SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-PCI-170
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
Mandate of the SIU
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.
Information Restrictions
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.
Mandate Engaged
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 25-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU[1]
On April 18, 2024, at 10:13 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.
On April 17, 2024, in the afternoon, the Complainant was arrested for ‘possession for the purpose’ under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA). The Complainant was struck in the face with a closed fist during the arrest. He was transported to a hospital in London, diagnosed with a fractured nose, and discharged into police custody. The Complainant was taken to the Lambton Detachment in Petrolia where he was processed and lodged in a cell. On April 18, 2024, at 3:52 a.m., the Complainant rolled off the bed in his cell. A civilian guard and police officers attended to him. Police officers administered Narcan, and the Complainant was taken to a hospital in Sarnia where he was admitted to the intensive care unit. A small bag of suspected drugs was found in the cell. The cell and drugs had been secured.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2024/04/18 at 10:31 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/04/18 at 6:40 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
25-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on April 23, 2024.
Civilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between April 23, 2024, and May 6, 2024.
Subject Officials (SO)
SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
SO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The subject officials were interviewed between May 21, 2024, and June 20, 2024.
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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #7 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #8 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #9 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #10 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #11 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
The witness officials were interviewed between May 6 and 7, 2024.
Service Employee Witness (SEW)
SEW Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The service employee witness was interviewed on May 7, 2024.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in and around a police cruiser stopped on the westbound shoulder of Highway 401 at marker 173, west of London; inside the same police cruiser as it travelled to the Lambton OPP Detachment, 4224 Oil Heritage Road, Petrolia; and, inside the cells area of the Lambton OPP Detachment.
Real Evidence
On April 18, 2024, at 6:40 p.m., a SIU forensic investigator attended the Lambton Detachment to process the scene. The area had been secured by the OPP with evidence seals applied to the door of the cell area. The main room of the cell area had a monitor area where the individual cell cameras could be viewed.
The cell was examined. The cell contained a toilet, a sink, and a concrete bed. The cell measured 2.32 metres by 2.95 metres. There was a camera in a corner which overlooked the cell. The cell door consisted of steel bars that slid open.
Inside the cell were two blankets on the floor that were unremarkable. There was an empty drink container on the bed, and a crumpled take-out food bag on the floor. On the floor next to the bed was a small grey plastic bag which appeared to have been ripped open. The bag was empty but contained specks of white powder. There were two used Narcan nasal spray canisters on the floor near the cell door.
The SIU forensic investigator examined the clothing of the Complainant, which was contained in evidence bags. The clothing consisted of a black winter coat, a red button-up shirt, a baseball-style hat, jewelry, black jeans, socks, and underwear. The right front jeans pocket had been cut or ripped open. The shirt had red staining on the left shoulder.
A separate evidence bag was examined, which contained a small bag of white powder located on the Complainant at the hospital. The bag of powder was not opened due to the potential hazard of the suspected drug.
The cell area, clothing, and bag of white powder were photographed, and all items were left in the custody of the OPP.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]
In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage
The recordings were from police vehicles assigned to WO #5 and SO #2, and WO #4.
On April 17, 2024, at 3:01:59 p.m., WO #5 travelled westbound on Highway 401. A marked OPP vehicle [WO #4] passed with emergency warning lights activated. WO #4 parked in front of a flatbed truck on the shoulder of the highway.
At 3:02:40 p.m., WO #5 parked behind the flatbed truck. There was a Dodge Charger loaded on the truck. WO #5 exited her vehicle and approached the passenger side of the truck. WO #5 was in full uniform. A uniformed officer [WO #6] approached the driver’s side of the truck. A male officer in plainclothes [SO #1], wearing a vest with “Police” written on it, approached the passenger side of the truck. WO #5 and SO #1 were obscured from camera view by the tail of the flatbed truck.
At 3:03:20 p.m., the flatbed truck rocked slightly. WO #5 entered the camera view. She handcuffed someone [CW #1] up against the passenger side of the truck.
At 3:03:25 p.m., WO #4, SO #1, and WO #6 entered the camera view as they dragged someone [the Complainant] to the ground. The Complainant rolled as he landed on the ground. WO #4 stumbled into the ditch on the side of the highway. SO #1 and WO #6 struggled with the Complainant as WO #4 stood nearby on the right side of the struggle.
At 3:03:28 p.m., SO #1 punched downwards towards the Complainant. WO #6 appeared to straddle the Complainant while SO #1 was on his left side. It could not be determined from the video where the Complainant was punched.
At 3:03:33 p.m., SO #1 used his right knee to deliver two knee strikes to the Complainant. It could not be determined from the video where the strikes connected on the Complainant.
At 3:04:13 p.m., SO #1, WO #6, and WO #4 stood the Complainant upright. They led him out of camera view in front of the flatbed truck.
At 3:04:33 p.m., the Complainant said, “You can’t do this. This is illegal as hell. I have rights.”
At 3:04:37 p.m., WO #5 led CW #1 towards her police vehicle.
At 3:05:38 p.m., the Complainant was placed in the rear passenger compartment of WO #4’s police vehicle. He wore pants, a shirt, and a black coat which hung off his shoulders and around his arms. He had blood around his mouth and on the left side of his face. He was handcuffed with his hands behind his back. As soon as he was alone in the vehicle, he used his right hand to pull the left side of his coat behind his back. The fingers of his right hand entered the inside chest pocket of the left side of his coat.
At 3:07:46 p.m., the Complainant removed a small bag from the pocket. He moved the bag behind his back. He leaned forward and to the side, and appeared to lift himself off the seat.
At 3:09:46 p.m., a police officer - SO #1 - removed the Complainant from the police vehicle and said, “I’m going to search you again.” SO #1 asked, “Do you have anything in your pockets?” The Complainant said he did not. SO #1 searched the Complainant’s coat.
At 3:10:33 p.m., the search was complete, and the Complainant was placed inside the police vehicle.
At 3:12:08 p.m., the Complainant was advised he was under arrest for drug trafficking.
At 3:15:58 p.m., the Complainant advised WO #4 of his medical issues and history, and said he had been beaten.
At 3:17:34 p.m., WO #4’s police vehicle left the scene. They arrived at the Middlesex Detachment at 3:38:14 p.m. The Complainant remained conscious and lucid throughout the transport.
At 11:13:27 p.m., the Complainant was placed in the rear passenger compartment of SO #2’s police vehicle at London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) – Victoria Hospital. His hands were handcuffed in front of his body. He wore a long sleeve shirt and pants. SO #2 advised the Complainant would be taken to Petrolia and held until morning.
At 11:26:52 p.m., the Complainant laid down in the rear seat in the fetal position with his eyes closed.
At 11:33:19 p.m., the Complainant moved his hands to the groin area of his pants. He inserted his left hand inside the front of his pants. For several minutes, he moved his left hand around his groin area.
At 11:37:21 p.m., the Complainant removed his left hand from his pants. His left hand was clenched into a fist. He brought his hands close to his chest.
At 11:40:43 p.m., the Complainant moved his hands down to his groin area again and they remained by his waist.
At 11:41:48 p.m., the Complainant moved his hands in between his legs. His hands were outside his pants.
On April 18, 2024, at 12:23:42 a.m., SO #2 and the Complainant arrived in Petrolia at the Lambton Detachment. The Complainant sat upright. He reached under his legs with his right hand and then between his legs. He exited the police vehicle.
OPP Custody Videos
On April 17, 2024, at 3:38:37 p.m., the Complainant was escorted into the booking area by a plainclothes police officer [SO #1] and a uniformed police officer [WO #4]. The Complainant was sat down. His hands were handcuffed behind his back. There was blood on his face.
At 3:45:09 p.m., SO #1 removed the Complainant’s necklace. His shoes were also removed. His jacket was removed, and the pockets were searched. Nothing appeared to have been found. SO #1 searched the right side of the Complainant’s pants with both of his hands, then the left side. On the left side, he found an object and passed it to WO #4. SO #1 searched the right side of the torso, then the left side. The shirt was removed, and the Complainant wore an undershirt beneath. The breast pocket of the undershirt was searched. SO #1 searched the left side of the torso. He searched the waistband, and the right front pocket of the pants. The remainder of the events at the Middlesex Detachment were unremarkable.
On April 18, 2024, at 12:23:26 a.m., the Complainant and SO #2 arrived at the Lambton Detachment in Petrolia. The Complainant exited the police vehicle on his own. His hands were handcuffed in front of his body. He was escorted to the booking area. He sat down.
At 12:35:56 a.m., the handcuffs were removed. The Complainant turned the pockets of his pants inside out. He stood up against a wall and placed his hands on it. SO #2 searched the Complainant’s socks, pant legs, waistband, and the pockets of the pants. The Complainant raised his arms above his head. SO #2 searched the torso. Nothing appeared to have been found.
At 12:37:10 a.m., the Complainant was escorted to a cell. He laid down on the bench with his hands between his legs. He was provided blankets which he wrapped around his body.
The cell was checked by various individuals throughout the night. The cell was checked at 12:50:35 a.m. by SO #2, at 1:14:19 a.m. by a guard [the SEW], at 1:15:24 a.m. by an unidentified officer, at 1:27:26 a.m. by SO #2, at 1:46:38 a.m. by the SEW, at 2:01:40 a.m. by the SEW, at 2:18:33 a.m. by the SEW, at 2:31:02 a.m. by the SEW.
At 2:40:40 a.m., the Complainant was removed from the cell. He returned to the cell at 3:00:31 a.m.
At 3:11:23 a.m., the Complainant covered himself in the blankets. He was not visible to the camera.
At 3:19:26 a.m., the Complainant drank from a beverage provided to him.
At 3:30:15 a.m., the SEW checked the cell. At 3:44:03 a.m., he checked again. The Complainant remained covered by the blankets.
At 3:55:25 a.m., the Complainant convulsed and rolled off the bench. He continued to convulse on the floor.
At 3:56:52 a.m., the SEW checked the cell and ran away.
At 3:57:20 a.m., two OPP officers [WO #1 and WO #2] entered the cell. They placed the Complainant in the recovery position on his left side. SO #1 used the phone in the booking area.
At 4:04:12 a.m., SO #1 administered Narcan to the Complainant.
At 4:05:28 a.m., paramedic services arrived.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between April 22, 2024, and June 13, 2024:
- General Occurrence Report – April 17, 2024;
- Computer-aided Dispatch Reports;
- ICCS recordings;
- Communications recordings;
- Prisoner Custody Record;
- Custody videos;
- Operational Plan;
- Notes of WOs, SOs and the SEW;
- Training Records – SO #1;
- General Occurrence Report – February 15, 2024; and
- Health Canada – Certificate of Analysis.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between April 27, 2024, and May 13, 2024:
- Medical records from Middlesex - London Paramedic Service;
- Medical records from LHSC;
- Medical records from Lambton Emergency Medical Services; and
- Medical records from Bluewater Health.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and both subject officials, as well as video footage that captured much of the Complainant’s time in custody, gives rise to the following scenario.
In the afternoon of April 17, 2024, the Complainant, in the company of two acquaintances, was travelling west on Highway 401 in a Dodge Charger when the vehicle experienced a flat tire. A towing company was contacted, and a flatbed truck operator attended at the scene. The Charger was loaded onto the truck, and the Complainant and one of his acquaintances had taken a seat in the front with the truck driver when the truck was surrounded by marked police cruisers.
The Complainant was the subject of a drug investigation by members of the OPP Lambton Detachment’s Community Street Crime Unit (CSCU), including SO #1. The team had been surreptitiously monitoring the Complainant’s movements and come to learn that he was at the side of the highway with a tow truck on scene. With the assistance of uniform officers out of the Middlesex Detachment, SO #1 and other members of the CSCU travelled to the scene where marked cruisers were used to surround the truck.
SO #1, in plainclothes but wearing a vest marked ‘Police’, made his way to the passenger side of the truck and opened the door. The Complainant’s acquaintance was removed from the truck without incident, after which SO #1 reached for the Complainant, who had been seated in the centre position. The officer pulled the Complainant out of the vehicle. There followed a physical altercation in which the Complainant was forcibly grounded and subjected to a number of strikes before he was handcuffed.
The Complainant was lifted to his feet and escorted to WO #4’s cruiser. He was searched by SO #1 and then placed in the rear of the vehicle. Despite his arms being handcuffed, the Complainant was able to retrieve a quantity of illicit substances from the left inside pocket of his jacket and insert it between his buttocks. The Complainant was searched a second time at the scene and then transported to the OPP Middlesex Detachment.
At the detachment, the Complainant was searched once again before he was lodged in cells. The Complainant advised officers that he suffered from a medical condition. Arrangements were made to take the Complainant to hospital. He was transported to hospital in London where he was diagnosed with a broken nose but otherwise medically cleared. Urinalysis did not reveal the presence of drugs in his system.
SO #2 arrived at the hospital, assumed custody of the Complainant, and transported him to the OPP Lambton Detachment. They arrived at about 12:23 a.m. of April 18, 2024. He was searched again at the station and lodged in a cell.
At about 3:55 a.m., the Complainant convulsed and rolled off the cell bench. Officers entered the cell, placed the Complainant in the recovery position, and administered Narcan. Paramedics were summoned and arrived to take the Complainant to hospital.
At hospital, the Complainant was diagnosed with having suffered a drug-induced cardiac arrest.
Relevant Legislation
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.
Section 215, Criminal Code - Failure to Provide Necessaries
215 (1) Every one is under a legal duty
(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person
(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and
(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.
(2) Every person commits an offence who, being under a legal duty within the meaning of subsection (1), fails without lawful excuse to perform that duty, if
(b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.
Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm
219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.
221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Analysis and Director’s Decision
The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by OPP officers on April 17, 2024. Following his arrest, while still in the custody of the OPP, the Complainant lapsed into medical distress and was taken to hospital. The SIU was notified of these events and initiated an investigation. SO #1 and SO #2 were identified as subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official committed a criminal offence in connection with this matter.
Turning first to the Complainant’s fractured nose and the events at the scene of his arrest, 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.[3]
SO #1 described the nature of the drug investigation that he and members of the CSCU were conducting, and judicial search authorizations that had been obtained pursuant thereto. On this record, it would appear the officers were proceeding lawfully to arrest the Complainant for drug trafficking.
There is conflict in the evidence regarding the nature and extent of the force brought to bear by the police in the Complainant’s arrest. There is evidence, for example, in which it is alleged that the Complainant was punched in the face by SO #1 for no reason and then taken to the ground, where multiple officers struck him upwards of a dozen times though he never resisted. In other evidence, SO #1 concedes he punched the Complainant after he pulled him from the tow truck, but says he did so because the Complainant had pulled away from him and was resisting arrest. The officer, concerned about a protracted struggle by the side of a busy highway, struck the blow in order to quickly subdue the Complainant. When that failed, according to SO #1, the Complainant was grounded before the officer again had occasion to punch the Complainant and knee him in the torso. Those blows, says the officer, came in an effort to overcome the Complainant’s resistance on the ground; specifically, according to SO #1, the Complainant was refusing to release his arms to be handcuffed. The picture of the force described by SO #1 would appear proportionate to the exigencies of the moment. As there is no reason to believe that the incriminating evidence is any likelier to be closer to the truth than the rendition of events proffered by SO #1 and other officers, and some reason to suspect its reliability,[4] it is insufficiently cogent to warrant being put to the test by a court.
Turning next to the cardiac arrest that the Complainant suffered while in cells at the Lambton OPP Detachment, the issue is whether the officers who dealt with him were criminally remiss in failing to detect and confiscate the drugs he had secreted on his person. More specifically, did SO #1 and SO #2 do enough to find the drugs?
The offences that arise for consideration are failure to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to sections 215 and 221 of the Criminal Code, respectively. Both require something more than a simple want of care to give rise to liability. The former is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. The latter is premised on even more egregious conduct that demonstrates a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is not made out unless the neglect constitutes a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable standard of care. In the instant case, the question is whether there was any want of care on the part of SO #1 or SO #2, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that endangered the Complainant’s life or contributed to his cardiac arrest. In my view, there was not.
The Complainant was subjected to multiple pat-down or frisk searches before he was placed in the OPP Lambton Detachment cells, where it appears he accessed the drugs from his buttocks and ingested them. SO #1 had failed to find a quantity of drugs in an inside jacket pocket when he initially searched the Complainant at the scene of the arrest. He decided to do an additional search, concerned that he might have missed something, but by that time the Complainant had already hidden the drugs between his buttocks. If the officer’s initial search was substandard, I am unable to conclude that the officer’s conduct fell markedly below a reasonable standard of care, particularly in the context of the subsequent search undertaken by SO #1 only minutes later.
Once hidden between the Complainant’s buttocks, the only way the drugs might have been detected is via a strip search. However, it is not readily apparent that either SO #1 or SO #2 had the grounds to justify such a search. In R v Golden, [2001] 3 SCR 679, the Supreme Court of Canada held that such a search is only warranted where there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe it is necessary to discover weapons or evidence. SO #1 had searched the Complainant at the scene and then searched him again within minutes, narrowly missing the drugs that the Complainant had transitioned in the interim. As for SO #2, he had just picked up the Complainant from the hospital where he had been medically cleared but for a broken nose. In the circumstances, whether there were grounds or not for a strip search and whether the officers ought to have conducted one, I am satisfied that their failure to do so did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.
Date: August 15, 2024
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) Unless otherwise specified, the information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s finding of facts following its investigation. [Back to text]
- 2) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]
- 3) Section 25(1) of the Criminal Code [Back to text]
- 4) ICCS footage, capturing the incident in parts, establishes that the Complainant was subjected to a small discrete number of strikes, not the minimum “15” alleged. [Back to text]
Note:
The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.