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 death of a 34-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 2, 2023, at about 6:40 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 2, 2023, at approximately 3:52 a.m., PRP officers responded to a disturbance call at an apartment building located in the area of Kennedy Road North and Vodden Street East, Brampton. A male was reportedly running around naked. Officers met with a witness in the lobby of the building, who directed them to an upper floor. When they arrived at the floor, the officers were confronted by the Complainant. He was naked and in an agitated state. The officers apprehended the male under the Mental Health Act (MHA). In the course of his arrest, the Complainant’s complexion began to turn blue before he went vital signs absent (VSA). Officers began to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) until Emergency Medical Services (EMS) arrived and took over. The Complainant was transported to Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH), where he was pronounced deceased by a physician.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 04/02/2023 at 6:56 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 04/02/2023 at 8:45 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

34-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

CW #7 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between April 2, 2023, and May 9, 2023.

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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #1 was interviewed on April 20, 2023.

Investigative Delay

Delay was incurred waiting for the Report of Postmortem Examination, which was received March 13, 2024, from the Office of the Chief Coroner.

Training records, requested by the SIU on May 1, 2024, were received on May 8, 2024, from the PRP.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in a hallway, outside an elevator, of an apartment building located in the area of Kennedy Road North and Vodden Street East, Brampton.

Physical Evidence

On April 2, 2023, at 8:45 a.m., the SIU arrived on scene. SIU forensic investigators and the lead investigator took the elevators and then the stairs to the floor where the Complainant’s apartment was located.

The Complainant had reportedly been encountered by officers on the floor in front of the elevators. The floor was littered with medical debris and suspected bloodstaining. The wall on the opposite side of the elevator also had transfer-like bloodstaining. There was a red-stained towel on the floor of an elevator.

The hallway led to the Complainant’s apartment. The apartment door was unlocked and ajar. The floor had several red-stained transfers, as did several areas on the wall leading to the apartment.

The interior of the apartment had numerous unidentified broken items strewn all over. There was broken glass and broken white porcelain in the living and dining room areas. The kitchen area was inaccessible due to broken items on the floor. A hallway led to the bathroom and two bedrooms. The first bedroom door was blocked by an unknown broken item and several areas within the room were stained with a red blood-like substance. Furniture in both bedrooms was broken. There was red staining on the floor and walls throughout the apartment.

Photographs of the scene were taken. A rough sketch of the hallway was completed.

A SIU forensic investigator obtained two swabs of suspected bloodstaining from inside and outside the elevator.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

PRP Communications Recordings

On April 2, 2023, at 3:33:32 a.m., a female [now known to be CW #3] called 911 to request EMS for the Complainant, who was having a schizophrenic episode and bleeding from rolling in glass. She also reported that the Complainant was a danger to himself, did not have access to weapons, was not suicidal, and might have consumed crack cocaine. According to CW #3, her boyfriend, CW #2, had just returned from the floor, where the Complainant was laying on the floor shaking, responsive, and aware EMS was on the way. CW #2 also reported that the Complainant’s friend [now known to be CW #4] was no longer in the apartment.

At 3:34:09 a.m., a PRP unit [WO #1] and another PRP unit [WO #2] were dispatched to the apartment building located in the area of Kennedy Road North and Vodden Street East in Brampton.

At 3:35:06 a.m., a third PRP unit [the SO] was dispatched to the apartment building.

At 3:39:19 a.m., WO #1 inquired if the Complainant was conscious and breathing.

The SO requested that all police units meet downstairs before attending the apartment.

At 3:39:52 a.m., the Communications Centre advised responding officers that the Complainant was known to be violent, carry weapons, resist arrest, use crack cocaine, and suffer from schizophrenia. A further update notified officers that the Complainant was naked, unresponsive, and in the company of a friend [now known to be CW #4], and had smashed items in his apartment.

At 3:41:24 a.m., the SO indicated that he believed the Complainant was in a state of excited delirium and requested that CW #4 leave.

At 3:41:57 a.m., a PRP sergeant was dispatched.

At 3:43:57 a.m., the SO requested that CW #2 and CW #3 remain downstairs.

At 3:51:47 a.m., PRP Officer #1 and PRP Officer #2 were dispatched.

At 3:53:37 a.m., the SO advised that the Complainant, located in the hallway, was in custody and had superficial cuts requiring EMS attendance. He cancelled the attendance of the Tactical Unit.

At 3:55:41 a.m., the SO advised that the Complainant was VSA.

At 4:01:46 a.m., the SO requested that additional police officers attend to clear the apartment. PRP Officer #3, PRP Officer #4 and WO #3 were dispatched.

At 4:07:45 a.m., the SO notified dispatch that the fire department had taken over CPR.

At 4:12:33 a.m., the SO requested that family be removed from the lobby as the Complainant was being brought downstairs. He further requested that the scene be secured.

At 4:22:30 a.m., WO #3 was following the ambulance to BCH.

At 4:49:00 a.m., WO #3 broadcast that the Complainant had been pronounced deceased.

BWC Footage – WO #1 and the SO

On April 2, 2023, starting at about 3:45:02 a.m., WO #1 and WO #2 arrived on scene at the same time as two paramedics. WO #1 and WO #2 encountered CW #2 and CW #3 in the lobby. Shortly thereafter, the SO arrived at 3:46:52 a.m. CW #2 told officers he was woken by sounds of the Complainant smashing things, which occurred when his brother was having an episode. The Complainant’s behaviour worsened, and CW #2 left the apartment. Upon returning, CW #2 called EMS as the Complainant was bleeding from cuts he had sustained. Due to a previous police interaction and concerned for his wellbeing, CW #2 told the officers that he wanted the Complainant to go to hospital. In response, the SO told CW #2 that the Complainant would be apprehended under the MHA and that his safety was the priority. The SO arranged for himself and WO #1 to attend the apartment to assess the situation, while WO #2 waited with family members in the lobby. CW #3 provided the SO keys to the apartment.

Starting at about 3:52:14 a.m., the SO and WO #1 arrived on the Complainant’s floor via the elevator. Outside the elevator, they encountered the Complainant. He was naked, and lying on the ground on his left side with his back facing the elevator. The SO approached the Complainant, told him to put his hands behind his back, and grabbed him by the right forearm. The Complainant, who had blood on his hands and feet, moved his hands towards his face and turned his head towards the ground. WO #1 removed handcuffs from his vest, and the SO told the Complainant, “We’re not going to hurt you bud,” as he attempted to maneuver his right arm behind his back. The Complainant resisted the SO’s attempts to move his right arm and pulled his arm away back towards his head. The SO again directed the Complainant to put his hands behind his back and assured him he would not be hurt. The Complainant was placed in a prone position with both his arms underneath his stomach.

Starting at about 3:52:39 a.m., WO #1, who was on the Complainant’s left side, pulled on his left arm while the SO placed his right knee on the Complainant’s upper back, repeatedly saying, “We’re not going to hurt you.”

Starting at about 3:52:44 a.m., the SO managed to bring the Complainant’s right arm towards the small of his back for WO #1 to affix a handcuff. The SO, assisted by WO #1, then pulled on the Complainant’s left arm, which was brought behind the back as well, after which WO #1 completed the handcuffing process.

Starting at about 3:53:04 a.m., the SO removed his knee from the Complainant’s back, notified dispatch that the Complainant was in custody, and asked for the attendance of paramedics.

Starting at about 3:53:41 a.m., the Complainant was rolled over onto his right shoulder when officers perceived he was, “Going purple.” WO #1 checked for a pulse and advised the SO that the Complainant was still breathing while the SO radioed for paramedics to attend for a male losing consciousness. The Complainant seemed to be snoring.

Starting at about 3:54:20 a.m., WO #1 advised the SO that the Complainant had a strong pulse.

Starting at about 3:54:42 a.m., the SO updated dispatch that the Complainant was not breathing, and WO #1 immediately commenced CPR chest compressions.

Starting at about 3:55:55 a.m., two paramedics arrived on the Complainant’s floor and began their assessment of the Complainant, while the SO continued CPR chest compressions.

Starting at about 3:58:12 a.m., the handcuffs were removed at the direction of the paramedics as the SO and WO #1 took turns performing CPR chest compressions.

Starting at about 4:03:24 a.m., a paramedic advised that the Complainant had a slow Pulseless Electrical Activity.

Starting at about 4:04:17 a.m., additional paramedics and firefighters arrived on the Complainant’s floor. A firefighter took over CPR chest compressions while the SO requested additional officers to clear the apartment.

Starting at about 4:05:05 a.m., two uniformed officers - PRP Officer #4 and PRP Officer #3 - arrived and proceeded to the Complainant’s apartment.

Starting at about 4:06:19 a.m., WO #1 told paramedics that the Complainant, who was located outside the elevator, had rolled in glass. The SO also advised paramedics that the Complainant was rolled into the recovery position after he was handcuffed. The Complainant was heard gasping.

Starting at about 4:10:35 a.m., the SO requested the lobby be cleared as the Complainant was being brought downstairs.

Starting at about 4:18:20 a.m., the Complainant was placed on a stretcher for transport to hospital. The SO told WO #1 to secure the lobby and made reference to the “SIU”.

The lobby was secured with police tape and the officers left the Complainant’s floor.

BWC Footage – WO #2

On April 2, 2023, at 3:45:41 a.m., WO #2 arrived on scene and encountered WO #1 and paramedics. Shortly thereafter, the SO arrived on scene and, together, the officers spoke with the family in the lobby. After the SO and WO #1 left the lobby, WO #2 asked CW #2 what started the Complainant’s episodes. In response, CW #2 indicated that alcohol was a contributing factor.

Starting at about 3:53:21 a.m., the SO broadcast via radio transmissions a request that paramedics attend. The paramedics, who were in the lobby, went to their ambulance.

Starting at about 3:54:21 a.m., an updated transmission reported that the Complainant was losing consciousness and WO #2 went outside to advise the paramedics that, “He’s losing consciousness. They need you up there ASAP.”

Starting at about 3:54:20 a.m., the SO broadcast that the Complainant was not breathing.

Starting at about 3:57:40 a.m., following an inquiry about the consumption of alcohol and narcotics, CW #2 told WO #2 that he assumed the Complainant was impaired as this triggered his episodes.

Starting at about 4:02:36 a.m., the SO directed WO #2 to remain in the lobby as officers were performing CPR compressions.

Starting at about 4:04:30 a.m., CW #3 told WO #2 that the Complainant had gone out with CW #4 earlier in the evening.

Starting at about 4:05:55 a.m., CW #3 told WO #2 that the Complainant was having an episode an hour-and-a-half prior to calling 911. She then went for a walk with CW #2 and, when they returned, they found the Complainant naked on all fours. CW #3 indicated that when the Complainant smoked “crack”, he lapsed into an episode. In the past, the Complainant had smoked crack and locked himself in a room.

Starting at about 4:11:38 a.m., CW #4 arrived in the lobby and asked CW #3 how she was doing.

Starting at about 4:12:44 a.m., the SO requested that WO #2 remove the family from the lobby as the Complainant was being brought downstairs. WO #2 directed CW #2 and CW #3 in a hallway next to the lobby and told CW #4 to stay away as he was not involved in the incident.

Starting at about 4:22:24 a.m., the Complainant was placed in the back of the ambulance by paramedics.

Starting at about 4:28:03 a.m., CW #3 told WO #2 that she believed the Complainant had stopped taking his medication. She and CW #2 knew the outcome of calling for assistance was never going to end well.

Surveillance Video Footage – Apartment Building

On April 2, 2023, at 12:22 p.m., the SIU received a copy of the surveillance footage from the apartment complex located in the area of Kennedy Road North and Vodden Street East, Brampton, relevant to the incident under investigation. A total of four interior cameras were reviewed, including the main entrance and lobby, and two cameras on the Complainant’s floor. There was a third camera on the Complainant’s floor which was not working at the time. There were no cameras in the elevators. The times on the video recordings, which were motion-activated, date and time-stamped, were one hour behind actual time. The times referenced below have been adjusted to reflect actual time.

On April 2, 2023, at 3:01:30 a.m., CW #2, CW #3, and their two children, exited an apartment and walked towards the elevators.

Starting at about 3:15:35 a.m., CW #4 exited the same apartment carrying a small clear bottle, and walked towards the elevators.

Starting at about 3:24:56 a.m., CW #2 re-entered the apartment while CW #3 remained in the hallway, appearing to be on her phone. CW #2 was observed sending a text message from a phone he took from CW #3.

Starting at about 3:31:52 a.m., CW #3, now in the lobby, appeared to be making a phone call.

Starting at about 3:42:31 a.m., CW #2 re-entered the apartment and exited at 3:43:01 a.m.

Starting at about 3:46:30 a.m., two uniformed officers [now known to be WO #2 and WO #1] arrived on scene, followed shortly by a supervisor [now known to be the SO]. All three uniformed officers appeared to be speaking to CW #2 and CW #3 in the lobby.

Starting at about 3:47:21 a.m., while CW #2 and CW #3 were speaking with officers in the lobby, the Complainant, who was naked and bleeding, exited his apartment and swung his arms in the air as he made his way towards the elevators on the Complainant’s floor. The hallway was covered in what was suspected to be blood that was transferred by the Complainant when he made contact.

Starting at about 3:49:10 a.m., the Complainant, who appeared to have paper stuck to his buttocks, contacted the elevator and the walls, swung his arms in the air, and grabbed his head.

Starting at about 3:51:16 a.m., CW #3 provided the SO a black lanyard containing keys, and he and WO #1 went out of camera view. WO #2 remained in the lobby with CW #2 and CW #3.

Starting at about 3:52:22 a.m., the SO and WO #1 exited the elevator, where they encountered the Complainant lying on the floor. Two paramedics arrived in the lobby.

Starting at about 3:53:20 a.m., the Complainant was rolled onto his side.

Starting at about 3:55:12 a.m., WO #1 commenced CPR chest compressions on the Complainant, taking turns with the SO, until they were relieved by responding firefighters.

Starting at about 4:03:26 a.m., two additional uniformed police officers [now known to be PRP Officer #4 and PRP Officer #3] arrived on scene and went towards the Complainant’s apartment.

Starting at about 4:10:59 a.m., the SO entered the apartment before returning to the front door, where he spoke with PRP Officer #4.

Starting at about 4:11:35 a.m., CW #4 attended the lobby and spoke with CW #2 and CW #3 before moving to the side exit door adjacent to the lobby.

Starting at about 4:18:47 a.m., CW #4 spoke with PRP Officer #4 beside the Complainant’s apartment before he went out of camera view via the exit stairwell.

Starting at about 4:20:26 a.m., the Complainant, who was on a stretcher, was placed in the back of an ambulance. PRP Officer #3 secured the scene with police caution tape.

Starting at about 4:31:27 a.m., the video recording ended.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PRP received between April 2, 2023, and May 8, 2024:

• Communications recordings;
• BWC footage;
• Fingerprint Form – the Complainant;
• Messaging History Report;
• Procedure – Body Worn Camera;
• Procedure – Incident Response;
• Procedure – Mental Health and Addiction;
• Training Summary – WO #1;
• Training Summary – the SO;
• Incident Details Report;
• Incident History;
• List of Involved Officers;
• Notes - WO #3;
• Notes - WO #1;
• Notes - WO #2;
• Notes - WO #4;
• Person Details Report;
• Occurrence Details; and
• Training records related to police response to ‘agitated chaotic events’, the use of conducted energy weapons, and persons in excited delirium.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources:

• Surveillance video from the apartment building located in the area of Kennedy Road North and Vodden Street East, Brampton, received April 2, 2023;
• Ambulance Call Report and Incident Reports from Peel Regional Paramedic Service, received May 1, 2023; and
• Report of Postmortem Examination, received March 13, 2024, from the Office of the Chief Coroner.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with one of the arresting officers – WO #1 – and civilian witnesses, and video footage of the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

In the early morning of April 2, 2024, PRP officers and paramedics were dispatched to an apartment building located in the area of Kennedy Road North and Vodden Street East, Brampton. A resident had contacted 911 seeking help for the Complainant, with whom she lived. Specifically, CW #3 reported that the Complainant suffered from schizophrenia and was in the throes of a psychotic episode. He had destroyed his bedroom and was bleeding from having rolled around in broken glass. She explained that the Complainant sometimes had these episodes when he consumed crack cocaine, but she could not be sure if had taken the drug on this occasion.

The SO arrived at the lobby of the building and, with WO #1 and WO #2, met with CW #3 and the Complainant’s brother – CW #2. CW #2 explained that his brother had been smashing things in the apartment, which was typical behaviour when he was experiencing an episode. He noted that he had been up to see his brother and found him on the floor of their unit. He was aware that paramedics were on their way. The SO asked that CW #3 and CW #2 remain in the lobby as he and WO #1 attended the floor to assess the Complainant. The plan was to apprehend him under the Mental Health Act so he could be taken to hospital and treated. CW #2 expressed concern with the police presence noting that his brother’s arm had been broken in a recent encounter with officers. The SO assured him that his main concern was with his brother’s safety.

The SO and WO #1 entered the elevator and travelled up to the Complainant’s floor. In front of the elevator doors as they opened was the Complainant. He was naked and lying on the floor on his left side, his head lifted. The SO stepped out of the elevator, called out the Complainant’s name and told him to put his hands behind the back. The Complainant brought his hands up towards his face. The SO took hold of his right arm and assured the Complainant that they were not going to hurt him. The officer again asked that he put his hands behind his back and attempted to maneuver his right arm in that direction. The Complainant pulled his arm free and the SO again indicated they were not going to hurt him. The Complainant then rolled over into a prone position with his arms underneath his chest. He resisted as the officers attempted to pull his arms free. The SO placed his right knee on the upper left side of the Complainant’s back, and he (on the Complainant’s right side) and WO #1 (on the left) continued their efforts to pull his arms out from under his torso. The officers were able to bring both arms around the back and handcuff them. About twenty seconds had elapsed from the moment the SO’s knee was placed on the Complainant’s back until it was removed immediately after the handcuffs were secured.

With the Complainant handcuffed behind the back, the SO rose to his feet and radioed a request for paramedics to attend. The Complainant was left in a prone position for about 35 seconds from the time he was handcuffed until the officers rolled him on his right side. The SO radioed another request for the immediate attendance of paramedics, noting that the Complainant was losing consciousness. Both officers tried unsuccessfully to rouse the Complainant. WO #1 indicated that the Complainant had a strong pulse. Seconds later, the SO noticed that the Complainant was not breathing. The Complainant was turned onto his back and the officers commenced chest compressions.

Paramedics arrived on scene and rendered emergency care. The officers assisted by taking turns performing chest compressions.

The Complainant was transported to Brampton Civic Hospital and pronounced deceased at 4:49 a.m.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy attributed the Complainant’s death to the “toxic effects of cocaine, fentanyl, and bromazolam in the setting of prone restraint with compression of the thorax in an obese man”.

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 25(3), Criminal Code - Protection of Persons Acting Under Authority

25 (3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a person is not justified for the purposes of subsection (1) in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for the self-preservation of the person or the preservations of any one under that person’s protection from death or grievous bodily harm.

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.

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 220, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Death

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.

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

The Complainant passed away on April 2, 2023. As he had been arrested by PRP officers shortly before his death, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. 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 death.

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.

Section 25(3) of the Criminal Code qualifies section 25(1) in the case of force intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm. This type of force is not justified unless the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for the self-preservation of the person or the preservation of any one under that person’s protection from death or grievous bodily harm.

The SO was lawfully placed and in the execution if his duties as he attended the Complainant’s floor intending to take the Complainant into custody under the Mental Health Act. The information he had about the 911 call, and what he gathered personally speaking with CW #2 and CW #3, gave rise to a reasonable belief that the Complainant was in mental health crisis and subject to apprehension pursuant to section 17 of the Act.

With respect to the force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, namely, the use of his knee to keep the Complainant pinned on the floor as he was being handcuffed behind the back, I am unable to reasonably conclude it was unjustified. Though the SO did not avail himself of an interview with the SIU, as was his legal right, the following inferences appear reasonably available on the evidence. First, the officer knew that the Complainant was in medical and mental health crisis. The SO is captured on communications recordings expressing the view that the Complainant might be experiencing excited delirium. That condition, or the symptoms it describes, is recognized as a medical emergency in the training the SO received as a police officer. The officer’s theory was not without merit. He had heard that the Complainant, who suffered from mental illness, had lapsed into a highly agitated state following the possible consumption of crack – all hallmarks of the onset of the condition. Second, if the Complainant was in medical crisis, then it was imperative that he be taken into custody as soon as possible in order to allow for immediate medical attention. Third, the SO would very likely have been aware that placing individuals compromised in this manner in a prone position with a knee on their back, particularly, obese individuals, as the Complainant clearly was, risked a further and immediate deterioration of their health, including death. That proposition is also apparent in modern police training of the type the SO would have received. Fourth, the use of handcuffs was necessary before paramedics would be allowed to approach the scene. Though he did not give the appearance of someone capable of real violence as he lay on the floor, the SO could not be sure that the Complainant was not a threat given his destructive behaviour a short time prior and cautions on the Complainant’s police record regarding violence and resisting arrest. With all this in mind, the SO had a difficult decision to make and only seconds in which to make it. When the Complainant pulled his arm away and struggled against the officers’ efforts to handcuff him, he could have chosen to continue to wrestle with the Complainant for control of his arms without using his knee. That, however, could have resulted in a lengthier physical engagement and added exertion on the part of the Complainant with possible consequences for his health. The SO might have considered the use of a CEW. Had it worked, the Complainant would have been quickly incapacitated, allowing the officers an opportunity to quickly affix the handcuffs without the placement of a knee on the back. That said, officers are also taught that the deployment of a CEW is a physically stressful event to the subject, and that its use should be minimized to the greatest extent possible in the case of persons in medical crisis. Or, as the SO chose, the officer could have decided to overcome the Complainant’s resistance by temporarily pinning him to the floor with a knee in order to facilitate the handcuffing process. On this record, faced with a fluid and dynamic situation, the need to act quickly, and no easy answers, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing that the course adopted by the SO was not commensurate with the exigencies of the moment.

There remains the question of the Complainant having been left in a prone position for about 35 seconds after he was handcuffed, which might have played a role in his death. The offences that arise for consideration in this regard are failure to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing death contrary to sections 215 and 220 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 the SO, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that endangered the Complainant’s life or caused his death. In my view, there was not.

Here, again, the SO’s conduct is subject to legitimate scrutiny. The officer would have known that leaving an individual in the Complainant’s condition in a prone position was a risk factor to be avoided. He should have moved quicker to maneuver the Complainant into a recovery position. On the other hand, allowance must be made for the fact that the SO was regaining his composure having just been through a physical struggle with the Complainant and was also using some of this time to radio a request for the paramedics. In the circumstances, if the SO ought to have moved quicker than he did, I am not reasonably satisfied that his transgression amounted to a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care.

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

Date: August 15, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit