SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OCI-259

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 42-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 17, 2024, at 8:24 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 17, 2024, at approximately 2:27 a.m., PRP police officers responded to a domestic disturbance call at a residence in the area of Dixie Road and Queen Street East, Brampton. On arrival, they learned that the male suspect had fled the residence on foot. They searched a nearby park, locating the man and arresting him at 2:49 a.m. Shortly after being arrested, the Complainant complained of pain in his upper right leg. He was transported by Peel Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to hospital. At 9:23 a.m., the Complainant was medically cleared by the hospital and released back to the custody of the PRP. He was taken to the police station and processed for multiple criminal charges. The Complainant was then transported to the Davis Courthouse, where he was remanded into custody at Maplehurst Correctional Centre (MCC). At approximately 5:00 p.m., the hospital contacted PRP and advised that after further review of X-rays taken of the Complainant’s right hip, they had discovered a non-displaced fracture at the top of the right femur. The hospital requested that the Complainant be returned to the hospital as soon as possible for further treatment. MCC staff transported the Complainant back to the hospital where he was treated for the fracture.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/06/17 at 9:40 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/06/19 at 8:30 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on June 19, 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 June 21 and 24, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a park in the area of Dixie Road and Queen Street East, Brampton.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The SO

On June 17, 2024, at 2:44 a.m., the SO was captured walking in a park, using his flashlight to look around. A PRP police vehicle proceeded into the park with its left floodlight on. The PRP vehicle stopped, and WO #1 joined the SO in the search of a person [now known to be for the Complainant]. The SO and WO #1 walked in the park, and the SO called out to the Complainant. Movement could be seen at the bottom of a large tree. The SO said, “Stay right there.” The Complainant said, “Fuck off,” and ran a short distance from the left side of the tree. The Complainant did not limp when he ran. The SO ran after the Complainant and caught up to him from behind. As they connected, the SO’s BWC was obscured. The Complainant asked, “What are you doing?” The SO replied, “Do not move.” The Complainant lay on his right side. WO #1 was on the Complainant’s left side. The SO positioned himself behind and over the Complainant. The SO took the Complainant’s left arm with his right hand and grabbed his left shoulder. A large dog appeared on the screen. The SO rolled the Complainant’s left arm around and behind him. A woman [now known to be Witness #1] entered the video. WO #1 asked Witness #1 if the dog was hers. Police officers present yelled at the woman to take control of her dog. The Complainant lay on the ground on his right side and complained about pain in his leg.

At 2:50 a.m., the Complainant lay on his stomach with his left arm out to his left side. The SO held his right arm. The Complainant said, “Get off my leg.” The Complainant was handcuffed, and only his head could be seen on the SO’s BWC. The Complainant’s left arm was held by an unknown police officer as he said, “Get off me.” The Complainant said, “I can’t move,” as the SO brushed off his own ball cap. WO #1 and WO #2 stood with the SO.

At 2:52 a.m., either WO #1 or the SO told the Complainant he was going to be brought to his feet. The Complainant said, “No,” and moaned. WO #2 asked the Complainant if he had been in the tree. An attempt was made to roll the Complainant onto his right side, and he yelled out in pain. WO #1 rolled him onto his left side. WO #1 and WO #2 searched the Complainant as he called out a woman’s name. The SO stood over the group on the ground. WO #1 rolled the Complainant over onto his right side to search him, and the Complainant moaned in pain. WO #2 asked if an ambulance was en route for the Complainant. The SO said an ambulance was dispatched for Witness #1. WO #1 rolled the Complainant onto his left side, and he and the SO held the Complainant’s arms and tried to bring him to his feet. The Complainant yelled out in pain. WO #1 and the SO took the Complainant down and forward in a controlled manner to the ground. He lay on his stomach, but slightly to the right.

At 2:55 a.m., WO #1 was to the left, and the SO was to the right, of the Complainant. Together they held the Complainant’s arms to try and bring him to a seated position on his buttocks. The Complainant yelled out in pain. The SO and WO #1 put the Complainant back down on the grass, and he was handcuffed with his hands behind his back. They were close to the rear of a PRP police vehicle. WO #1 and the SO made further attempts to bring the Complainant to his feet. The SO and WO #1 again moved the Complainant into a seated position and then brought him to his feet as he yelled out in pain.

At 2:56 a.m., the SO and WO #1 led the Complainant to the police vehicle, and the Complainant yelled out and begged them to stop. The SO and WO #1 lay the Complainant down, and the Complainant said his whole hip hurt. The SO walked away from the Complainant and looked into a tree, using his flashlight to illuminate the tree. The SO then told the Complainant he was under arrest for breaching his conditions and for the offences of ‘assault causing bodily harm’ and ‘choking’.

At 2:57 a.m., EMS arrived on scene and paramedics assessed the Complainant, who screamed out in pain. A female paramedic asked the Complainant how he hurt his leg. The Complainant said, “These guys.” The Complainant was asked to lay on his left side. He was rolled onto his left side, and he said he was tackled. The SO walked away from the group to the same tree and used his flashlight to illuminate the area. The SO found two cellular telephones at the base of the tree and took possession of them. The telephones were shown to the Complainant, and he said they were not his. The Complainant told the paramedics, “They tackled me.” One of the paramedics asked the Complainant if he had been drinking. He said he had consumed four shots of vodka but not drugs.

The SO said he was bleeding, and that the earth had cut him. There was discussion between PRP police officers and the paramedics that the Complainant would have to be placed into the police vehicle and transported to the ambulance, which was situated outside the park. The Complainant was placed onto his right side and then into a seated position. He yelled out in pain and complained that his whole hip joint was “rocking”. He was told to hop on his right leg. The Complainant was placed into the right rear seat of the police vehicle. The SO and WO #1 assisted in getting his legs inside the cruiser.

BWC Footage - WO #1

On June 17, 2024, at 2:48 a.m., WO #1 was on foot approaching a large tree in a park. He used a flashlight to illuminate the tree. Another police officer - the SO - walked several metres ahead of him. A few seconds later, the Complainant crawled out from beneath the tree, kicked off his shoes, and began to run away from the police officers. The SO tackled the Complainant a few seconds later and they both fell to the ground. The SO appeared to be sprawled across the Complainant’s back. After the Complainant was on the ground, the SO briefly repositioned himself and straddled the Complainant’s back with his knees on either side of the Complainant on the ground before he moved to his right side. The Complainant was told to put his hands behind his back. The Complainant said, “You’re hurting me.” The SO knelt beside the Complainant on his right side and held his left arm behind his back.

An unleashed dog and a woman [now known to be Witness #1] approached the scene. The Complainant yelled out a woman’s name and Witness #1 said, “Baby.” The Complainant said, “You’re hurting me.” The SO stood up as the dog circled them. WO #1 aimed the light and the sound of his CEW towards the dog as Witness #1 was repeatedly told to get her dog.

The Complainant asked if he could roll over and WO #1 told him to stay on his stomach. The Complainant said, “You hurt my leg.” From the right side, the SO placed both of his knees on the Complainant’s buttocks with minimal pressure. Both police officers continued to tell Witness #1 to get her dog, and the Complainant to put his hands behind his back. The Complainant said, “I’m not resisting.” The SO appeared to be crouched beside the Complainant on his right side. WO #1 said, “As soon as you put your hands behind your back, we’ll get off you.” The Complainant said, “I can’t.” WO #1 said, “We’ll have to do it for you.” The Complainant yelled, “Ow,” and, “Please get off me.” The Complainant was placed in handcuffs with his hands behind his back.

At 2:51 a.m., WO #2 arrived on scene. Witness #1 and the dog were beside the Complainant. WO #1 took the dog by its collar and returned it to Witness #1’s backyard. He returned to the scene afterwards. The other police officers stood over the Complainant, who complained about his leg. The Complainant said that he could not stand.

At 2:53 a.m., WO #1 returned to his cruiser and the video ended.

PRP Communications Recordings

On June 17, 2024, PRP police officers attended an address in the area of Dixie Road and Queen Street East, Brampton, regarding a domestic disturbance call. The 911 call was initiated at 2:26 a.m. The 911 dispatcher spoke to a woman who stated her mother’s ex-boyfriend, the Complainant, came to their residence drunk and had choked her mother. The caller said that the Complainant was upstairs in the residence and her mother was on the main floor. The Complainant was intoxicated but did not have any weapons. The caller subsequently said that the Complainant had entered the residence through an unlocked back door when he initially arrived, uninvited. She said that he was currently locked inside her mother’s bedroom, alone. The Complainant was on conditions not to have any contact with her, her mother, and another family member. The 911 dispatcher instructed the caller to stay on the line, and indicated that police officers were on the way.

At 13:08 minutes into the conversation, the caller said that the Complainant was in the backyard, and then added he had just left and entered a nearby park. The caller believed the Complainant was hiding under a tree in the park.

At 2:28 a.m., A PRP dispatcher asked for available units to attend the residence regarding a domestic disturbance. A caller reported that her mother’s ex-boyfriend had choked her (the mother). The caller advised her mother was conscious and breathing. The involved male was upstairs in the residence. The male was identified as the Complainant. There were no weapons involved in the interaction.

The SO and WO #1 acknowledged the call and began making their way to the address. Further details indicated that the Complainant had locked himself, alone, in the mother’s bedroom. The Complainant was unwelcome in the residence. Information was subsequently received that the Complainant had run out of the house and into a park. A description of the Complainant was broadcast.

At 2:44 a.m., dispatch advised that the Complainant was in the park, hiding under a tree.

At 3:02 a.m., WO #1 advised there was a male in custody.

At 3:10 a.m., WO #2 advised dispatch that the Complainant was going to be transported to hospital by ambulance. An officer accompanied paramedics in the ambulance and WO #2 was following the ambulance to hospital.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the PRP between June 18, 2024, and June 21, 2024:

  • BWC footage;
  • Communications recordings;
  • Activity Log – the Complainant;
  • Notes - WO #1;
  • Notes - WO #2;
  • Officer List;
  • Directive - Incident Response;
  • Person Detail Report – the Complainant;
  • Incident Report;
  • General Occurrence Report;
  • Probation Order – the Complainant; and
  • Prisoner Details Report - the Complainant.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between June 19, 2024, and June 28, 2024:

  • Ambulance Call Report from Peel EMS; and
  • The Complainant’s medical records.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses to the events in question, 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.

In the early morning of June 17, 2024, PRP officers were dispatched to a residence in the area of Dixie Road and Queen Street East, Brampton. A resident of the address had contacted police to report that her mother had been assaulted by the Complainant. The same caller subsequently reported that the Complainant had fled the residence and was hiding in a nearby park.

The SO and WO #1 arrived on scene and started to search the park using their flashlights. The former located the Complainant lying underneath a tree. The Complainant rose to his feet and ran away from the officers. He had not travelled more than a few metres before he was tackled from behind by the SO.

The Complainant complained of pain in his leg after the tackle. He was handcuffed and transported to a waiting ambulance. At hospital, he would eventually be diagnosed with a fractured right hip.

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 June 17, 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 officers had information from a 911 caller describing an assault perpetrated on the caller’s mother by the Complainant. That same caller indicated that the Complainant had fled the house and was hiding in a nearby park. In the circumstances, when the SO found the Complainant in the park, he was within his rights in moving to take him into custody.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO, namely, a takedown, was legally justified. With reason to believe that the Complainant had just committed a domestic assault, the officer would have been concerned that the Complainant would react to his arrest with violence. In the circumstances, when the Complainant refused to get down at the direction of the officer and instead started to run away, the SO was entitled to resort to a measure of force to thwart the escape. A takedown would do just that while better positioning the officer to manage any possible resistance by the Complainant. As for the manner in which the takedown was executed, while I accept that it was the cause of the Complainant’s injury, it would not appear to have been accompanied with undue force.

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

Date: October 3, 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]

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.