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 30-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 22, 2024, at 9:40 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the PRP, on April 22, 2024, at about 3:00 a.m., the PRP received a 911 call indicating that the Complainant was acting oddly near the intersection of Winston Churchill Boulevard and Derry Road in Mississauga.[2] The Subject Official (SO) and the Witness Official (WO) attended and talked with the Complainant, who spoke of wanting to cause harm to himself. He then unexpectedly ran into traffic. The SO discharged his conducted energy weapon (CEW), causing the Complainant to lock-up and fall to the ground on his face. Both officers immediately noted the Complainant’s injuries and emergency medical services (EMS) were called. The Complainant was transported to Credit Valley Hospital (CVH) and diagnosed with a fractured right cheek and orbital bone, and chipped teeth.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/04/22 at 9:50 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/04/22 at 10:56 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on April 22, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Not interviewed; declined

The civilian witness was interviewed on May 2, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on May 6, 2024.

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on April 22, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a Circle K store at the intersection of Derry Road West and Millcreek Drive, Mississauga, culminating on Derry Road West, approximately 100 metres southwest from Millcreek Drive.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

Derry Road West, Mississauga, was oriented in a northeast to southwest direction. Millcreek Drive intersected in an east and west direction. The Circle K store was located at the northwest corner of Millcreek Drive and Derry Road West.

Streetlights were positioned along both sides of Derry Road West, which provided lighting. SIU investigators noted the posted speed limit was 70 km/h.

SIU forensic investigators examined the scene and took photographs.

A small amount of suspected blood, and four CEW wires and three probes were located in the northbound lane of Derry Road West. The wires and probes were collected for further examination.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – The SO

The first trigger pull was at 3:24:13 a.m., April 22, 2024, from Bay 1 and the second at 3:24:14 a.m. from Bay 2. Electricity was discharged for under one second in connection with the first trigger pull, and about five seconds in connection with the second.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The SO and the WO

Starting at about 3:18 a.m., April 22, 2024, the SO and the WO arrived at the Circle K and approached two men [the Complainant and CW #1]. CW #1 pointed at the Complainant and said, “He needs to go to the hospital.” The SO attempted to communicate with the Complainant, who repeatedly expressed apparent delusions. The SO and the WO offered to drive the Complainant back to his hotel with CW #1, but he did not want to get into their cruiser. They offered to walk him back, and the Complainant walked away from them.

The SO and the WO walked behind the Complainant to keep him in view. The SO said, “I don’t want to chase him because he’s obviously going through a manic episode.” The Complainant then ran southbound on Derry Road, and the SO called out to him and asked him to stop running.

Starting at about 3:24:07 a.m., the Complainant ran into the middle lane of traffic as vehicles approached. The SO shouted at the Complainant to stop. The Complainant was almost struck by two vehicles. The SO discharged his CEW at the Complainant, who fell forward and struck the roadway with his face. The SO handcuffed the Complainant’s hands behind his back. He observed injuries and requested EMS. The SO tried to explain to the Complainant why he deployed his CEW, and the Complainant responded by repeating his delusions.

PRP Communications Recordings

On April 22, 2024, starting at about 3:05 a.m., CW #2 called 911 to request police attend a gas station for two men [the Complainant and CW #1] who would not leave. It was reported that the Complainant was intoxicated and had asked CW #2 to call police for a mental health issue.

The SO and the WO both responded. A PRP dispatcher advised the WO and the SO of the Complainant’s cautions on file for violence, firearms, and schizophrenia.

The SO reported the Complainant’s distressed state and delusional comments.

Starting at about 3:24 a.m., the WO reported that the Complainant had run into traffic. A sergeant advised over the radio that, if there was an imminent need to stop the Complainant, a CEW should be used.

The SO informed the dispatcher that he had deployed his CEW and apprehended the Complainant under the Mental Health Act (MHA). He then requested EMS because the Complainant had suffered injuries after he “face-planted” the ground.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PRP between April 22, 2024, and May 6, 2024:

• BWC recordings of the SO and the WO;
• PRP communications recordings;
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
• CEW deployment data - the SO;
• General Occurrence Report ;
• Person Details Report – the Complainant;
• Notes - the SO and the WO;­
• The SO’s Use of Force Training Qualification; and
• PRP policies for Use of Force and Person in Crisis.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on April 24, 2024:­

• The Complainant’s medical records from CVH.

In the early morning of April 22, 2024, PRP officers were dispatched to the Circle K store at the intersection of Derry Road West and Millcreek Drive, Mississauga. The store had contacted 911 to report a male they wanted removed – the Complainant. The Complainant was with a companion and refusing to leave. He was intoxicated and looking for help with a mental health issue.

The SO arrived at the store with the WO at about 3:20 a.m. They spoke with the Complainant to ascertain what was happening, but the Complainant was largely unresponsive. He expressed apparent delusions. The officers offered to drive the Complainant and his friend back to their hotel, but the Complainant refused. They decided to follow him home to ensure his safety.

The Complainant exited the store and travelled southwest on Derry Road West. He entered onto the roadway and placed himself at risk of being struck by motorists. The SO closed the distance to the Complainant and deployed his CEW. The discharge seemingly had no effect. The officer fired his weapon again and, this time, the Complainant’s body locked-up and he fell face first on the ground. The SO approached the Complainant and handcuffed his hands behind the back.

Paramedics attended and transported the Complainant to hospital where he was diagnosed with multiple facial fractures, the result of his impact with the ground.

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 17, Mental Health Act - Action by Police Officer

17 Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by PRP officers on April 22, 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 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.

The Complainant was clearly of unsound mind at the time and a danger to himself because of his disordered thinking. In the circumstances, the SO was proceeding to lawfully apprehend the Complainant under section 17 of the MHA to so that he could be taken to hospital for examination.

The force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s arrest was legally justified. The officer and the WO had allowed the Complainant to walk away from the store of his own volition. That decision was a wise one as they had yet to conclude that the Complainant was a danger to himself even if it was apparent that he was in mental distress. In order to ensure his safety, however, the officers followed him as he walked away from the store. They had travelled a distance before the officers rightly concluded that the Complainant needed to be apprehended in order to avoid harm coming to him. He had walked into live traffic and was at risk of grievous bodily injury or death by being struck by a vehicle. The officers might have decided on a physical engagement but doing so risked a struggle on the roadway that would jeopardize their lives and that of the Complainant. The use of the CEW, on the other hand, carried the potential of the Complainant’s immediate incapacitation, allowing the officers a safe opportunity to quickly take him into custody. On this record, while it is regrettable that the Complainant suffered serious injuries when he fell, I am unable to conclude that the SO acted unreasonably when he fired his CEW.

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

Date: August 20, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit