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

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 25, 2024, at 10:15 a.m., the Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 25, 2024, the NRPS received an Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) notification regarding an assault allegation. The allegation stemmed from an incident in Thorold in August of 2023. The Complainant reported to the OIPRD that she had been injured by a NRPS police officer on August 6, 2023. On that date, the NRPS had responded to a home in Thorold, following a call about an unwanted person at the address. Police reports indicated that the Complainant was removed from the residence by police on that date; however, there was no complaint made to the NRPS regarding an injury to the Complainant. The OIPRD complaint was filed on February 23, 2024, by the Complainant.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/03/25 at 11:30 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/03/25 at 2:30 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

32-year-old female; 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

CW #4 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between March 28, 2024, and April 25, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject official was interviewed on May 3, 2024.

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on April 8, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the front foyer of a house situated in Thorold.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Communications Recordings – Telephone

On August 6, 2023, at approximately 2:07 a.m., CW #1 called the NRPS on the 911 line and asked for the police to respond to an address in Thorold. CW #1 reported his ex-girlfriend, the Complainant, was in the house and highly agitated. There was no mention of the use of any weapons. CW #1 told the call-taker that the Complainant was following him around the house. In response, it was suggested to him that he go to a room and lock the door. Just before locking himself in his bedroom, he told the call-taker that the Complainant had grabbed him. CW #1 advised that the Complainant had been drinking.

Communications Recordings – Radio

On August 6, 2023, at approximately 2:10 a.m., uniform patrol units [now known to be the SO and the WO] were dispatched to a domestic disturbance at a home in Thorold.

The SO suggested to the dispatcher that the WO not attend the call for service, noting, “You can have the other unit disregard, I’m all 10-4 here.”

Following the cancellation of the WO, the SO advised the dispatcher that he was with a female - the Complainant - and that he was going to take her to an address in St. Catharines. The SO arrived at the address in St. Catharines at 3:08 a.m.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the NRPS between March 25, 2024, and April 11, 2024:

• Communications recordings;
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
• Notes - the WO;
• Emergency Department Medical Record;
• General Occurrence Report;
• Policy – Use of Force;
• Policy – Powers of Arrest;
• Officer Details; and
• Police History – the Complainant.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on April 8, 2024:

• The Complainant’ medical records from Niagara Health.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, the SO and civilian witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the early morning of August 6, 2024, the SO was dispatched to a home in Thorold. CW #1, a resident, had contacted police to report a domestic disturbance involving the Complainant. Both had been drinking, and the Complainant was said to be highly agitated and following him around the house.

The SO arrived on scene at about 2:20 a.m. He spoke to CW #1 and learned from him that he was the sole lessee of the home even though he allowed the Complainant to occasionally sleep in a basement bedroom. CW #1 wanted her out of the house. The Complainant was in her basement bedroom at the time.

The SO made his way to the bedroom and explained to the Complainant that she had to leave the residence. The pair made their way up the stairs to the main floor in preparation for the Complainant’s departure. While standing in the front foyer, the Complainant fell and was injured. She made it back to her feet and was escorted outside to the officer’s cruiser.

The SO transported the Complainant to a friend’s home. The next day, she attended hospital and was diagnosed with a fractured clavicle and left rib.

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 her arrest by a NRPS officer on August 6, 2023. The injury came to the attention of the police service on March 25, 2024, and the service notified the SIU of the matter on that same date. An investigation was initiated by the SIU. The SO was identified as 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.

There is conflicting evidence regarding the nature of the Complainant’s residency at the address. It is not entirely clear whether she was a tenant or a guest of CW #1’s at the time of the incident. According to the SO, as CW #1 seemed more sober than the Complainant, he came to accept his account, namely, that he was the sole lessee of the property and she was merely a guest. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO acted unlawfully when he determined that the Complainant was a trespasser and then compelled her to exit the home despite her protestations.

The evidence also falls short of reasonably establishing that the SO used unlawful force against the Complainant at any time during their interactions. Again, there is significant variance in the evidence with respect to the nature of their dealings once the Complainant and the officer were in the foyer getting ready to leave. These include accounts in which the SO is said to have pushed the Complainant, in one case, after the Complainant had lunged at the officer and, in another, for no reason whatsoever. For his part, the SO says that the Complainant lost her footing and tripped over a blanket, which she had been wearing before it slipped off her shoulders. It seems to me that the SO’s version of events is the most plausible as he was the only one of the witnesses who had not been drinking that night. Be that as it may, I am satisfied in light of the discrepancies in the evidence that any suggestion of undue force by the SO is insufficiently cogent to warrant being put to the test by a court.

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

Date: July 23, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit