. On this record, I am satisfied there were grounds to apprehend the Complainant under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.

With respect to the force brought to bear against the Complainant, the evidence falls short of any reasonable suggestion that it was excessive. The Complainant, though elderly, was quite strong on the evidence of the officers and CW #3. He had initiated a physical engagement with the WO and resisted arrest. The officers were, in the circumstances, entitled to resort to a measure of force to take the Complainant into custody. This was comprised of what appears to have been a guided takedown and an application of muscular power to wrestle control of the Complainant’s arms behind the back, neither of which seems to have been executed with undue force. No strikes of any kind were delivered.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was incurred in the course of his interaction with the officers, I am not satisfied on reasonable grounds that it was attributable to any unlawful police conduct. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: May 14, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit