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 32-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 20, 2024, at 4:18 a.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 19, 2024, at 3:56 p.m., LPS received a call regarding a neighbour dispute in the area of Dundas Street and Clarke Road, London. Initial reports indicated that a male, the Complainant, had threatened his neighbour. LPS responded to the area at 5:41 p.m., and developed grounds to arrest the Complainant for the offence of uttering threats. The Complainant was also subject to an outstanding warrant for robbery. When police located the Complainant outside the residence, he immediately fled from officers and the officers chased him. The Complainant was observed to enter a residence. Officers immediately set up a permitter at the front and rear of the residence awaiting members from the Emergency Response Unit (ERU). Officers began to communicate with the Complainant as he stood on the window ledge at the rear of the unit, attempting to obtain access to the roof. As ERU officers arrived, negotiating officers requested that the Complainant surrender himself through the front door, but the Complainant scaled part way down the downspout that was beside the window ledge and then jumped part of the way to the ground. The Complainant was arrested at 6:32 p.m. without incident and transported to LPS holding cells. Upon arriving, the Complainant complained of pain to his right ankle but did not appear to show any signs of injury. After continued discomfort, the Complainant was transported to London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) at 9:03 p.m., where a CT scan was performed. At 2:35 a.m., May 20, 2024, the Complainant was diagnosed with two avulsion fractures to his right ankle.

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: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on May 20, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on May 23, 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

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between May 28, 2024, and June 4, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired at the rear of a property located in the area of Dundas Street and Clarke Road, London.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

LPS Communications Recordings

At 3:56 p.m. and 5:11 p.m., on May 19, 2024, LPS 911 operators received calls from a woman regarding the Complainant. She reported that the Complainant was intoxicated, was screaming at her, and had threatened to stab her and her child. A knife had not been seen in the Complainant’s possession, but the caller believed he could quickly obtain a knife from a nearby residence where he was staying. The caller advised the Complainant had previously been violent and assaulted one of her children. She provided a description of the Complainant.

At about 5:41 p.m., Officer #1 and Officer #2 were dispatched to attend the location for a neighbour dispute.

At about 6:05 p.m., Officer #1 requested additional LPS officers for a foot pursuit.

At 6:06 p.m., Officer #1 advised the Complainant had entered the front door of the residence where the 911 caller reported the Complainant was staying. A sergeant advised officers to contain the unit. Officer #1 advised she was at the rear of the residence and Officer #2 was at the front.

Officer #1 advised there was an endorsed, outstanding warrant for the Complainant, and grounds for arrest related to charges of uttering threats.

At 6:07 p.m., WO #1 requested that ERU attend.

At 6:32 p.m., the SO advised that the Complainant had exited the rear window and made his way to the ground. Everything was “10-4” and the Complainant was in custody.

At 6:43 p.m., WO #1 transported the Complainant to the LPS headquarters.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the LPS between May 23, 2024, and August 13, 2024:

• Names and roles of all involved police officers;
• Contact information for civilian witness and statements provided;
• Occurrence and Arrest Reports;
• Communications recordings
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
• A list of previous interactions related to the Complainant;
• Procedure – Incident Response – Crisis Negotiation;
• Notebook entries and written statements of WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3; and
• Notebook entries and written statement of the SO.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between May 21, 2024, and June 4, 2024:

• The Complainant’s medical records from the LHSC; and
• Cell phone video footage from CW #1.

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. He did authorize the release of his notes and a written statement.

In the late afternoon of May 19, 2024, Officer #1 and Officer #2 were dispatched to an address in the area of Dundas Street and Clarke Road. A woman had contacted police to report that an inebriated Complainant, of a nearby address, was causing a disturbance and had threatened to stab her and her child. The officers encountered the Complainant and moved to take him into custody for uttering threats. There was also a warrant in effect for his arrest. The Complainant fled into his home.

Additional officers responded to the scene and set up a perimeter at the front and rear of the Complainant’s residence. The Complainant appeared at an open second-floor rear window. Led by the SO, the police attempted to persuade the Complainant to give himself up at the front door. The Complainant refused to do so and demanded to see an arrest warrant. A family member – CW #2 – attended at the rear of the residence and also encouraged him to surrender. She was shown a copy of the warrant on an officer’s phone, and confirmed to the Complainant that the warrant was valid.

About 25 minutes into the standoff, after indicating a willingness to turn himself in at the front of the house, the Complainant abruptly climbed out the window, grabbed onto a drainpipe, and lowered himself to the ground below. The Complainant broke his right heel on impact with the ground.

The Complainant was arrested without further incident, and taken to the station and then to hospital where his injury was diagnosed.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

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.

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant broke a foot in a descent from a height on May 19, 2024. As police officers were present at the time to take the Complainant into custody, 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 injury.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s injury. In my view, there was not.

The officers surrounding the Complainant’s residence, including the SO, were lawfully placed and in the execution of their duties through the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s descent. Given the information at their disposal about the Complainant’s threats to neighbours, and the warrant in effect for his arrest, the officers were within their rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody.

In the brief time that the SO engaged with the Complainant at the back of the house, the officer comported himself with due care and regard for the Complainant’s well-being. While making it clear that the Complainant would be arrested, the SO encouraged him to surrender safely at the front of the house. On one occasion when the Complainant was attempting to access the roof from the window, the officer warned him of the danger he was courting, and the Complainant backed off. The Complainant’s family member was also permitted to speak to him, which did not appear effective until the very end when it seemed the Complainant was prepared to give himself up. As for the Complainant’s decision to scale down the drainpipe, apparently free-falling from it some way down the pipe, that ill-fated decision was entirely his own. Moreover, the Complainant acted so quickly, there was no time for any of the officers to do anything about it.

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

Date: September 17, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit