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 man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 2, 2024, at 3:50 p.m., the London Police Service (LPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the LPS, on June 2, 2024, at 4:02 a.m., LPS officers were called to a residence near Commissioners Road West and Wharncliffe Road South, London, on information from a female that her ex-partner, the Complainant, had gained entry to her residence by kicking in the front door. When the police officers arrived, the Complainant fled into Euston Park. Containment was established and the canine unit was requested. The Subject Official (SO) responded and deployed a Police Service Dog (PSD). The Complainant was found lying in a ravine and sustained a dog bite to the calf. He was arrested and taken to the London Victoria Hospital, where he was treated for a soft tissue injury.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/06/03 at 7:30 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/06/03 at 1:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on June 3, 2024.

Subject Official

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

Witness Official

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between July 10, 2024, and August 7, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in an area of tall weeds off a gravel footpath that entered Euston Park from the intersection of MacKay Avenue and Euston Road, London.

Physical Evidence

The pants worn by the Complainant provided evidence of a dog bite and were collected by SIU investigators.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Police Communications Recordings

On June 2, 2024, at 4:03:40 a.m., LPS officers were dispatched to a residence near Commissioners Road West and Wharncliffe Road South in connection with an ‘intimate partner violence’ call for service. Information provided by the caller indicated that the Complainant had broken into her residence and then fled.

At 4:13:00 a.m., WO #1 reported the Complainant running into a wooded area.

At 4:14:07 a.m., WO #2 advised that the Complainant matched the description of a suspect from a firearms call earlier in the evening.

At 4:23:22 a.m., a police officer advised that reasonable grounds existed to arrest the Complainant for failure to comply with a release order, and break and enter.

At about 4:41:32 a.m., the SO was on scene. WO #1 and WO #2 assisted the SO.

At about 4:51:35 a.m., WO #1 advised they were on a footpath travelling east.

At about 4:51:52 a.m., WO #1 advised that the Complainant was in custody.

Doorbell Video Footage

At 4:03:37 a.m., June 2, 2024, the Complainant approached the door and banged on it.

At 4:08:58 a.m., police officers arrived and were told that the Complainant had kicked in the resident’s door and fled.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the LPS between June 19, 2024, and August 2, 2024:

• Names and roles of all involved police officers;
• General Occurrence Report;
• Crown Brief Synopsis;
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
• Communications recordings;
• Video footage;
• Annual use of force qualifications for the SO;
• Annual recertification records for PSD;
• Notes of the SO and WOs;
• Written statement – the SO;
• Policy - Use of Force; and
• Policy - Canine Unit.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from Victoria Hospital on June 17, 2024.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police officers who participated in his arrest, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the early morning of June 2, 2024, LPS officers were dispatched to a residence near Commissioners Road West and Wharncliffe Road South, London. The resident had contacted police to report that her ex-partner – the Complainant – had broken into her residence. There was a court order in effect prohibiting the Complainant’s attendance at the address.

WO #1 was among the officers who arrived on scene. He observed the Complainant making his way towards Euston Park and a wooded area off Centre Street. The officer called-out to the Complainant, and the Complainant ran into the park. WO #1 requested the attendance of a canine unit.

The SO, a police dog handler, and his dog arrived on scene. With the dog on a long line, and accompanied by WO #1 and WO #2, the SO entered the park in search of the Complainant. Approximately ten minutes later, a male voice yelled out. It was the Complainant. The police dog had bitten, and was holding onto, his right calf.

The officers made their way to the Complainant and found him in some long weeds on a hill. WO #1 and WO #2 handcuffed the Complainant, after which the SO issued a command, and the dog released its grip.

At hospital following his arrest, the Complainant was treated for lacerations caused by the dog bite.

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 June 2, 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 SO, WO #1 and WO #2, were proceeding lawfully to locate and arrest the Complainant. Given what they knew of the 911 call, the officers were entitled to take the Complainant into custody for breaching a term of his release, and break and enter.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, namely, a dog bite, was legally justified. The officers had reason to be concerned about their safety in approaching the Complainant. He had just broken into a home, a male reportedly matching his description had recently been seen brandishing a gun, and he had run from police and was attempting to evade arrest. On this record, it would seem that the deployment of the dog was a reasonable tactic. If things went according to plan and the dog’s training, the Complainant would be confronted first by the dog, who would bite and hold pending the officers’ arrival. In effect, that is what occurred. There is source of evidence in which it is alleged that the SO encouraged the dog to do more damage than was necessary, and that one of the officers punched the Complainant during the arrest. However, it would be unwise and unsafe to rest charges on this account given frailties associated with the evidence and the officers’ countervailing version of events.

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

Date: September 27, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit