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 19-year-old male (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 16, 2024, at 1:21 p.m. (EDT), the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the OPP, on May 15, 2024, at 6:10 p.m.,[2] the Subject Official (SO) was on patrol near Centennial Park, Sioux Lookout, when he observed two men, including the Complainant, preparing to fight each other. The SO exited his police vehicle and approached the men. The Complainant falsely identified himself to police. At 6:15 p.m., the SO advised the Complainant he was being detained for obstructing police, at which point the Complainant fled. When the Complainant reached the parking lot of 44 Front Street, he encountered a fence which would not allow him to continue further. The SO caught up to the Complainant and grounded him. The SO maintained control of the Complainant until other police officers arrived to assist. The Complainant was transported to the detachment, and later taken to Meno Ya Win Health Centre where he was diagnosed with a right elbow fracture.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 05/17/2024 at 2:22 p.m. (EDT)

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 05/17/2021 at 4:05 p.m. (EDT)

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on May 22, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on May 23, 2024.

Subject Official

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

Witness Official

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on June 10, 2024

Service Employee Witness

SEW Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The service employee witness was interviewed on May 30, 2024

The Scene

The events in question began in Centennial Park, Sioux Lookout, continued in a northeast direction from the park towards Front Street, and ended on Front Street in the vicinity of 44 Front Street, Sioux Lookout.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Video Footage - Municipality of Sioux Lookout

Starting at around 6:00:12 p.m., May 15, 2024, the Complainant and CW #2 were captured in Centennial Park fighting each other.

Starting at around 6:01:25 p.m., they stopped fighting and the Complainant walked away.

Starting at around 6:01:55 p.m., the SO and the SEW arrived. The SEW walked towards the Complainant while the SO approached CW #2.

Starting at around 6:02:17 p.m., the SO approached the SEW and the Complainant.

Starting at around 6:03:10 p.m., the Complainant ran onto Front Street, behind construction barriers and across the road. The SO chased the Complainant but was a distance behind before they disappeared out of camera view.

Communications Recordings

On May 15, 2024, starting at 7:12:55 p.m. (EDT), the SO advised the Provincial Communications Centre that he had the Complainant in custody at 44 Front Street. The Complainant had run from the police and was heard in the background saying, “You broke my wrist.”

The WO was at the scene. The Complainant had reportedly taken off on foot after lying about his name.

The WO would be transporting the Complainant to the detachment. The Complainant was complaining of wrist pain.

The WO transported the Complainant to the hospital because of a swollen wrist.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between May 17, 2024, and July 8, 2024:

• Names and roles of involved police officers;
• Civilian Witness List;
• General Occurrence Report;
• Arrest Report;
• Crown Brief Synopsis;
• Communications recordings;
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
• Duty Book Notes - the WO and the SEW;
• Current use of force qualifications for the SO;
• Video footage;
• Policy - Arrest and Detention; and
• Policy - Use of Force.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from Meno Ya Win Health Centre on May 27, 2024.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of May 15, 2024, the SO was on patrol in his cruiser with the SEW when their attention was drawn to a fight between two males in Centennial Park, Sioux Lookout. The officers approached to investigate. When asked, the Complainant provided a false name and was told he was being detained for obstruction. As the SO moved to handcuff the Complainant, he fled from the officer in a northeast direction towards Front Street.

The Complainant did not get very far. He either tripped to the ground or was grounded by the officer in the area of 44 Front Street. Following a brief struggle, the SO handcuffed the Complainant behind the back.

The Complainant was seen at hospital following his arrest and diagnosed with a broken right elbow.

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.

The Complainant was seriously injured in or around the time of his arrest by an OPP officer on May 15, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming the SO 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 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.

The SO was lawfully placed and in the execution of his duties through the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s arrest. Having come across two males fighting, the officer was entitled to intervene to preserve the peace and investigate possible criminal offences. Thereafter, when the Complainant provided a false name, the SO was within his rights in seeking to detain him to investigate a possible obstruction of justice. Lastly, when the Complainant fled from an otherwise lawful detention, the officer had grounds to re-assert that detention.

With respect to the force brought to bear by the officer, at its highest, the evidence indicates that the SO caught up to the Complainant and tackled him to the ground, stomped on his left hand as the Complainant was attempting to get to his feet, and then wrestled his arms behind the back, fracturing the Complainant’s right elbow in the process. A tackle and stomp would appear commensurate with the exigencies of the moment. In the case of the former, the force seemed a reasonable tactic, short of a resort to less-lethal weaponry, to thwart the Complainant’s escape. A stomp was reasonable as well given the Complainant was attempting to use his left hand to rise to his feet.[4] As for the break to the elbow, I am unable to reasonably conclude it was the result of excessive force. More likely, in my view, given the evidence of the Complainant’s resistance to arrest, the injury was the unfortunate result of countervailing forces being brought to bear in a dynamic situation.

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

Date: September 13, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit