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 23-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 23, 2024, at 10:57 a.m., the Woodstock Police Service (WPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 22, 2024, WPS officers were called to a residence in the area of Dundas Street and Vansittart Avenue, Woodstock, where it was reported people were hitting each other with baseball bats. Upon arrival, WPS officers engaged with the Complainant, who was highly intoxicated. He was grounded and arrested. He complained of a sore nose, and was taken to the hospital and diagnosed with a fractured nasal bone.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/03/25 at 7:01 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/03/25 at 8:37 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 26, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between March 26, 2024, and April 9, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on April 9, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired outside a residence in the area of Dundas Street and Vansittart Avenue, Woodstock.

Physical Evidence

The scene was not held for the SIU, but was photographed by WPS prior to its release, which was well before the notification to the SIU.

On March 27, 2024, at 2:00 p.m., a SIU forensic investigator attended WPS. The batons of the SO and WO #1 were examined with a full spectrum forensic light source in an evidence examination room. No bodily fluids were visible on the batons. The batons were photographed and left with WPS.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage – Residence in Kitchener

On March 22, 2024, starting at about 6:11:42 p.m., the Complainant was in a residence in Kitchener with two other unidentified individuals. The Complainant started a fight with one of the individuals and they wrestled. A man [CW #2] arrived. The Complainant was pushed to the ground into a kneeling position. The individual he fought with used an underhanded swing with a fist, which connected with the Complainant’s face. The Complainant grabbed his head and bent over towards the ground. The individual the Complainant fought with left the room. The Complainant touched his face repeatedly and there was blood on his hand after he touched it. He stood up and there was blood on his face, which appeared to originate from his nose. He appeared unsteady on his feet.

Police Communications Recordings

At five minutes and 50 seconds of the audio file, a woman called 911 to report the Complainant had assaulted a man [now known to be CW #3] and Witness #1. The Complainant attempted to break the caller’s door and force his way into her house. He smashed the caller’s window while on the phone with the dispatcher. The 911 caller did not witness the assaults of CW #3 and Witness #1. She hung-up the phone with the dispatcher when police officers arrived at her property.

WPS Scene and Injury Photographs

On April 15, 2024, the SIU received photographs from WPS. The photographs showed the exterior property of the residence, the injuries received by Witness #1, and the injuries received by the Complainant.

The Complainant had some swelling and bruising around his eyes, a small laceration to the bridge of his nose, and dried blood around his left nostril and on the tip of his nose. He had other minor abrasions to his face and the knuckles of his left hand.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from WPS between April 5, 2024, and April 9, 2024:

• Communications recordings;
• General Occurrence Report;
• Use of Force Policy;
• Arrest Report;
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
• Notes – WO #2;
• Notes – WO #1;
• Notes – the SO;
• Audio statements; and
• Scene and injury photographs.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between March 26, 2024, and March 27, 2024:

• Video footage from a residence in Kitchener; and
• The Complainant’s medical records from Woodstock General Hospital.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and 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.

In the evening of March 22, 2023, the SO and other WPS officers were dispatched to a residence in the area of Dundas Street and Vansittart Avenue, Woodstock. A resident of the address had called police to report an assault and damaged property at the hands of the Complainant.

The Complainant was impaired by drugs and alcohol. Earlier that evening, at a home in Kitchener, the Complainant had fought with another resident. He had travelled to a family member’s home in Woodstock after the altercation, only to become involved in another altercation with residents at the address.

The SO and WO #1 arrived on scene and confronted the Complainant outside the home. The Complainant was belligerent with the officers and adopted an aggressive posture. He was eventually grounded and handcuffed behind the back.

Taken to hospital following his arrest, the Complainant was diagnosed with a broken nose.

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.

On March 23, 2024, the WPS notified the SIU that a male in their custody – the Complainant – had been diagnosed with a serious injury. The SIU 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 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.

I am unable to reasonably conclude on the evidence that the officers’ decision to arrest the Complainant when they did was other than lawful. The Complainant clenched his fists and lunged at the officers before he was taken to the ground. At or about the same time, the officers had come to understand from other officers interviewing the victims of the Complainant’s aggression that there were grounds to believe he had committed an assault and property damage.

With respect to the force used by the police in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was excessive. There is a version of events proffered in the evidence that the SO struck the Complainant in the nose with a baton, but due to significant frailties in this account I am unable to rely on this evidence. This evidence also suggests the Complainant was not struck in the face in the fight in Kitchener. However, video footage of the incident establishes that he was struck in the face in Kitchener earlier that evening. As for the evidence proffered by the officers, the Complainant is said to have been grounded given his belligerence and then kneed twice in the torso by an officer when he physically resisted on the ground before the handcuffs were applied. This, I am satisfied, constituted reasonably necessary force in the circumstances.

It remains unclear when and where the Complainant fractured his nose. There is a distinct possibility that it happened before his interaction with the police when he fought with another resident of a home in Kitchener. Be that as it may, as I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO and the other officers who took part in the Complainant’s arrest comported themselves other than lawfully, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: July 19, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit