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

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 5, 2024, at 9:42 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 5, 2024, at 4:51 a.m., OPP Elgin County received a call for service from a taxi driver, who was reporting his fare was an intoxicated female causing issues and being physical. The driver’s location was 369 Edith Cavell Boulevard, Port Stanley. An OPP officer arrived. The female - the Complainant - refused to exit the taxi. The officer arrested the Complainant and removed her from the taxi, in the process of which she sustained an upper left arm injury. The Complainant was taken to the St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital (STEGH), 189 Elm Street, St Thomas, where she was diagnosed with a fractured arm.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/05/06 at 8:45 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/05/06 at 10:00 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

41-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on May 7, 2024.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on May 7, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on May 23, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around Edith Cavell Boulevard in the area of its intersection with William Street, Port Stanley.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPP Communications Recordings

On May 5, 2024, at 4:51 a.m., the CW - a taxi driver - called 911 and reported a drunk woman - the Complainant - he was to take to London. The Complainant refused to go to London, had physically touched the CW and was going through the CW’s property. The CW indicated a man and woman had spoken with the Complainant and then left. The Complainant wanted to go with them, but she did not know where they lived. The Complainant was heard yelling in the background that she would not go without a fight, and she wanted her smokes. She continually cursed. The call-taker told the CW to ignore the Complainant, and to stay on the call until a police officer arrived.

An OPP unit [the SO] and a second OPP unit [WO #1] were dispatched to a reported disturbance on Edith Cavell Boulevard in Port Stanley. The SO and WO #1 were told an intoxicated irate woman, the Complainant, was screaming at a taxi driver. The Complainant had refused to be taken to London as arranged. The Complainant had been physical with the CW and was going through his property. The Complainant had been left by friends with whom she wanted to go, but she did not know their address.

The arrival of the SO or WO #1 was not transmitted, but the dispatcher asked if another unit was required. WO #1 answered, “No, we’re good right now.” The next radio transmission was the SO requesting Emergency Medical Services. The SO requested that WO #2 telephone him and then advised that the Complainant has been taken to the STEGH.

WO #2 had telephone conversations with an OPP sergeant - the communications supervisor. WO #2 reported that the SO had arrested an intoxicated woman - the Complainant - in Port Stanley. The officer had pulled the Complainant out of the back seat of the taxi. The Complainant had a shoulder injury, which would be diagnosed as a fractured left upper arm. WO #2 would clarify that the injury occurred when the Complainant’s arm was being brought behind her back. WO #2 advised that the Complainant had been charged with public intoxication.

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

Starting at about 5:02 a.m., May 5, 2024, the SO stopped his cruiser behind and to the left of a silver minivan taxi. There were two people standing outside the minivan – the taxi driver [the CW] and passenger [the Complainant]. The Complainant walked over to the SO and started talking to him.

Starting at about 5:03 a.m., the Complainant entered the taxi and continued to talk to the SO.

Starting at about 5:04 a.m., WO #1 arrived on scene and stood beside the SO.

Starting at about 5:08 a.m., the Complainant slid the left minivan door closed and then immediately opened it.

Starting at about 5:09 a.m., the SO reached into the minivan, grabbed both the Complainant’s arms and pulled her out of the vehicle. WO #1 moved forward to assist. Due to the video angle, and because of WO #1’s position standing near the minivan door, it could not be determined if the Complainant fell onto the ground or was grounded by the SO. Both police officers went down on their knees in front of the SO’s police vehicle. The ICC angle did not capture the ensuing events as they were happening below the vehicle hood line and close to the front of the vehicle. The SO did appear to have control of the Complainant’s left arm and reached for his handcuffs with his free hand. At this point, the Complainant began to scream.

Starting at about 5:10 a.m., the SO stood up.

Starting at about 5:11 a.m., the SO walked over to the CW and began to talk to him. WO #1 was still on the ground with the Complainant.

Starting at about 5:18 a.m., the SO took pictures of the taxi.

Starting at about 5:29 a.m., an ambulance arrived on scene.

Starting at about 5:30 a.m., paramedics provided treatment to the Complainant.

Starting at about 5:32 a.m., the Complainant was stood up. She was not handcuffed and was helped onto a stretcher. She was favouring her left arm.

Starting at about 5:34 a.m., the Complainant was put into the ambulance and the video footage ended.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between May 7, 2024, and June 6, 2024:

• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;

• General, Supplementary and Arrest reports;
• Communications recordings;
• ICC footage;
• Notes - WO #1;
• Notes - WO #2;
• Notes - the SO; and
• Photographs of cab interior.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between May 14 and 27, 2024:

• The Complainant’s medical records from STEGH; and
• The Complainant’s medical records from London Health Sciences Centre.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, police and non-police eyewitness, and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the morning of May 5, 2024, the SO was dispatched in connection with a disturbance call. A taxi driver – the CW – had contacted police to report an inebriated and belligerent customer.

The SO located the cab on Edith Cavell Boulevard west of William Street. The CW and the Complainant were outside the vehicle. The officer, soon joined by WO #1, spoke with the Complainant. He asked her who she had been with in an effort to assist her in returning to that location. The Complainant was unhelpful and accused the officer of knowing where she had come from. She returned to a rear seat in the taxi. The CW advised that he was no longer interested in transporting the Complainant and the officer asked her to step outside of the vehicle. She repeatedly refused. The SO warned her that she would be arrested for public intoxication. He eventually reached into the taxi through an open door, grabbed the Complainant and pulled her out of the vehicle and onto the ground.

With the Complainant on the ground in a prone position, the SO maneuvered her left arm behind the back and felt as it fractured in the process.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left shoulder.

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 31, Liquor Licence and Control Act - Intoxication

31 (1) No person shall be in an intoxicated condition in,

(a) a place to which the general public is invited or permitted access; or

(b) any part of a residence that is used in common by persons occupying

more than one dwelling in the residence.

(2) A police officer or conservation officer may arrest without warrant any person who is contravening subsection (1) if, in the opinion of the officer, it is necessary to do so for the safety of any person.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of her arrest by OPP officer on May 5, 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 SO had a lawful basis for doing what he purported to be doing, namely, arresting the Complainant for being intoxicated in a public place. By the time the officer laid hands on her, the Complainant was effectively a trespasser in a vehicle that was otherwise available to the public for hire. She gave every appearance of being inebriated – she slurred her words on occasion, was unintelligible at times, and was belligerent for no good reason. The Complainant was also at risk of harm to herself if left unattended. She had provoked the CW by physically touching him and his things in the taxi, and, as she could not remember where she had been, had effectively nowhere to go. On this record, the Complainant was subject to arrest under section 31 of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019.

With respect to the force brought to bear by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, I am also satisfied the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was unlawful. The Complainant had been given a fair opportunity to remove herself from the taxi and it was clear she was not about to do so peacefully. Physically removing her from the vehicle and placing her on the ground made sense in the circumstances as it would position the SO to better manage any continuing resistance by the Complainant. The tactic, it should also be noted, would not appear to have been executed in an overly aggressive fashion. Once on the ground, the SO says the Complainant struggled against the officers’ efforts to take her into custody. The officer would have had to exert a measure of force, in the circumstances, in order to bring the Complainant’s left arm behind her back. In the process, it appears, the Complainant’s left shoulder was fractured. In the circumstances, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the fracture was the result of excessive force as opposed to an unfortunate injury brought about by the application of reasonable force in a dynamic situation.

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

Date: August 26, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit