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 47-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 1, 2024, at 10:41 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the OPP, the Complainant resided at an address in Addington Highlands Township. At 1:30 a.m., OPP officers observed the Complainant, known to have an outstanding warrant for his arrest, in the passenger seat of a vehicle. The vehicle was later found in a ditch and a canine track was initiated. The Complainant was located by the Subject Official (SO) and his police service dog (PSD) in the area of Upper Flinton Road in Tweed. The PSD bit into the Complainant’s right calf during the arrest. The Complainant was taken to Lennox and Addington County General Hospital in Napanee where he was to undergo surgery later in the day.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/03/01 at 11:11 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/03/01 at 4:36 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 1, 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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between March 12 and 18, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in a wooded area around the intersection of Flinton Road and Robinson Road North, Tweed.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Communications Recordings

Starting at about 2:06 a.m., March 1, 2024, information was broadcast over the police radio about a collision, and the attendance at the scene of a PSD and the Emergency Response Team (ERT). A search of the suspect’s vehicle was said to have revealed open liquor and break and enter tools.

Starting at about 3:33 a.m., a man [now known to be a friend of the Complainant’s] was located in a barn.

Starting at about 4:06 a.m., the PSD was said to have made contact with a second man [now known to be the Complainant]. There was an ambulance waiting for the Complainant.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – The SO

Starting at about 3:53 a.m., March 1, 2024, the SO was captured walking through a field with his PSD. The PSD was on a long lead and under the control of the police officer. The ground was covered with snow. The SO left the field and appeared to go into a forest with trees and branches.

At 4:06:18 a.m., the PSD bit the Complainant. The Complainant was lying under a tree. The SO directed the Complainant to stop fighting the PSD while the SO walked closer.

At 4:06:37 a.m., the SO removed the PSD from the Complainant’s leg. Both the SO and the PSD walked away while other police officers took custody of the Complainant.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between March 1, 2024, and March 11, 2024:

• 2023 General Service Dog (GSD) Annual Performance and Certification Standards for the SO and the PSD;
• Occurrence Report;
• Warrant for the Complainant;
• The PSD Dog History;
• Event Details;
• 2023 GSD Annual Validation – the SO and the PSD;
• The Complainant’s Criminal Record;
• Notes – WO #6;
• Notes – WO #3;
• Notes – WO #1;
• Notes – WO #5;
• Notes – WO #4;
• Notes – WO #2;
• BWC recording – the SO;
• Communications recordings; and
• Photographs of the Complainant’s dog bite wound.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on March 19, 2024:

• The Complainant’s medical records from Quinte Health Care – Belleville General.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

In the early morning of March 1, 2024, an officer – WO #2 – observed the Complainant exiting a residence in Tweed and entering a pick-up truck. The Complainant was in breach of a curfew, and was also subject to arrest warrants. The officer decided to follow the pick-up truck but eventually lost sight of it.

WO #2 continued to try to locate the pick-up truck. He was stopped at the intersection of Flinton Road and Robinson Road North at about 2:20 a.m. when the truck approached his cruiser from behind on a collision course. The pick-up veered into a ditch behind the cruiser, avoiding a collision, and came to a stop. Two males exited the truck and took flight from the scene.

One of the males was the Complainant. He made his way into a wooded area and concealed himself underneath a tree.

WO #2 radioed what had occurred. ERT members were dispatched with canine teams to assist in locating the males. One of the males was located nearby in a barn and arrested without incident.

At about 3:30 a.m., ERT officers, including the SO and his PSD, began a track to find the Complainant. They announced their presence and sought the Complainant’s surrender. At about 4:06 a.m., the PSD located the Complainant and bit into his lower right leg. Officers attended the area, handcuffed the Complainant, and released the dog, some 20 seconds after the dog had initially engaged the Complainant.

The Complainant was taken to hospital and underwent surgery with respect to dog bite wounds.

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 by OPP officers on March 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 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.

There were two warrants in effect for the Complainant and he was clearly subject to arrest at the time the PSD located him and bit into his leg.

With respect to the force used in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, I am unable to reasonably conclude it was unlawful. The Complainant was in a truck that had fled from the police, and he had fled on foot from the site of the crash. In the circumstances, the police would have had reason to believe that the Complainant was determined to escape and prepared to resist arrest when and if found. It was also dark out, the terrain was uneven, and the Complainant had chosen to conceal himself. On this record, the use of the dog to, first, locate the Complainant and, second, bite and hold the Complainant until the officers had him safely in custody, was a reasonable tactic. The extent of the injuries caused by the dog was unfortunate. That said, the deployment of a dog in such circumstances always comes with a risk of injury and there was nothing in the dog’s history to suggest the dog would inflict greater injury than was necessary when he found the Complainant.

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

Date: June 27, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit