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 38-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 20, 2024, at 12:35 p.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 20, 2024, at 2:29 a.m., the LPS was contacted regarding the Complainant. The Complainant was subject to a probation order to abstain from attending a residence in the area of Veterans Memorial Parkway and Dundas Street, London. He had reportedly breached those conditions by being at that location. The Complainant fled the scene upon the arrival of LPS officers. At 4:29 a.m., the Complainant returned to the address and officers were again dispatched. The Complainant fled from the rear of the residence and could not be located. At 5:05 a.m., officers were dispatched a third time. On this occasion, the Complainant was observed running out the rear door of the residence and through the complex. An officer ran after the Complainant, caught him, and arrested him at 5:09 a.m. The Complainant resisted arrest and was met with a single closed-fist strike to the right side of the face by the officer, causing him to fall to the ground. As the officer attempted to handcuff the Complainant, he again resisted, and the officer delivered another closed-fist strike to the Complainant’s right lower back. The Complainant was handcuffed and transported to the LPS Detention Unit. He was placed in the telephone room where his nose began to bleed, and he lost consciousness. EMS attended and the Complainant was transported to the London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC), where he was later diagnosed with a fractured nose.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/05/21 at 10:10 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/05/21 at 11:02 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

38-year-old male; declined interview; medical records obtained and reviewed

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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

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

WO #1 was interviewed on June 3, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the exterior grounds of a townhouse complex located in the area of Veterans Memorial Parkway and Dundas Street, London.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage – Townhouse Complex

The relevant footage captured parts of a foot pursuit that began at 5:07:44 a.m., May 20, 2024. The Complainant, wearing only pants, ran towards an opening in a wooden fence with the SO running after him. WO #1 joined the foot pursuit at 5:08:02 a.m.

The foot pursuit continued through the complex until 5:08:10 a.m., around which time the Complainant ran behind a parked van and the SO caught up to him, spreading his arms out to either side of his body and making contact with the Complainant. The two went to the ground and out of camera view on the other side of the van. WO #1, who ran past the vehicle, returned behind the van out of view.

Video Footage - Private Residence in the Townhouse Complex

The footage began at 5:08:15 a.m.[3]

Starting at about 5:08:22 a.m., the SO swung his right arm towards the Complainant’s head and tackled him to the ground. The Complainant fell forward, face down, onto the ground with the SO landing on top of the Complainant’s back. WO #1 ran past a van and returned to assist the SO.

Starting at about 5:08:30 a.m., the SO punched the Complainant with his right hand to the lower back once or twice. The Complainant was lying on his right side with the SO on his knees behind him. WO #1 was bent over at the Complainant’s feet.

Starting at about 5:08:42 a.m., the SO pulled the Complainant onto his stomach.

Starting at about 5:09:18 a.m., WO #1 stood up followed by the SO.

At 5:09:34 a.m., the Complainant was helped to his feet with his hands in handcuffs behind his back.

At 5:17:08 a.m., the Complainant was transported from the scene.

LPS Communications Recordings - 911 Calls

On May 20, 2024, at 2:26:09 a.m., LPS 911 received a call from the Complainant’s father reporting that his son, the Complainant, had broken a door and was outside his residence located in the area of Veterans Memorial Parkway and Dundas Street, London. The Complainant’s father believed the Complainant had consumed drugs or alcohol, and requested he be removed from the property as the Complainant did not reside there.

At 2:39:22 a.m., the Complainant’s father called LPS 911 again to advise that the Complainant had threatened to break the door and attempted to enter the residence.

At 4:28:25 a.m., the Complainant’s father called LPS 911 and advised that the Complainant had returned to the residence and had broken a basement window and demanded money or he would break everything in the house. The Complainant’s father left the residence to call 911, describing the Complainant. Sirens could be heard in the background and the Complainant’s father advised that LPS officers had arrived.

At 5:04:15 a.m., the Complainant’s father called LPS 911 and reported the Complainant had returned wanting clothing. The Complainant’s father was advised officers were on the way.

At 6:22 a.m.,[4] a LPS officer in the cells at LPS headquarters requested an ambulance for the Complainant who was unresponsive. The Complainant had been placed into a telephone room in the custody area, laid down and become unresponsive. He was bleeding heavily from his nose. An ambulance was dispatched to attend.

LPS Communications Recordings – Radio

At about 4:30:23 a.m., May 20, 2024, LPS dispatch requested that LPS units attend a residence in the area of Veterans Memorial Parkway and Dundas Street for a domestic disturbance. The Complainant’s father advised that the Complainant had entered his house and demanded money. WO #2, the SO, WO #1 and WO #3 advised they would respond.

At about 4:30:57 a.m., LPS dispatch broadcast that the Complainant was acting erratically.

At about 4:31:39 a.m., WO #2 advised that the Complainant was on conditions not to attend the residence.

At about 4:32:56 a.m., LPS dispatch advised that the Complainant might be high on drugs. The Complainant was described. The SO and WO #1 reported that they had applied for a Criminal Code arrest warrant for the Complainant the previous day.

At about 4:37:14 a.m., WO #3 advised that the Complainant had just left the residence through the back door.

At about 4:41:51 a.m., WO #2 asked how the Complainant had entered the residence, and was advised the Complainant’s father indicated that the Complainant had broken a basement window to gain entry. WO #2 advised that there was no broken window at the residence, and that the Complainant had been allowed entry to the residence.

At about 4:49 a.m., WO #2 advised that the Complainant was on conditions not to attend the residence as a result of breaking into the residence previously.

At about 5:06 a.m., LPS dispatch advised WO #3, the SO and WO #1 that the Complainant had returned to the residence.

At about 5:07:47 a.m., the SO broadcast, “Foot pursuit southbound, going towards the centre”.

At about 5:09:02 a.m., the SO advised that the Complainant was in LPS custody.

At about 5:17:19 a.m., WO #1 advised that the Complainant would be transported to LPS cells.

At about 6:23:16 a.m., LPS dispatch requested two officers attend LPS cells to accompany the Complainant to hospital.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the LPS between May 23, 2024, and August 23, 2024:

• Names and roles of all involved police officers;
• Occurrence, Arrest and Supplementary Reports;
• CAD Report;
• Communications recordings;
• A list of previous police interactions related to the Complainant;
• A copy of the release conditions and probation order relating to the Complainant;
• Duty notes from WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3;
• Duty notes and written statement from the SO; and
• General Occurrence related to the Complainant.[5]

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between May 22, 2024, and May 29, 2024:

• Video footage from the property management of the townhouse complex in the area of Veterans Memorial Parkway and Dundas Street;
• Video footage from a private residence in the townhouse complex; and
• Medical records from LHSC – the Complainant.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including video footage that largely captured the incident, 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 and a written statement.

In the morning of May 20, 2024, LPS officers, including the SO, were dispatched to a residence in the area of Veterans Memorial Parkway and Dundas Street. The homeowner had contacted police seeking the removal of his son – the Complainant – from the residence. The Complainant was subject to a court order preventing his attendance at the home and police had already responded to the townhouse complex that morning on two occasions following similar calls by the homeowner. On each of those prior occasions, the Complainant had fled from the residence and evaded capture.

Arriving at the address, the SO went to the rear of the townhouse in a bid to prevent a further escape by the Complainant. He observed a shirtless Complainant running out the back door and told him he was under arrest. The officer in foot pursuit, the Complainant sprinted around a fence and made his way onto the centre pathway of the complex where he continued in a southbound direction. The SO closed the gap as the parties turned west and then north around a parked vehicle. Just past the vehicle, the SO swung his right arm in the direction of the Complainant’s head as he brought him down from behind. On the ground, the officer, with the assistance of his partner, WO #1, handcuffed the Complainant behind the back.

The Complainant was transported to the police station and then to hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured nose.

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 the course of his arrest by LPS officers on May 20, 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.

The Complainant was subject to arrest at the time of the events in question. In violation of a court order, he was present at the home of his parents. The officers were entitled to take him into custody on that basis.

With respect to the force used by the SO in the Complainant’s arrest, I am satisfied it was legally justified. The punch and takedown would appear a reasonable tactic. The Complainant had previously eluded police and had demonstrated that he was intent on returning to the address, where he had caused property damage and threatened to do more. It was imperative, in the circumstances, that the Complainant not be allowed to escape again. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officer’s conduct was excessive. Once on the ground, the evidence indicates that the Complainant struggled against the officers’ efforts to handcuff his arms. The SO delivered one or two short right punches to his back, a not disproportionate use of force, after which the officers’ were able to control the Complainant’s arms.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was likely caused by one or both of the initial punch and takedown, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was the result of unlawful conduct on the part of the SO. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: September 17, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit