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

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 16, 2024, at 3:49 p.m., of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the OPP, on April 30, 2024, at 11:49 a.m., police responded to a reported domestic disturbance at a residence in Elizabethtown Township at the request of the CW, who reported that he was assaulted by his girlfriend. The Complainant resisted and fell to the ground when police moved to effect her arrest. She was transported to the Leeds Detachment and released at 3:11 p.m. that date. On May 16, 2024, the CW contacted the OPP and indicated that he felt the charges should be dropped against the Complainant because she was injured during her arrest. The OPP followed up with the Complainant, who said she had been diagnosed with a fracture to the left tibia and that the injury occurred during the arrest.

On May 21, 2024, at 11:11 a.m., the OPP provided the SIU medical records received from the Complainant, confirming that she had sustained a left tibial plateau fracture.[2]

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/05/21 at 11:32 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/05/21 at 1:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on May 22, 2204.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on May 22, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between May 29, 2024, and August 27, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the driveway of a residence in Elizabethtown-Kitley

Township.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Recordings of the SO and WO #1

Both the SO and WO #1 arrived at the residence separately on April 30, 2024, at 12:14 p.m. The CW and the Complainant were on the driveway, and approached the officers. The SO asked to speak with the CW, and WO #1 attempted to talk to the Complainant.

The CW told the SO that he was kicked by the Complainant, and he wanted her to leave. The Complainant walked away from WO #1 and was visibly upset. WO #1 attempted to get her to talk but the Complainant walked around a vehicle and tried to wrap her arms around the CW. Both WO #1 and the SO moved to separate the Complainant from the CW. WO #1 held the Complainant’s right wrist and the SO held her left wrist. WO #1 told the Complainant she was under arrest. The Complainant attempted to pull her arms away from the officers, all the while crying out to the CW. The Complainant dropped herself to the ground, onto her buttocks, slightly on her right side with her knees bent and legs under her.

The SO and WO #1 struggled to bring the Complainant’s arms behind her back. The Complainant tried to stand and the SO pushed her shoulders and rolled her over her knees and onto her stomach, while the Complainant grabbed and held onto WO #1’s right arm sleeve.

The Complainant continued to struggle with the SO and WO #1. The Complainant yelled and cried to the CW while both officers directed her to calm down. WO #1 knelt on the Complainant’s upper right leg and the SO knelt on her hip to control her. They eventually handcuffed her hands behind the back.

The SO lifted the Complainant to her feet and the Complainant cried out, “You broke my knee.” The SO looked at her knees and said, “Your knee’s not broken, you can stand upright.” The SO and WO #1 walked the Complainant to WO #1’s cruiser and sat her in the rear seat. While walking to the cruiser, the Complainant was turning her body and legs to try and talk to the CW. She did not appear to limp while walking. The Complainant again complained about her knee and asked the CW to help her. The SO again said her knee was not broken.

In-car Camera (ICC) Recording – WO #1’s Cruiser [Rear Seat]

The Complainant was placed in the rear seat of WO #1’s cruiser and driven to the detachment. During the ride, she made no complaint of knee pain. WO #1 arrived at the detachment at 12:35 p.m. WO #1 removed the Complainant from the rear seat. As the Complainant exited and placed her left foot on the ground, she shouted in pain and began to fall. WO #1 stopped her from falling and asked her if she was okay. The Complainant appeared to be in pain and alleged that WO #1 had broken her knee. As WO #1 walked her away from the cruiser, the Complainant limped and hopped.

Custody Video

WO #1 drove into the sally port at 12:33:55 p.m. The officer assisted the Complainant from the rear seat, as the Complainant stumbled out of the cruiser. WO #1 held her left arm, and the Complainant limped to the detachment entry door and entered the booking area.

WO #1 removed the Complainant’s handcuffs and processed her booking. The Complainant was lodged in a cell and walked, with no apparent limp, into the cell. The Complainant was removed twice from her cell to be fingerprinted and take a phone call, showing varying degrees of a limp and hop.

At 1:36:40 p.m., WO #2 spoke with the Complainant and looked at her left leg in her cell. He appeared to have a conversation with her regarding the left leg.

At 3:16 p.m., the Complainant was released and walked out to a police vehicle in the sally port with WO #1. She walked unassisted, with a slight limp, to the vehicle.

911 and Police Radio Communications

On April 30, 2024, at 11:42 a.m., the CW phoned the OPP and asked to have the Complainant removed from his property. He reported that the Complainant was on crack, refused to leave, and had kicked him. The Complainant was heard crying in the background.

The call was dispatched to WO #1 and the SO as a ‘domestic disturbance’. At the end of the recording, WO #1 was heard providing the starting and ending mileage in relation to the transportation of the Complainant to the detachment.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between May 22, 2024, and June 7, 2024:

• BWC recordings of the SO and WO #1;
• ICC recordings [WO #1];
• Communications recordings;
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
• General Occurrence Report;
• Prisoner Record – the Complainant; and
• Notebook entries – WO #1 and WO #2.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

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

• Brockville General Hospital medical records – the Complainant; and
• Photographs supplied by the Complainant.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and a police and non-police witness, and 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 or authorize the release of his notes.

On April 30, 2024, the OPP were called to a residence in Elizabethtown-Kitley Township. The CW contacted police to report he had been assaulted by his girlfriend – the Complainant.

The SO and WO #1 arrived on scene in separate cruisers at about 12:15 p.m. The CW and the Complainant were on the front driveway of the address. The officers divided the parties and the SO spoke with the CW. The CW confirmed that the Complainant had kicked him. As the two spoke, a distraught Complainant came up from behind the CW and attempted to hug him. The SO and WO #1 separated the pair, and the Complainant was advised she was under arrest.

The Complainant resisted as the officers attempted to place her arms behind her back and then went to the ground in a seated position. She continued to struggle on the ground and the SO and WO #1 forced her forward onto the pavement. The officers handcuffed the Complainant behind the back, lifted her, and placed her in WO #1’s cruiser for transportation back to the detachment.

The Complainant was offered medical attention at the detachment, but declined.

The Complainant attended hospital following her release and was diagnosed with a fractured left knee.

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 her arrest by OPP officers on April 30, 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.

Based on what they knew of the 911 call, and what they discerned at the scene in conversation with the CW, I am satisfied that the Complainant was subject to arrest for assault.

I am also satisfied that the SO used only lawful force in arresting the Complainant. The force largely consisted of attempts to wrestle the Complainant’s arms behind the back and a push forward to compel her flat on the ground. Neither of these tactics, as is clear from the BWC footage, were done with excessive force. And both were necessary in order to overcome the Complainant’s resistance to being handcuffed.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s knee was fractured in her physical engagement with the officers, the likely result of the forward push, I am not able to reasonably accept that the force used by the SO was anything other than legally justified. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: September 18, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit