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 injuries of a 46-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 2, 2024, at approximately 8:20 a.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On February 1, 2024, at approximately 9:30 p.m., the LPS became involved in a domestic abuse investigation after a female made a complaint and provided a description of a male suspect and his vehicle. Shortly thereafter, the LPS received a call for service in relation to a motor vehicle collision on Wonderland Road in which the involved vehicle matched the description of that of the male suspect’s vehicle. No driver was located upon the arrival of LPS officers. A police canine unit was deployed and commenced a track, which did not locate the male suspect. A short time later, the male suspect called the LPS. The LPS were able to track the male’s cellular phone to the vicinity of 4585 Blakie Road, London. The canine unit was again deployed and located the male. When he would not comply with the police dog handler’s orders, the police service dog (PSD) was released off a leash and sent after the suspect. The dog bit the male on the right arm and the male was taken into custody. The male was taken to the hospital and diagnosed with a fracture to the right wrist and hand.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/02/02 at 12:44 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/02/02 at 1:04 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

Interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on February 5, 2024.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on February 5, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on February 9, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in a wooded area southwest of 4585 Blakie Road, London.

Forensic Evidence

On February 2, 2024, at 12:44 a.m. and 1:06 a.m., Officer #4 conducted an alcohol breath test using Intoxilyzer 8000®. The examination detected the Complainant’s ethanol levels at 222 and 225 mg/dL,[2] respectively.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Police Communications Recordings – 911

On February 1, 2024, between about 7:04 p.m. and 7:10 p.m., a female called 911. She was crying and reported her boyfriend, the Complainant, was drunk, and had just kicked the water heater causing damage and flooding to the basement of their residence in London. A male voice was heard in the background saying, “I’m not drunk.” She said the Complainant had been drinking all day and was angry at her. She then reported that the Complainant had entered his Pontiac and left at a high rate of speed.

At 9:23 p.m., the CW called LPS 911 and requested an ambulance. He was transferred to ambulance dispatch. The CW reported a vehicle had collided with a tree and a ditch on Wonderland Road South in London. He would check on the condition of any occupants.

Between about 9:27 p.m. and 9:31 p.m., the CW called the LPS 911 and requested that police attend. He said he had reported an accident, and a male had a case of beer and was walking away from the accident scene. The male walked northbound on Wonderland Road South and carried a lunch box and a water jug in his hands. The vehicle was a Pontiac. The CW was unable to provide a description of the male (sirens could be heard in the background). The CW indicated that the Fire Department and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) had arrived.

Between about 10:23 p.m. and 10:27 p.m., the Complainant called the LPS 911 and reported he was at his residence and his Pontiac had been stolen. He had parked it outside his residence at approximately 9:30 p.m. and had left the keys in the vehicle. The 911 call-taker confirmed the Complainant’s name and placed him on hold. The 911 call-taker attempted to call back the phone number the Complainant had used to call 911. The Complainant did not answer, and the call went to voice mail, which provided the Complainant’s name. A message was left for the Complainant to call 911 to provide additional information regarding his stolen vehicle.

Police Communications Recordings – Radio

On February 1, 2024, at 7:06 p.m.,[4] a LPS dispatcher requested police officers attend the Complainant’s address. A LPS unit [now known to be WO #1 and Officer #1] indicated they would attend. They were advised the Complainant had kicked a water heater within the residence and caused the basement to flood, he had been drinking all day, and he had just left the residence at a high rate of speed in a Pontiac.

At 8:32 p.m., Officer #1 informed the LPS dispatcher he had spoken with the Complainant by telephone and believed the Complainant to be in the Peavy Mart parking lot at Wonderland Road South and Wharncliffe Road South. Officer #1 said there were grounds to arrest the Complainant for assault and requested LPS officers check the location for the Complainant. Officer #1 broadcast that he had information the Complainant had a history of assault on police officers, and the Complainant had been drinking all day. A LPS Canine Unit [now known to be the SO] requested to be added to the call. Officer #1 reported the Complainant sounded intoxicated on the telephone and had denied operating a vehicle.

At 8:36 p.m., Officer #1 provided a description of the Complainant.

At 8:57 p.m., the SO indicated that the Complainant’s vehicle had not been located at the Peavy Mart.

At 9:30 p.m., the LPS dispatcher indicated that the vehicle operated by the Complainant was believed to have been involved in a collision on Wonderland Road South. The Complainant had a case of beer in the vehicle and had walked away northbound on Wonderland Road South, then eastbound on Dingman Drive. The SO replied he would meet an officer at Dingman Drive and begin a track.

At 9:35 p.m., WO #1 confirmed the vehicle involved in the collision was the same vehicle the Complainant had operated, and the individual who had walked away was believed to be the Complainant.

At 9:37 p.m., WO #1 indicated the SO had commenced a track eastbound on Dingman Drive. Multiple LPS officers attended the area to assist with a containment perimeter. The SO and WO #1 continued tracking eastbound on Dingman Drive.

At 9:44 p.m., WO #1 broadcast the Complainant had been known to assault police officers in the past.

At 10:07 p.m., the SO indicated they had entered the brush on the north side of Dingman Drive, and that the police dog was off-leash searching the bush.

At 10:11 p.m., the SO indicated they were out of the bush and walking back towards Wonderland Road South.

At 10:27 p.m., another LPS unit [known to be Officer #2[5] (believed to be operating a “forward looking infrared” (FLIR)] informed the SO he had seen a “heat source” in the bush east of the SO’s location that he believed to possibly be a person. The LPS dispatcher broadcast that the Complainant’s cellular phone was mapping in an area north of 4552 Dingman Drive, south of Blakie Road. The SO and WO #1 were driven to the area of Blakie Road and Meadowbrook Drive.

At 10:31 p.m., the SO, WO #1 and the police dog tracked southwest from a storage facility located at 4585 Blakie Road. The heat source seen by Officer #2 was believed to be the same location as the Complainant’s cellular phone had mapped. They continued tracking south and west from the storage facility into the bush.

At 10:37 p.m., the SO indicated that contact had been made with the Complainant. The PSD could be heard barking in the background. WO #1 said they were speaking with the Complainant deep in the bush. The PSD continued to bark in the background. Approximately one minute later, the SO broadcast, “Dog’s off-line…non-compliant.” The SO informed two additional police officers were present [now known to be WO #1 and WO #2] and the Complainant would be handcuffed.

At 10:40 p.m., the SO requested that EMS attend for an injury to the wrist of the Complainant. The SO said they would walk east towards the path. WO #2 said the Complainant “reeked of booze”.

At 11:05 p.m., Officer #2 requested a breathalyzer technician and indicated the Complainant would be transported to the hospital.

Video Footage – 4023 Meadowbrook Drive

At 10:06 p.m., February 1, 2024, a LPS sports utility vehicle (SUV) travelled southbound on Meadowbrook Road with no emergency lighting activated.

At 10:07 p.m., a LPS SUV travelled slowly eastbound on Blakie Road with no emergency lighting activated.

At 10:21 p.m., a LPS SUV travelled slowly westbound on Blakie Road with no emergency lighting activated.

At 10:26 p.m., a unmarked LPS SUV travelled eastbound on Blakie Road and entered the lot of 4575 Blakie Road.

At 10:28:09 p.m., the unmarked LPS SUV left the lot and travelled eastbound.

At 10:28:25 p.m., emergency lighting on the SUV was activated. A white LPS van operated by WO #2 travelled eastbound on Blakie Road and entered the lot of 4575 Blakie Road.

At 10:46 p.m., a marked LPS SUV occupied by Officer #1 and WO #1 travelled slowly eastbound on Blakie Road with emergency lighting activated, then stopped and remained stationary facing southbound. A second marked LPS SUV continued eastbound with no emergency lighting. Three additional LPS vehicles (two unmarked SUVs and WO #2) stopped facing west. The police officers exited the vehicles and appeared to engage in conversation.

At 10:51 p.m., Officer #1 and WO #1 remained stationary with emergency lighting activated, and WO #2 remained stationary with no emergency lighting.

At 10:52 p.m., the marked LPS SUV occupied by Officer #1 and WO #1 remained stationary with emergency lighting activated, and WO #2 remained stationary with no emergency lighting. Several LPS officers were present in the area with flashlights.

At 10:54 p.m., an ambulance parked behind the marked LPS SUV occupied by Officer #1 and WO #1.

At 10:55 p.m., two paramedics spoke with three LPS officers (believed to be Officer #1, WO #1 and the SO) near the rear of the marked LPS SUV.

At 10:56 p.m., a second paramedic and additional LPS officers approached the SUV occupied by Officer #1 and WO #1.

At 10:57:26 p.m., a man - the Complainant - was removed from the rear passenger side of the SUV.

At 10:57:45 p.m., the Complainant was walked by police officers (believed to be Officer #1 and WO #1) from the SUV to the ambulance.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following materials from the LPS between February 6, 2024, and February 8, 2024:

• Communication recordings;
• Notes - SO, WO #1, Officer #1, Officer #3, Officer #4, Officer #5, Officer #6 and WO #2;
• Google Map location of arrest;
• Police dog training and certification records – the PSD;
• Certificate of Qualified Technician - Breath Samples;
• Detailed Call Summaries;
• General Occurrence Reports;
• Mobile Data Terminal screen shot of the Complainant’s location;
• Procedures: Use of Force, Arrest and Tactical Units; and
• Written statement - the SO.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between February 6, 2024, and February 21, 2024:

• Ambulance Call Report - Middlesex-London Paramedic Service;
• The Complainant’s medical records - London Health Sciences Centre; and
• Video footage - 4023 Meadowbrook Drive.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview 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 did not agree an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes and a written statement.

In the evening of February 1, 2024, LPS received a call about a domestic disturbance involving the Complainant. The caller reported that the Complainant, drunk, had caused damage to a water heater in her home, flooding the basement. Officers were dispatched to the address and spoke with the caller. By that time, the Complainant had left the address in his Pontiac. The officers formed grounds to believe that the Complainant was subject to arrest for mischief and assault. Radio broadcasts were made to that effect.

The Complainant was involved in a motor vehicle collision at about 9:30 p.m. The vehicle had failed to negotiate a left turn from southbound Wonderland Road South onto Dingman Drive and crashed into a ditch in the area of the intersection. A witness called 911 to report the collision and provided a description of the vehicle. He noted that an occupant of the vehicle had left the scene on foot.

Realizing that the occupant was most likely the Complainant, officers were dispatched to the location to investigate the collision and assist in locating him, including the SO, a police dog handler, and his PSD. At about 9:40 p.m., the SO deployed the PSD and started a track. They were accompanied by WO #1. The officers searched east on Dingman Drive and north into a wooded area by 4552 Dingman Drive. Not having located the Complainant, the officers were about to abandon the search when they learned that the Complainant had contacted the police with his cell phone, allowing the police to track his phone to an area north of their location and southwest of the business situated at 4585 Blakie Road.

The SO and WO #1 were transported to the new location and resumed their track with the PSD. Shortly, it became clear that the PSD had located the Complainant. The Complainant was in a field of woods and brush. The SO released the PSD and the dog charged at the Complainant and bit into his right forearm. The officers approached the Complainant and, with the assistance of a third officer arriving on scene, WO #2, secured him in handcuffs.

The Complainant was taken to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with lacerations and fractures of the right forearm and wrist.

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.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest on February 1, 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 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.

Given what they had learned of the Complainant’s involvement in a domestic disturbance, I am satisfied that the SO was proceeding lawfully to arrest him when he released his dog.

I am further satisfied that the force used by the SO, namely, his dog, was legally justified. WO #1 and the SO say that their repeated requests of the Complainant to show his hands and exit the brush went unheeded. Instead, the Complainant stood pat and drank a beer. It was only when the Complainant was said to have reached down towards a cooler that the SO released the PSD. The officer says he was concerned that the Complainant might be reaching for a weapon of some sort and acted to prevent that contingency from happening. In light of the late hour, the uneven terrain, the Complainant’s refusal to surrender and his reported involvement in a recent incident of domestic abuse, it would appear the SO’s concerns were not unfounded. That being the case, the dog’s deployment made sense – the Complainant could not so readily access or use a weapon while having to deal with a dog attempting to latch onto his body. The dog did, in fact, bite into the Complainant’s right forearm and maintained the grip for a period while the SO, WO #1 and WO #2 wrestled control of his arms behind the back and handcuffed them.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injuries were the result of the dog bite or bites he suffered at the hands of the PSD, I am unable to reasonably conclude that they are attributable to any unlawful conduct on the part of the subject official. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.

Date: May 28, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit