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 40-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 18, 2024, at 8:50 a.m., the Windsor Police Service (WPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

Earlier in the day, at 1:39 a.m., WPS officers attended the area of Shepherd Street East and Lincoln Road following a report of a single motor vehicle collision (MVC) involving a residence. Witnesses reported that a man and a woman in the vehicle were observed arguing prior to the woman leaving the area southbound along a street. The woman was identified as the Complainant. Further investigation revealed that the Complainant had outstanding warrants and resided in the same area. Officers attended at her residence, conducted a door knock, and were greeted by the Complainant’s father. The Complainant was called to the front door and showed signs of intoxication. She stepped onto the snow/ice-covered porch in her bare feet, and she slipped and fell backwards onto the porch. The officers assisted the Complainant to her feet and placed her under arrest at 2:02 a.m. without further incident. The Complainant was transported to the WPS station and brought to the detention unit. At the time of booking, she complained of pain to her right wrist and indicated to the booking sergeant that the injury existed prior to police involvement. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were requested at 3:00 a.m. and responded. The Complainant was transported to Windsor Regional Hospital (WRH) Ouellette Campus where she was diagnosed with a fractured right wrist at approximately 8:00 a.m.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/01/18 at 2:17 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/01/18 at 3:23 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

40-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on January 22, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on February 1, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the front porch of a residence situated in the area of Shepherd Street East and Lincoln Road, Windsor.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

WPS Custody Video

On January 18, 2024, starting at about 2:44 a.m., the Complainant was captured approaching the registration counter. She stood unsteadily, was cooperative, and answered all questions.

Starting at about 2:46 a.m., the Complainant claimed she had an injury to her right wrist from the arrest. The injury was not caused by handcuffs. She explained, “I think it was when I was in the car.” Her wrist was sore to lift, and she could not bend it. She continued, “I think I just sprained it or something.” The Complainant said she had consumed four bottles of beer in the evening and had not consumed any drugs or cannabis.

Starting at about 2:48 a.m., the Complainant was further questioned by the booking sergeant. She had no idea how the injury happened and indicated after the accident occurred, “I went home, and then that’s when the cops came, and I started noticing my wrist was hurting.” When asked by the booking sergeant if her wrist hurt before the police arrived at her residence, she agreed.

Police Communications Recordings / Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report

Starting at about 1:39 a.m., on January 18, 2024, WPS received four 911 calls, including from the owner of a home in the area of Shepherd Street East and Lincoln Road, at whose address a black pick-up truck had left the roadway and struck his porch. A man was reported to have said to a woman, “You wrecked my fucking truck.” The woman and the man tried to dislodge the pick-up from the porch. They then argued, and the woman walked away. Two police officers were sent to the area, including the SO.

Starting at about 2:09 a.m., the SO stated he was at a home in the area of Shepherd Street East and Lincoln Road, and there was an outstanding warrant for the Complainant. The SO reported the Complainant was in custody. The warrant was for impaired driving. A prisoner transport van was requested.

Starting at about 2:10 a.m., the CAD report indicated that WO #1 and WO #2 had responded to assist the SO.

At 3:06 a.m., the CAD report indicated EMS were in the police cells and would take the Complainant to the hospital.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from WPS between January 18 and 22, 2024:

• Notes – WO #1;
• Notes – WO #2;
• Notes – WO #3;
• Communications recordings;
• CAD Report;
• Custody video;
• General Occurrence Report – MVC;
• General Occurrence Report – Injury; and
• Copy of warrant for the Complainant.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on January 23, 2024:

• The Complainant’s medical records from the WRH Ouellette Campus.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with the Complainant and video footage of her time in custody, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the early morning of January 18, 2024, the WPS received 911 calls about a motor vehicle collision. A pick-up truck had reportedly crashed into a home in the vicinity of Shepherd Street East and Lincoln Road, Windsor. The SO responded to the area. His investigations led him to a home in the same area, where he had reason to believe that a female involved in the collision had gone.

Arriving at the address, a short distance from the site of the collision, the SO located the woman – the Complainant – and took her into custody. She was eventually placed in a prisoner transport van and taken to the station.

The Complainant complained of pain to her right hand and was transported to hospital where she was diagnosed with a fractured right wrist.

On January 18, 2024, the Complainant was diagnosed with a serious injury following her arrest by a WPS officer. 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.

There are no questions raised about the legality of the Complainant’s arrest. A warrant in effect at the time authorized her arrest and the SO was within his rights in taking the Complainant into custody.

Three possibilities are raised in the evidence regarding the source of the Complainant’s injury. It is likeliest the case that the Complainant was an occupant of the pick-up truck and that she incurred the injury in the collision. There is also evidence that the Complainant might have fractured her wrist when she fell on the slippery porch of her home, shortly before or after her arrest by the SO. None of these scenarios suggest criminal liability on the part of the officer. In two of the three, the injury occurred before the Complainant was in police custody. In the case of a handcuffed prisoner, there is no doubt that the SO owed the Complainant a duty of care while he had her in his charge. However, the evidence, at most, suggests a momentary lapse of attention in failing to safeguard the Complainant from a fall on a slippery surface. It falls well short of establishing the type of marked departure from a reasonable standard of care necessary to attract criminal sanction.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: May 17, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit