SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OCI-267

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 injuries of a 34-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 25, 2024, at 1315 hrs, the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 24, 2024, at 1501 hrs, a man [now known to be the Complainant] was involved in an armed robbery with a knife at Canada Computers, 1045 Wellington Road, London. The Complainant was reported to have fled in a vehicle northbound on Wellington Road when he was observed by LPS officers to be travelling at a high rate of speed approaching Western Counties Road. The Complainant’s vehicle came to a stop, and he fled on foot into a nearby wooded area. Commands to stop made by LPS officers were ignored. A LPS dog handler arrived and called out demands to the Complainant to surrender. When the Complainant continued to flee, the handler released his police service dog to effect an apprehension. The Complainant was arrested at 3:37 p.m. He had a dog bite injury to his upper right forearm. The Complainant was transported to London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) – Victoria Campus where he reportedly received 60 stitches to repair the lacerations to his arm.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/06/25 at 2:19 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/06/25 at 3:08 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

34-year-old male; interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on June 25, 2024, and June 26, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on July 12, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired in a wooded field west of Western Counties Road, as the road travels north and south, and north of Western Counties Road, as the road forks to travel east and west, London.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

Computer-assisted Dispatch Report

At 3:11 p.m., June 24, 2024, the LPS received a call about a robbery at Canada Computers. A male had pulled a knife on employees and then left the scene in a white Volkswagen sedan with rear-end damage.

At 3:17 p.m., the male (the Complainant) was said to be moving northwest through woods.

At 3:23 p.m., the police dog team was said to be moving northwest in the woods.

At 3:37 p.m., the Complainant was said to be in custody.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the LPS between June 28, 2024, and August 16, 2024:

  • Names, roles, and badge numbers of involved police officers;
  • General Occurrence and Supplementary Reports;
  • Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report;
  • Communications recordings;
  • Written statement – WO #1; and
  • Written statement / notes – the SO.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from LHSC – Victoria Campus on July 4, 2024.

Incident Narrative

The evidence gathered by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and a police eyewitness, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of June 24, 2024, LPS received a call about a robbery at Canada Computers, 1045 Wellington Road. A male had attempted to steal merchandise and brandished a knife at store employees before fleeing in his vehicle. A description of the male and his vehicle was broadcast over the police radio.

On-duty at the time in the area of the Parkwood Institute, WO #1 was travelling north on Western Counties Road when he observed a vehicle matching the description provided in the radio broadcast – a white Volkswagen with rear-end damage. The Volkswagen travelled southward past him, and the officer turned his cruiser around to follow.

The Complainant was operating the Volkswagen. He turned right at a fork in the road and continued west on Western Counties Road a short distance before pulling over, exiting the vehicle, and running north into a heavily wooded area.

WO #1 was close behind and had seen the Complainant enter the woods. He arranged for a perimeter to be established around the area and waited for a police dog team to arrive.

The SO and his dog arrived on scene within minutes. With WO #1 in support, and the dog on a 30-foot lead, the SO entered the woods to start a track for the Complainant. The dog picked up a human scent and led the team north and west. They came upon a person at an encampment, who tipped the officers to where he had seen the Complainant. Shortly thereafter, as the SO and his dog entered into a field of tall grass, they located the Complainant. He was running away. The SO gave the order and the dog caught up to the Complainant and bit into his right forearm, bringing him to the ground.

The SO and WO #1 arrived quickly as the Complainant attempted to release the dog’s grip of his arm. WO #1 delivered a punch to the back of the Complainant’s head before he took control of his left arm. The dog’s bite was released by the SO and the right arm brought behind the back, at which point the Complainant was handcuffed.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to hospital and treated for multiple lacerations of the right arm.

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 LPS officers on June 24, 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 injuries.

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 Complainant matched the description of the robbery suspect. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that he was subject to arrest at the time of the events in question.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO, namely, the use of the dog to bite and hold the Complainant, constituted justified force. The Complainant had made clear that he was not about to surrender and that some amount of force would be necessary to take him into custody. He had fled from WO #1 into the woods and continued to run when confronted by the officers in the field. The use of the dog as the instrument of that force made sense. The officers had good reason to believe that the Complainant had just committed a violent act, that he was still armed with a knife, and that he would physically resist arrest. A direct physical engagement risked serious bodily harm and even death whereas the use of the dog had the potential to temporarily neutralize the Complainant as the officers moved in to take him into custody.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.[2]

Date: October 23, 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) While not the focus of the SIU investigation, I am also satisfied that the punch delivered by WO #1 fell within the ambit of the protection set out in section 25 as there is evidence that the Complainant was making the officer’s efforts to secure his left arm difficult. [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.