SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OCI-008
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
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 42-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU[1]
On January 8, 2024, at 10:19 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.[2]
According to the PRP, on January 7, 2024, at 11:59 p.m. the Complainant was involved in a vehicle collision with PRP unmarked police vehicles while attempting to escape arrest. It was believed the Complainant was in one of three stolen vehicles when multiple collisions occurred in the City of Brampton. The Complainant was arrested on January 8, 2024, at 1:58 a.m., at the Woodbine Casino [now known as the Grandstand Casino] in Etobicoke. He was taken to the Etobicoke General Hospital (EGH) and diagnosed with a fractured pelvis.
At 2:19 p.m. on January 8, 2024, the PRP advised the SIU that only one vehicle, a pick-up truck, had been involved in collisions with police vehicles the previous evening and there was no indication the SUV operated by the Complainant had been involved in any collisions. According to the PRP, it was suspected the Complainant’s vehicle was associated to the stolen vehicles given that PRP undercover officers had observed the Complainant’s SUV travelling in tandem with the stolen vehicles. The PRP confirmed they had no information indicating the Complainant was ever inside a vehicle involved in the collisions and there was no information suggesting the Complainant had been injured in any vehicle collision.
On January 9, 2024, at 10:25 a.m., the PRP contacted the SIU and confirmed the duty notes of the involved police officers had been reviewed and there was no information to indicate the Complainant was involved in any vehicle collisions.
The PRP reported that there were three plainclothes police officers involved in the arrest of the Complainant and his friend, the Civilian Witness (CW). The PRP further reported that one of those police officers noted he had delivered strikes to the Complainant because the Complainant was resisting arrest. A second police officer assisted in securing the Complainant once the CW had been secured.
The PRP identified the three police officers involved in the arrest of the Complainant and the CW: the Subject Official (SO), and Witness Official (WO) #2 and WO #4.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2024/01/08 at 10:58 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/01/08 at 11:21 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
42-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on January 8, 2024.
Civilian Witness (CW)
CW Interviewed
The civilian witness was interviewed on January 10, 2024.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
The subject official was interviewed on April 3, 2024.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #6 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #7 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #8 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #9 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #10 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #11 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The witness officials were interviewed between January 14, 2024, and February 22, 2024.
Investigative Delay
The operators of the Grandstand Casino, Great Canadian Casino Resorts, and their parent company Great Canadian Entertainment, advised the SIU that a judicial authorization would be required in order to obtain a copy of the surveillance recordings from the parking garage of the casino. A Production Order was granted on February 2, 2024, and was served upon the casino on February 5, 2024. The SIU received copies of the surveillance recordings on February 22, 2024.
In order to try to reconcile conflicts in the information provided by the Complainant and the interviewed police officers, regarding movements of the Range Rover, the SIU obtained a Production Order on March 28, 2024, to obtain the GPS tracking data for the Complainant’s SUV.
Evidence
The Scene
The Grandstand Casino is a new casino facility at the Woodbine Racetrack complex in Etobicoke. A large multi-level parking structure is attached to the casino. There is direct access to the casino via Level 3 of the parking garage, which is the ground level of the parking garage.
This incident occurred on Level 3 of the parking garage, at the parking garage entrance to the casino.
The main entrance to the casino is just outside the parking garage, to the west of the garage.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]
PRP Communications Recordings and Incident Details Report
The PRP 21 Division Criminal Investigations Bureau (CIB) officers involved in this incident were using a radio channel which was not recorded. The incident history provides the following narrative of the incident.
On January 7, 2024, at 11:59 p.m., a Regional Breath Unit (RBU) officer reported he was strategically following a white Chevrolet Silverado pick-up truck. That vehicle had been stolen from a U-Haul facility on December 16, 2023.
The SO and WO #3, in the area on an unrelated matter, were added to the call at 12:02 a.m. on January 8, 2024. It was soon reported a stolen white van was also involved.
There were various reports of the locations of the two vehicles as RBU and CIB officers followed the vehicles.
At 12:07 a.m., a sergeant ordered that no pursuits were to take place, and at 12:08 a.m., it was reported that there had been numerous collisions with police vehicles. A request was made to have CIB officers scramble to the area to assist in the surveillance efforts.
At 12:18 a.m., a police officer asked the dispatcher to query the licence plate of the Complainant’s white Range Rover. At 12:37 a.m., the registered owner information for the Range Rover appeared in the incident history report.
At 2:06 a.m., a request was made for uniformed officers to attend the Grandstand Casino to transport two men in custody and to remove a vehicle from the scene.
At 2:42 a.m., WO #10 and WO #9 reported they had a male prisoner [the Complainant] in their vehicle. At 2:50 a.m., they reported they were at EGH.
Grandstand Casino Video Surveillance Recordings
Video cameras on Level 3 of the parking garage recorded the arrest of the Complainant.
Starting at about 1:46 a.m., January 8, 2024, a white Range Rover operated by the Complainant entered the parking facility. The Complainant was driving, and the CW was in the front passenger seat. At 1:47 a.m., the Complainant parked the vehicle.
Starting at about 1:48 a.m., the Complainant and the CW were standing at the rear of the Range Rover. The Complainant appeared to be bending towards the vehicle and doing something with the licence plate. The Complainant and the CW then started to walk towards the entrance to the casino. Close to the casino entrance the rear end of a black vehicle, known to be the vehicle operated by the SO, was stopped. The black vehicle reversed slightly. It was then pulled forward again and came to a stop.
Starting at about 1:49:28 a.m., the Complainant and the CW were approximately one parking space away from the black vehicle operated by the SO. As they walked the Complainant had his left hand in his coat pocket, while the CW had both of his hands in his pants pockets. A silver or grey sedan, operated by WO #2, then pulled up and stopped along the rear bumper of the SO’s vehicle. As WO #2’s car came to a stop, the driver’s door opened.
Starting at about 1:49:29 a.m., the SO ran around the rear driver’s corner of his vehicle. At the same time, a camera outside the parking structure recorded WO #4 exiting his vehicle, which he had parked in front of the main casino entrance, approximately 80 metres away from where the SO and WO #2 had stopped their vehicles. WO #4 ran towards the SO and WO #2.
Starting at about 1:49:30 a.m., the SO, bending down, drove his right shoulder into the Complainant’s waist and grabbed onto the Complainant’s legs. He lifted the Complainant off his feet and the Complainant landed on his left side on the floor of the parking garage. The CW then grabbed onto the SO’s jacket. The SO turned to face the CW while standing over the Complainant, and he and the CW struggled very briefly.
Starting at about 1:49:33 a.m., WO #2 grabbed onto the CW and pulled him away. As the CW was pulled away from the SO, the SO threw a right-handed punch towards the CW’s head, but no contact appeared to have been made. Both police officers were in plain clothing and there were no police identifiers visible on either of them. The Complainant’s right hand appeared in the SO’s groin area, and he appeared to grab onto the crotch of the SO’s pants. The SO twice moved his right hand quickly towards the Complainant’s head. The SO’s body blocked the camera’s view of where the strikes landed. The Complainant’s right hand then moved up towards his face, apparently to protect his head. The SO then lowered himself onto the Complainant’s right hip and grabbed onto the Complainant’s right arm. The Complainant put his right hand onto the floor of the garage, and the SO delivered a punch to the right side of the Complainant’s head.
Starting at about 1:49:37 a.m., the Complainant moved his right hand towards his head, seemingly to guard his head. As this occurred, WO #4 ran past the Complainant to assist WO #2 in securing the CW. The SO then attempted to grab the Complainant’s right arm again, and he threw four more punches at the Complainant. The Complainant moved his right arm backward, with his forearm landing against the SO’s right flank. The SO delivered another series of strikes towards the Complainant’s upper chest and head, and the Complainant moved his right hand back up towards his face. The SO again tried to pull the Complainant’s right arm back and, when that failed, he continued to throw strikes at the Complainant. The Complainant curled up, with his right arm over his head and, at 1:49:50 a.m., the SO started to punch at the Complainant’s exposed right flank. The Complainant raised his right arm and the SO grabbed onto the arm, struggling to secure it.
Starting at about 1:49:56 a.m., WO #2 moved away from the CW and ran towards the Complainant and the SO. As he did so, there were several bystanders witnessing the interaction.
Starting at about 1:49:57 a.m., WO #2 also grabbed onto the Complainant’s right arm, as the SO dropped his left shin onto the Complainant’s right side. The SO pushed himself up and off the Complainant, and he punched the Complainant in the right flank once. The Complainant reached up and grabbed onto WO #2, and WO #2 knocked his hand away. The SO then threw another punch towards the Complainant’s head. WO #2 took hold of the Complainant’s right arm, and the SO delivered a punch to the Complainant’s right armpit area.
Starting at about 1:50:18 a.m., the Complainant was rolled onto his stomach. The SO delivered a strike to the Complainant’s lower back. The Complainant attempted to move his right arm behind his back, but WO #2 was in the way. WO #2 moved out of the way, and the Complainant was then handcuffed with his hands behind his back.
There was no audio portion of the video recording, but it was obvious that following the arrest the Complainant was upset and yelling at the SO and WO #2.
At 1:53 a.m., WO #3 arrived at the scene of the arrest. At that point none of the police officers present were wearing any form of police identifier.
At 1:57 a.m., WO #6, wearing a vest with “POLICE” written across the front, arrived and spoke to the Complainant. WO #6 pointed to the ceiling of the parking garage, possibly advising the Complainant that there were video cameras in the area.
At 2:19 a.m., WO #10 and WO #9 arrived in a marked police vehicle. They departed the parking garage with the Complainant at 2:28 a.m.
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage
In addition to the video recordings obtained from the Grandstand Casino, the SIU obtained the BWC recordings from WO #10 and WO #9, who transported the Complainant from the casino. The camera recordings documented their departure from the casino parking garage. Their vehicle soon stopped on the casino grounds and WO #10 asked WO #9 to call their staff sergeant. WO #9 placed a telephone call with his BWC muted. He then re-entered the vehicle and attempted to read the Complainant his Rights to Counsel. He advised the Complainant they did not have water available, and he then informed the Complainant he was arresting him for possession of identity documents, possession of property obtained by crime, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, and possession of counterfeit marks. The Complainant’s responses were inaudible, and WO #10 and WO #9 discussed a belief the Complainant was ignoring them. They resumed driving but stopped again. WO #10 exited the vehicle and again discussed the Complainant’s request for water. The Complainant told WO #10 that he had pain in his chest. WO #10 re-entered the vehicle and they discussed the need to transport the Complainant to medical care. The Complainant stated he wanted to go to the hospital.
WO #10 had been travelling westbound on Derry Road, but he turned around and travelled eastbound, towards EGH. WO #9 placed a telephone call to advise someone that they were taking the Complainant to the hospital. While on the way to the hospital, WO #9 again tried to read the Complainant his Rights to Counsel, but the Complainant did not appear to respond to him. They arrived at the hospital at 2:49 a.m. At 2:51 a.m., the Complainant was asked to exit the police vehicle. He was leaning onto his side in the back seat of the vehicle, and he asked for the front seat to be moved forward, to provide room to move, but was told the seat did not move. WO #10 assisted him in exiting the vehicle.
The Complainant became irate and cried out in pain while attempting to exit the police vehicle. He yelled that he wanted the officers to call a paramedic to come assist him. When WO #10 assisted him in standing up, the Complainant cried out that his leg was broken, and he wept. He was told to stand on his right leg. The Complainant stated he could not walk, and he asked WO #10 and WO #9 to call someone. WO #10 entered the hospital and then returned. The Complainant told WO #10 that he was unable to put any weight on his left leg.
WO #10 went back to the hospital and returned to the police vehicle with a wheelchair, and the Complainant was escorted into the hospital while seated in the wheelchair.
In the BWC video from WO #10, there appeared to be a fresh cut on the bridge of the Complainant’s nose and contusions to his forehead.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PRP between January 8, 2024, and February 23, 2024:
- Incident History Report;
- Occurrence Reports;
- Incident Detail Report;
- Person Details Report – the Complainant;
- Video-recorded interview of the CW;
- BWC recordings – WO #9;
- BWC recordings – WO #10;
- Notes - WO #2;
- Notes - WO #4;
- Notes - WO #10;
- Notes - WO #9;
- Notes - WO #8;
- Notes - WO #7;
- Copy of casino surveillance video recording;[4]
- Communications recordings;
- Notes - WO #3;
- Use of Force training – the SO;
- Platoon schedule for 21 Division CIB;
- Notes - WO #1;
- Notes - WO #6;
- Notes - WO #5; and
- Use of Force policy.
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS on January 29, 2024:
- Notebook entries of WO #11.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between January 30, 2024, and March 29, 2024:
- Medical records of the Complainant from EGH;
- By way of Production Order, surveillance recordings of the incident from Great Canadian Casino Resort;
- Two screen capture images from the Land Rover tracking application for his vehicle from the Complainant; and
- By way of Production Order, telemetry data from the Complainant’s SUV from Jaguar Land Rover.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, the SO and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario.
In the evening of January 7, 2024, into the morning of the following day, PRP officers were engaged with a series of vehicles that were either stolen or suspected of being involved in a stolen vehicle ring. One of the vehicles, a white pick-up truck, was confirmed stolen. It had crashed into police vehicles that were attempting to stop it.
A Toyota Camry was also under surveillance during the same police operation. It too was confirmed stolen. At an address on Larkspur Road, Brampton, occupants of the Camry were observed entering a Range Rover. Officers in unmarked vehicles, including the SO, began to surreptitiously track the Range Rover’s travels.
The Range Rover was followed to a residential address in Malton, then to an industrial area of Malton, and finally to the Grandstand Casino at the Woodbine Racetrack in Etobicoke. The vehicle entered the parking complex, and its driver quicky located and parked in a spot on the ground level of the garage. Plainclothes officers brought their vehicles to a stop in the garage as well. The plan was to arrest the Range Rover’s occupants once they walked away from the vehicle.
The Complainant was the driver of the Range Rover. The only other occupant was his front seat passenger – the CW. The two had exited the Rover and were within steps of the parking garage’s entrance to the casino when they were confronted by police officers.
The SO, from a position closer to the entrance, exited his parked vehicle and ran up to the Complainant, catching him by surprise. The officer ducked his head into the Complainant’s waist, wrapped his arms around his legs, and flipped him backwards to the ground, the Complainant landing on his left hip. The CW grabbed the SO’s jacket but was pulled away by WO #2, who had driven to the scene of the arrest and exited his vehicle. With the help of a third arriving officer – WO #4 – the CW was taken to the ground and handcuffed without incident.
The SO stood over the Complainant, a leg on each side of him, and delivered two right-handed strikes to the area of the Complainant’s head as the Complainant reached up and grabbed with his right hand at the officer’s crotch. The Complainant removed his hand and placed it on the ground as the SO sat straddled over his right side. The officer tried to maneuver the Complainant’s right arm behind the back but was met with resistance. He delivered another right-handed strike to the area of the Complainant’s head and again tried to force his right arm back. The Complainant continued to resist that movement and was met by four right-handed strikes to the torso and head area. The SO reached for the Complainant’s right arm after those strikes to bring it around the back. Still unable to do so, the officer struck four right-handed blows to the Complainant’s upper body / head area followed by two punches to the Complainant’s right flank. The Complainant reached with his right arm towards the officer to defend himself from those blows. The SO grabbed the arm and tried to wrestle it behind the Complainant’s back. The Complainant’s resistance persisted. The SO stood up at this point and attempted to force the Complainant into a prone position as WO #2 was arriving to assist. The SO dropped his left shin onto the Complainant’s waist, after which he stood up and delivered a right-handed punch to the right flank. The Complainant reached up with his right hand and grabbed WO #2’s collar. WO #2 swatted it away before the SO threw a right-handed punch in the direction of the Complainant’s head. The SO delivered a short, right-handed punch to the upper right back of the Complainant as WO #2 took control of his right arm, and followed that with a punch to the Complainant’s right side. The officers tried to force the Complainant into a prone position. The Complainant resisted but was eventually forced fully front-first on the ground. The SO extricated himself at this point, delivering a final punch to the back of the Complainant. Shortly thereafter, the SO removed his handcuffs and secured the Complainant’s arms behind the back.
The Complainant was seen at hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with a fractured pelvis.
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
The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by PRP officers on January 8, 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.
I am satisfied that the SO was proceeding lawfully to take the Complainant into custody when he confronted him in the parking garage of the casino. He had earlier observed a male of the Complainant’s description operating a stolen Toyota Camry. He also had information to believe that the Camry was associated with the Range Rover the Complainant was operating – occupants from the former had been seen entering the latter – and that the Rover had committed several traffic infractions while under surveillance by the police, including disregarding red traffic signals and speeding. On this record, it would appear the SO had a basis to seek the Complainant’s arrest for possession of a stolen vehicle and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.
With respect to the quantum of force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, I am unable to reasonably conclude it exceeded the remit of authorized force under section 25(1) of the Criminal Code. The initial tackle is subject to legitimate scrutiny. Without any warning, and while wearing plainclothes, the SO rushed at the Complainant and took him to the ground. Ordinarily, one would have thought that an announcement of arrest and verbal direction to surrender should have been issued prior any resort to force. However, in the instant case, the SO explained that he was concerned the Complainant was armed with a tool in his pocket that could potentially be used as a weapon. That concern was more than empty speculation. There was evidence that the Complainant was involved in a car theft ring; he was seen doing something with the rear licence plate of the Rover after he parked it at the casino, suggesting the use of a tool of some sort, possibly a screwdriver; and, he had his left hand in his jacket pocket as he walked towards the casino entrance and through much of the struggle with the SO. In the circumstances, it made sense to immediately upend the Complainant without notice as doing so would mitigate the risk of the Complainant being able to access and wield a weapon.
Once on the ground, the SO advised the Complainant he was an officer and struck him multiple times. Most of these appear proximal to the officer’s failed attempts at bringing the Complainant’s arms behind the back. Some were not as closely tied to those efforts and, strictly speaking, might or might not have been necessary to bring the Complainant under control. That said, the legal test is not one of strict necessity; rather, an officer will be justified if their force is reasonably necessary. The standard reflects the law’s recognition that an officer embroiled in hostilities is not expected to measure their force with precision: R v Nasogaluak, [2010] 1 SCR 206; R v Baxter (1975), 27 CCC (2d) 96 (Ont. CA). Faced with someone he feared might be in possession of a weapon, whose resistance was significant and protracted, the SO was within his rights in wanting to bring the Complainant into custody as soon as possible. If one or more of the strikes he delivered were, in hindsight, more than might have been precisely necessary to accomplish his task, the evidence falls short of establishing they transgressed the latitude accorded officers in the heat of the moment.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: September 20, 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 initial information provided to the SIU was incorrect. It was later determined the Complainant was not injured in a vehicle collision, but rather was injured during his arrest. [Back to text]
- 3) 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]
- 4) Following the incident, WO #3 was allowed to review the casino surveillance recording of the incident and he was permitted to record the images on his cellular telephone. [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.