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 injuries of a 50-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 30, 2024, at 12:11 p.m., the Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the GSPS, on April 26, 2024, the Complainant contacted the GSPS Professional Standards Unit to report that he had sustained three broken ribs in a February 11, 2024, police interaction. On February 11, 2024, GSPS responded to an Intimate Partner Violence incident involving the Complainant and a woman. Police had received a call from that woman, who was yelling at the call-taker to have her boyfriend (the Complainant) removed from the property. All parties had been drinking. The Complainant told the call-taker he had been “hit” by the woman. The Complainant was belligerent, violent, and aggressive with police. He was arrested for being intoxicated in a public place. He resisted arrest and had to be grounded. The arresting police officers were Witness Official (WO) #1 and Subject Official (SO) #2. The Complainant was transported to the GSPS police facility at 190 Brady Street and paraded before a staff sergeant. His visible injuries were documented by photograph and in writing on the prisoner log sheet. They included a cut to the fifth digit of his right hand, abrasions and bruising to his face, and a complaint of sore ribs. Emergency Medical Services were contacted. The Complainant was released by way of a Provincial Offence Notice and transported by ambulance to the Sudbury Hospital, Health Sciences North (HSN) where he underwent X-rays and a computed tomography (CT) scan. HSN told the Complainant there was “nothing to note” and he was released. On February 16, 2024, the Complainant dealt with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) in Fauquier, Ontario, and told the OPP officers he had been assaulted by Sudbury Police on February 11, 2024. The Complainant went to the Hospital in Smooth Rock Falls (HSRF), and complained he had broken ribs and a severe headache. He also had visible injuries. The OPP documented those injuries, including bruising to both eyes and his face. The Complainant reported all his injuries were caused by GSPS officers. At HSRF, X-rays verified the Complainant had three broken ribs to the back of the left side back. An appointment was made at the Sensenbrenner Hospital (SH) in Kapuskasing for the Complainant to have a CT scan. On March 6, 2024, that scan showed no abnormalities.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/05/01 at 10:46 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/05/01 at 11:26 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on May 7, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between June 26 and 27, 2024.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Subject Official #1 was interviewed on August 2, 2024.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between June 26 and 27, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the grounds outside the front of a residence in the area of Cambrian Heights Drive, Sudbury.

Expert Evidence

Deputy Chief Pathologist, Ontario Forensic Pathology Service (OFPS)

On June 20, 2024, the Deputy Chief Pathologist considered the diagnostic images and written records made at HSN on February 11, 2024, as compared to those made at HSRF and SH. He concluded the HSN written medical records were inaccurate; the rib fractures captured at HSRF existed in the images made at HSN on February 11, 2024.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Police Radio, Telephone and 911 Recordings

On February 11, 2024, at 2:48:46 a.m., the Complainant telephoned 911. He reported he was in a “complicated situation”, and was in Sudbury from Fauquier. The call-taker interrupted him to ask if he needed police.

A woman [now known to be CW #1] spoke over the Complainant and said, “No, he doesn’t, he needs to get the fuck out of my aunt’s house. If you come here, right away, get him the fuck out of my aunt’s house.” Both the Complainant and CW #1 spoke with slurred speech. The call-taker responded that was a police matter and asked for the address.

CW #1 asked (someone) what the address was and a second female voice [now known to be CW #2] gave a residential address near Cambrian Heights Drive in Sudbury. CW #1 then said, “So get him the fuck out of my house because he’s scaring me.”

The call-taker asked who [the Complainant] was to her, and CW #1 responded, “[The Complainant’s first name].” She said he was her boyfriend and needed to, “Get the fuck out of my house.”

The Complainant said, “She is highly intoxicated.” The dispatcher asked if they had been drinking. CW #1 repeated the Complainant should get out of her aunt’s house.

The call-taker asked if she had been drinking. CW #1 replied that the Complainant was scaring her and continued unintelligibly. The call-taker interrupted, asked the Complainant what his name was, and asked him to separate himself from CW #1 so she could hear him. The Complainant told her he was trying. She told him to walk away from CW #1 and take the call off speakerphone. CW #1, from the background, answered and gave the call-taker his name. The Complainant also gave his name and date of birth. CW #1 remained vocal in the background. The Complainant said he was, “Being assaulted right now.”

The call-taker asked him to go outside or to a different room and lock the door. The Complainant said he was going to put on a jacket and go outside. The call-taker told him to go outside and put his jacket on out there.

The Complainant spoke to CW #1. The call-taker told the Complainant to stop. The Complainant replied, “Miss, I called you.” The call-taker told him she understood but he needed to stop talking to CW #1 and go outside. He said, “This is not the first time.”

He was again asked his name and date of birth, and answered. CW #1 was audible in the background. The call-taker asked her name, and the Complainant gave it.

The call-taker asked, “Have you guys been drinking all night?” The Complainant told her they had. He said he was in Sudbury because he had a friend in the hospital. CW #1 said, “Get the fuck out.” The call-taker asked the Complainant if he was going outside. He replied he was trying to find his shoes.

The call-taker asked for CW #1’s age and an age was provided. The call-taker established they were in CW #1’s aunt’s house and asked how the argument began. The Complainant replied, “Copious amounts of alcohol.”

The call-taker asked who else was in the house and the Complainant said CW #2’s child was upstairs.

The Complainant said, “I’m getting assaulted again,” and told CW #1, “Leave me alone.” The call-taker told him to stop yelling at her and go outside.

The Complainant reported when he got outside; much of the background noise ended.

The Complainant said he was being hit and abused. The call-taker asked if he needed an ambulance. The Complainant said, “No, I’m not hurt”, and provided his height and weight.

The call-taker asked if CW #1 needed an ambulance and the Complainant answered she needed a psychiatrist. He was told not to joke, and replied he was not joking, and CW #1 did not need an ambulance.

He told the call-taker, to his knowledge, there were no weapons in the house, he was outside, and CW #1 and her aunt were in the house.

The call-taker told him police were on the way. He asked what was going to happen, and said he was the victim and five-and-a-half hours from home. He was told the police were going to make sure everyone was okay but otherwise the call-taker could not opine about how things would resolve.

The Complainant said he was cold. The call-taker established he had a jacket on and assured him the police would not be long. She asked him to remain outside and refrain from continued arguments with CW #1.

The Complainant’s response was slurred. He was again told it would not be long until police officers arrived. He thanked the call-taker and the call ended.

On February 11, 2024, at 2:52 a.m., WO #1 was dispatched to the call by police radio and told SO #1 would be her back-up. She was told that CW #1 wanted her boyfriend out of her house. They were involved in a verbal argument, both had been drinking, and efforts were being made over the telephone to separate them.

SO #2 informed the dispatcher he could attend with WO #1.

At 2:53:32 a.m., the dispatcher informed WO #1 and SO #2 there was a child at the house, and the Complainant had computerized police database cautions for violence.

SO #1 asked for the call address, and the call particulars were reiterated.

At 2:57:48 a.m., the dispatcher broadcast the Complainant and CW #1 had numerous domestic violence calls on file with the OPP.

At 2:58:52 a.m., SO #2 arrived. At 2:59:20 a.m., WO #1 arrived. At 3:00:58 a.m., SO #2 reported everything was okay. At 3:02:22 a.m., SO #1 arrived. At 3:06:47 a.m., the dispatcher asked if everything was okay, and SO #2 said, “So far.”

At 3:11:33 a.m., the Complainant called 911 again. He reported the address and said he had “several” police officers at that house. A man’s voice [now known to be a police officer] spoke in the background saying the Complainant was wasting police resources. The Complainant responded, “I don’t give a fuck what you’re saying, buddy,” and asked to speak with an “MP” or a lawyer. The call-taker told him 911 was not the right venue for that request, and that the police officers who were there were going to “come see you”.

At 3:12:00 a.m., a male police officer asked the dispatcher if the Complainant had called 911 again, and she confirmed he was on the line with another dispatcher.

At 3:12:04 a.m., a police radio microphone opened to record an approximately one second unintelligible broadcast. At 3:12:15 a.m., another one or two-second open microphone broadcast was recorded, with no words spoken. That happened again at 3:12:19 a.m.[3]

At 3:12:32 a.m., WO #1 broadcast the Complainant was in custody. The communications operator acknowledged.

At 3:12:53 a.m., an open radio microphone captured a police officer say, “Put your hands behind your back.”

At 3:12:59 a.m., the dispatcher directed WO #2 to attend the call. At 3:13:14 a.m., WO #2 acknowledged.

At 3:13:26 a.m., WO #1 again broadcast the Complainant was in custody. The dispatcher asked if another police officer was required, and WO #1 responded in the negative.

At 3:15:47 a.m., SO #1 reported everyone was okay, but asked the dispatcher for another police officer to attend and stay with WO #1 as there were two intoxicated women and a child at the call.

At 3:17:26 a.m., the dispatcher reported that a staff sergeant had been advised.

At 3:20:46 a.m., WO #2 broadcast he had arrived at the call. At 3:27:35 a.m., WO #2 cleared the call saying he was no longer required.

At 3:28:29 a.m., SO #2 informed the dispatcher he was en route the police station with the Complainant. WO #1 broadcast she was following, as did SO #1.

At 3:31:13 a.m., WO #2 broadcast he had arrived at the police station and booked off duty.

At 3:33:14 a.m., SO #2 broadcast his arrival at the police station. SO #1 broadcast his arrival 14 seconds later.

GSPS Custody Video

The custody video had no audio component.

On February 11, 2024, at 3:33:27 a.m., three police officers - SO #2 and WO #1, and SO #1 - escorted the Complainant into the booking area. The Complainant wore a sweater, jeans, a jacket, and socks but no shoes. His hands were handcuffed behind his back and his legs were wrapped together above the knees by a hobble. The Complainant was stood in the middle of the booking hall. As SO #2 and SO #1 performed a pat-down search, WO #1 stood to the side. The police officer overseeing the process and the Complainant appeared to interact, verbally, as did all the police officers and the Complainant throughout. At 3:39:10 a.m., the booking officer joined SO #2 and SO #1 to search the Complainant.

At 3:40:19 a.m., an unidentified female police officer entered the booking area and walked behind the booking desk. At 3:40:45 a.m., an unidentified male police officer entered the booking area and stood by the wall. At 3:40:47 a.m., SO #2 bent forward behind the Complainant. Due to where SO #1 stood it was not clear what SO #2 did. At 3:40:52 a.m., the cord around the Complainant’s knees fell to the floor and he stepped out of it.[4] SO #2 kicked it away and the unidentified male police officer picked it up.

At 3:41:10 a.m., WO #1 photographed the Complainant.

At 3:42:22 a.m., SO #2 removed the Complainant’s handcuffs. The Complainant’s jacket and sweater were removed.[5] At 3:42:53 a.m., the Complainant turned to his right and addressed SO #2. At 3:42:55 a.m., SO #2 used his right hand on the Complainant’s right elbow to move his body to face forward. The Complainant turned back around, and SO #2 and SO #1 each took hold of the Complainant to direct him to face forward. The Complainant pulled his arm away from the police officers and again turned to his right. SO #2 stepped behind the Complainant and used both his hands to nudge the Complainant’s upper shoulders to face him forward. At 3:43:52 a.m., the booking officer used a cloth or gauze to wipe the back of the Complainant’s right hand.[6]

At 3:44:22 a.m., SO #2 took the Complainant by his left bicep, SO #1 took him by his right and they, led by WO #1, escorted him from the booking area and out of the camera’s frame of view followed by the other police officers. The Complainant stumbled when he turned and did not have a steady gate as he walked.

Police Photographs of Injuries

WO #1 and a GSPS constable photographed the Complainant at the GSPS facility on February 11, 2024.

Complainant’s Photographs of Injury

On June 3, 2024, the Complainant supplied photographs of himself to the SIU via email. The photographs were identified as taken after the events of February 11, 2024. He did not provide the date the pictures were taken or by whom.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the GSPS between May 3, 2024, and June 27, 2024:

• Notes – WO #1;
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
• Arrest Report;
• Custody video;
• Police and civilian involvement list;
• Police communications recordings;
• Use of force requalification records – SO #1;
• Use of force requalification records – SO #2;
• Injury photographs taken by police;
• Service policy – Arrest; and
• Service policy – Use of Force.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources:

• Photographs of injuries taken by complainant, received June 3, 2024;
• The Complainant’s medical records from HSN, HSRF and SH, received between May 9, 2024, and June 17, 2024; and
• Diagnosis of serious injury by OFPS, received June 20, 2024.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, SO #1 and other police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, SO #2 did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

In the early morning of February 11, 2024, GSPS officers were dispatched to a home near Cambrian Heights Drive, Sudbury. The Complainant, who was visiting the residence, had called police to report a domestic disturbance. He and his girlfriend – CW #1 – were both inebriated, and she wanted him out of the premises. The residence belonged to her aunt – CW #2.

SO #2 and SO #1, together with WO #1, arrived on scene. The Complainant was outside the residence. CW #1 was inside. WO #1 spoke with CW #1 and became concerned about the welfare of CW #2’s child considering the parties’ intoxication. SO #2 took the lead in speaking with the Complainant. In time, the officers decided to arrest the Complainant for public intoxication.

The officers moved to arrest the Complainant and there followed a physical altercation of several minutes during which he was forced to the ground and subjected to multiple strikes. The Complainant was eventually handcuffed behind the back and taken into custody.

At the police station after his arrest, the Complainant complained of pain and was taken to hospital. He had sustained fractures of several posterior right-sided ribs.

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 his arrest by GSPS officers on February 11, 2024. The GSPS learned of the injuries in late April 2024, thereafter, notifying the SIU. The SIU initiated an investigation naming SO #1 and SO #2 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 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 weight of the evidence establishes that the Complainant was intoxicated, that he and CW #1 had quarreled and she wanted him out of the house, that CW #2’s young child was present in the home at the time, and that the Complainant and CW #1 were sometimes violent with each other when inebriated. There is also evidence that the Complainant delayed his departure from the grounds around the home, despite being repeatedly encouraged to leave by the officers. On this record, I am satisfied that the Complainant constituted a danger because of his intoxication in a public place, and that he was therefore subject to arrest under section 31(2) of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019.

I am also satisfied that the evidence falls short of any reasonable suggestion that the Complainant was subjected to unlawful force at the hands of the officers. It is alleged that the Complainant was set upon without warning – blindsided with a punch to the head followed by a takedown. On the ground, though he offered no resistance, the Complainant was reportedly punched upwards of 20 times to the head, and repeatedly kneed in the ribs. This account would give rise to an assault, if true, but it would be unwise and unsafe to rest charges on the strength of this evidence given the source’s intoxication at the time and features of this story that are demonstrably untrue. It is alleged, for example, that the Complainant’s clothes were violently removed from his person at the station. That never happened. This evidence is also contested by the rendition of events proffered by SO #1 and WO #1. Though not completely in accord, the officers agree the Complainant strenuously resisted arrest – kicking his legs and refusing to release his arms – and was met with multiple strikes, all in an effort to subdue and take him into custody. Once handcuffed, no further strikes were delivered. Their evidence speaks of force that, while significant, was made necessary to subdue and take the Complainant into custody. On this record, there being no reason to believe that the more incriminating account is any likelier to be closer to the truth than the police evidence, and some reason to suspect it, the evidence in its totality is insufficient cogent to warrant being put to the test by a court.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injuries was incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, I am not satisfied on reasonable grounds that they are attributable to any unlawful conduct on the part of the subject officials. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: August 28, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit