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 46-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 26, 2024, at 1:20 a.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 25, 2024, at approximately 12:20 p.m., OPS officers responded to a shoplifting report at the LCBO located at 19 Beechwood Avenue. LCBO staff identified a male who had left the store with a quantity of whiskey without paying. Witness Official (WO) #1 and the Subject Official (SO) arrested the male. He resisted and was grounded by the officers. The male [now identified as the Complainant] was transported to the police station and booked. Shortly thereafter, he was taken to the courts for a bail hearing. While in the holding cells at courts, the Complainant complained of pain to his abdomen. Emergency Medical Services responded and transported the Complainant to the Montfort Hospital where he was diagnosed with three fractured ribs[2] and a lacerated spleen. Doctors decided to transfer him to the Ottawa Civic for treatment.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/03/26 at 7:30 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/03/27 at 9:59 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 27, 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

The witness officials were interviewed between April 2 and 4, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the St. Patrick Street Bridge, extending over the Rideau River from the intersection of Beechwood Avenue and Vanier Parkway, Ottawa.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

OPS Booking and Cell Block Video

On March 25, 2024, starting at about 1:10 p.m., the Complainant was brought into the booking hall and paraded before the booking sergeant by WO #1. The Complainant’s complaint of injuries consisted of a sore wrist, sore knee, and a sore eyebrow. He admitted to having ingested fentanyl, crack, and alcohol prior to his arrest.

Starting at about 1:14 p.m., the Complainant was searched prior to being lodged in a cell. During the next couple of hours or so, the Complainant was fingerprinted and photographed, and had an opportunity to speak with counsel on the telephone.

Starting at about 3:10 p.m., the Complainant was removed from cells and taken through booking hall to the sally port for transfer to the prisoner transport wagon.

The footage captured nothing that would explain the cause of the Complainant’s injuries.

OPS Communications Recordings

On March 25, 2024, an employee of the LCBO situated at 19 Beechwood Avenue, called 911 to report a theft in progress. A male was in the store and had put six boxed bottles of whiskey in the backpack. The male then left the store with no attempt to pay for the items. A physical description of the male was provided. He was last seen walking towards the St. Patrick Street Bridge.

The SO was dispatched to attend the LCBO. The police dispatcher listed the description details provided by the 911 caller.

WO #1 was dispatched to attend the LCBO.

The SO attended the LCBO and broadcast updated information regarding the subject’s direction of travel.

WO #2 acknowledged.

The SO broadcast that WO #1 had one person in custody. Dispatch acknowledged at 12:22 p.m.

Dispatch advised the person was wanted on an unendorsed arrest warrant.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPS between March 28, 2024, and April 25, 2024:

• General Occurrence Reports;
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
• Police communications recordings;
• Call-signs for involved police officers;
• Booking and lodging reports;
• Booking and cell video footage;
• Duty notes – WO #1; and
• Duty notes – WO #2.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between April 2, 2024, and April 4, 2024:

• The Complainant’s medical records from Montfort Hospital; and
• The Complainant’s medical records from Ottawa Civic Hospital.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and officers who participated in his arrest, 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 afternoon of March 25, 2024, the Complainant was walking south on the east side of the St. Patrick Street bridge when he was confronted by an OPS officer – WO #1. The officer stopped and exited her cruiser, approached the Complainant and advised him he was under arrest. She was soon joined on scene by the SO and WO #2. The Complainant was taken to the ground and handcuffed by the officers.

The officers were responding to a report of a theft in progress at the LCBO store at 19 Beechwood Avenue, a short distance from the bridge. A male matching the Complainant’s description had reportedly left without paying for a quantity of product.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was transported to the police station and then to hospital where he was eventually diagnosed with a lacerated spleen.

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 diagnosed with a serious injury following his arrest by OPS officers on March 25, 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.

I am satisfied that the Complainant was subject to arrest at the time of the events in question. He matched the description of a male said to have just stolen a quantity of alcohol from a nearby LCBO.

I am also satisfied that the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing that the Complainant was subjected to unlawful force during his arrest. It is alleged that the Complainant was kneed by a male officer – the SO – and then roughly thrown to the ground though he offered no significant resistance. This rendition of events could give rise to a charge of assault, but it would be unwise and unsafe to proceed on the strength of his evidence. The source of the more incriminating evidence had consumed substances prior to the incident, which would have impacted their ability to accurately perceive and recall the events in question. It is also contested by the evidence of WO #1 and WO #2. In their version of what transpired, the Complainant struggled against the officers’ efforts to bring his arms behind the back so they could be handcuffed, and he was taken to the ground in a controlled fashion in order to facilitate that process. Though neither mentioned a knee strike of any kind, a single blow of this nature would not necessarily appear excessive in light of the Complainant’s resistance. On this record, as there is no reason to believe that the more incriminating account what occurred is any likelier to be closer to the truth than that proffered by the officers, and some reason to doubt its reliability, I am not persuaded that his evidence is sufficiently cogent to warrant being put to the test by a court.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant was injured in the course of his arrest, the likely result of a knee strike delivered by the SO, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the injury was attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the officer. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: July 24, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit