SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OCI-028

Warning:

This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.

Mandate of the SIU

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.

Information Restrictions

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.

Mandate Engaged

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 48-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 18, 2024, at 2:50 p.m., the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 3, 2022, at 6:36 p.m., a male – the Complainant – was arrested for human trafficking offences at a hotel near Lakeshore Road, Burlington. During the arrest, a struggle ensued. The Complainant reportedly dropped his body ‘dead weight’ to the floor. He was brought to his feet, transported to a HRPS station, and later released. The Complainant’s court proceedings were underway when his counsel, in correspondence with the Assistant Crown Attorney, indicated that the Complainant had contacted his physician on May 9, 2022, and complained of chest pain. On May 14, 2022, the Complainant was diagnosed with several fractured ribs. The Complainant told his counsel that the injury occurred in his interaction with police officers on May 3, 2022.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/01/19 at 8:00 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/01/19 at 10:55 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

Male; declined interview; medical records obtained 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

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between February 20, 2024, and May 28, 2024.

Investigative Delay

There was a minor investigative delay from when the initial lead investigator assigned to the case file took a leave of absence. On February 14, 2024, the case file was re-assigned to a different lead investigator. The delay caused by transfer of the case was not detrimental to the integrity of the case in any way.

Additional delay was incurred when, upon review by the Director’s Office, the initial file report was sent back for further investigation.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired in a hotel room and a hallway corridor of a hotel near Lakeshore Road, Burlington.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Police Radio Transmissions

A female police officer asked the dispatcher to send a police officer to the hotel to transport a person in custody [the Complainant]. There was no indication the Complainant was injured, and no information about the nature of the interaction.

In-car Camera (ICC) Video Footage

On May 3, 2022, at approximately 6:56 p.m.,[3] the Complainant was escorted by two police officers to a HRPS vehicle outside the hotel. As he walked, he appeared unaffected by any injury. He complained about the tightness of the handcuffs. The handcuffs were re-adjusted. The Complainant said something indiscernible. A female police officer replied, “Next time don’t run, okay?” The Complainant was placed in the rear seat of the HRPS vehicle. The police vehicle drove away from the hotel.

At 7:25 p.m., the police vehicle arrived at HRPS Central Lock-up facility located at 93 Oak Walk Drive, Oakville. The Complainant exited the police vehicle slowly. He said he was sore.

Booking/Cells Video Footage

On May 3, 2022, at 7:25 p.m., the Complainant arrived at the HRPS Central Lock-up facility in a police vehicle. He exited the police vehicle slowly.

At 7:33:56 p.m., the Complainant sat at the booking desk. The booking sergeant asked him if he had any injuries. He said he had back pain and a pulled muscle in his right leg. He said his right hand hurt. He was asked if he had any medical conditions. The Complainant advised he required treatment by a psychologist because, “I am not normal in many things.” He made no complaint about chest or rib pain. He did not complain about the manner in which he was arrested. The Complainant was searched by a special constable, which required him to place his hands on the wall. He showed no pain or discomfort during this motion. He never made any gesture to his ribs to suggest he was in pain.

The Complainant was lodged in a cell. While in the cell, he never appeared to be in any pain or discomfort with his ribs.

On May 4, 2022, the Complainant was released from custody by a booking sergeant. He did not complain about an injury.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the HRPS between February 15, 2024, and February 16, 2024:

  • Radio transmissions;
  • ICC video footage;
  • Booking and cell video footage;
  • Arrest Report;
  • CAD Report;
  • Notes – WO #1;
  • Notes – WO #2;
  • Notes – WO #3;
  • Notes – WO #4;
  • General Occurrence Report; and
  • Operational Plan.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on January 19, 2024:

  • Letter from the Complainant to the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD);
  • Letter from the OIPRD to the Complainant;
  • Letter from the Complainant’s physician; and
  • X-ray report.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the officers involved in the Complainant’s arrest of May 3, 2022, gives rise to the following scenario. The Complainant declined to be formally interviewed, but did provide some information in a telephone conversation with a SIU investigator.[4]

In the evening of May 3, 2022, the Complainant knocked on the door of a room at a hotel in Burlington. A woman answered and waved him in. Once inside, the Complainant was confronted by plainclothes officers – WO #2 and WO #3 – telling him he was under arrest. The Complainant had been communicating with a person, who presented as underage, for the purpose of obtaining sexual services.

The Complainant ran from the officers but was quickly apprehended by the elevator doors. He was returned to the hotel room where, with the assistance of another officer (WO #4), WO #2 and WO #3 handcuffed him behind the back.

On May 14, 2022, the Complainant was diagnosed with a right-sided rib fracture and a possible additional fracture of another rib.

Relevant Legislation

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.

Analysis and Director’s Decision

On January 18, 2024, the HRPS notified the SIU that they were in receipt of information in which it was reported that the Complainant had been seriously injured in the course of his arrest by HRPS officers on May 3, 2022. The SIU initiated an investigation. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any HRPS officers committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s 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 evidence establishes that the Complainant was subject to lawful arrest at the time of the events in question. He had reportedly agreed to engage in sexual services with an underage female, and was subject to apprehension on that basis.

The evidence also establishes that nothing more than lawful force was used against the Complainant in aid of his arrest. This included a physical interdiction at the elevator accomplished with little to moderate force, which was unsurprising given the Complainant’s flight from arrest. This also included a modicum of force to escort the Complainant back to the hotel room and, once in the room, to handcuff him behind the back. This was largely in the nature of grappling with the Complainant to overcome what appears to have been some resistance to his arrest – refusing to readily surrender his hands and falling limp to the floor – and does not give rise to any concerns of excessive force. No strikes of any kind were delivered.

It remains unclear when precisely the injury to the Complainant’s rib or ribs was incurred. Given the passage of time between the arrest and diagnosis, it is possible the injury post-dated his run-in with the police. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that HRPS officers comported themselves other than lawfully in their dealings with the Complainant, 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

Endnotes

  • 1) Unless otherwise specified, the information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s findings of fact following its investigation. [Back to text]
  • 2) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]
  • 3) ICC times taken from the Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report and, therefore, are approximations. [Back to text]
  • 4) The Complainant has since passed away in circumstances unrelated to the incident under investigation. [Back to text]

Note:

The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.