SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OCI-272

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 49-year-old man (the Complainant).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 26, 2024, at 4:46 p.m., the Brantford Police Service (BPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the BPS, on June 26, 2024, at 1:38 a.m., BPS officers responded to a bar on Dalhousie Street, Brantford, for a stabbing. Reportedly, the Complainant had stabbed a patron at the bar, and then fled on an e-bike. The Complainant was found in the downtown core on his e-bike, prompting a police officer to position his police vehicle in his path and block his escape. The Complainant struck the police vehicle and fell to the sidewalk. The Complainant resisted arrest Not knowing if the Complainant still had an edged weapon, a police officer applied knee strikes and deployed a conducted energy weapon (CEW) in drive stun mode. The Complainant was transported to the BPS station and lodged in cells. He later complained of chest discomfort resulting in the notification of Emergency Medical Services and his transport to the Brantford General Hospital (BGH).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/06/27 at 7:01 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/06/27 at 8:21 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on June 28, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

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

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on July 29, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the south sidewalk of Dalhousie Street a distance east of Queen Street, Brantford.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data - The SO

At 1:40:54 a.m., June 26, 2024, the CEW was powered on.

At 1:40:57 a.m., the CEW was deployed in arc mode for 3.888 seconds.

At 1:41:03 a.m., the CEW was deployed in arc mode for 4.807 seconds.

At 1:41:21 a.m., the CEW safety was engaged.

Global Positioning System (GPS) Data - WO #1’s Cruiser

At 1:39:32 a.m., June 26, 2024, WO #1’s vehicle was westbound on Dalhousie Street at 42 km/h.

At 1:39:38 a.m., WO #1’s vehicle was stationary on Dalhousie Street where it remained until 1:57:34 a.m.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage - City of Brantford

On June 26, 2024, starting at around 1:39:31 a.m., the Complainant was riding an e-bike west on Dalhousie Street on the south sidewalk. WO #1 was driving a police vehicle with its emergency lighting illuminated west on Dalhousie Street parallel to the Complainant.

Starting at around 1:39:34 a.m., WO #1 drove onto the sidewalk and angled the police vehicle into the path of an approaching Complainant. The Complainant struck the front driver’s corner, with his momentum carrying him beyond the police vehicle where he landed on the sidewalk on his side and back.

Starting at around 1:39:48 a.m., WO #1 approached the Complainant and stood 2.4 to 3 metres away from him. The Complainant was on his back.

Starting at around 1:40:03 a.m., the SO and other police officers arrived and approached the Complainant.

Starting at around 1:40:35 a.m., the Complainant was rolled onto his stomach. The SO was positioned on the ground on the Complainant’s right side and mostly blocked from camera view by the positioning of other police officers. A struggle between the Complainant and the police officers appeared to be taking place.

Starting at around 1:40:45 a.m., a police officer [believed to be WO #2] administered knee strikes to the Complainant’s left upper body.

Starting at around 1:41:28 a.m., the police officers stood up.

BPS Communication Recordings

Telephone

On June 26, 2024, starting at 1:36:28 a.m., BPS Communications Centre received a telephone call from a bar on Dalhousie Street reporting a man [now know to be the Complainant] having stabbed a person with a broken bottle. The Complainant was intoxicated and had fled on an e-bike.

Radio

Starting at around 1:39:42 a.m., WO #1 located the Complainant, who had flipped over his police vehicle.

Starting at around 1:39:46 a.m., WO #1 had the Complainant in the prone position.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the BPS between June 27, 2024, and July 27, 2024:

  • General Occurrence Report;
  • Arrest Report;
  • Crown Brief Synopsis;
  • Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
  • GPS data from WO #1’s police vehicle;
  • Evidence photographs;
  • Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
  • CEW deployment data - the SO;
  • Radio and telephone communications recordings;
  • Duty book notes of the SO, and WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4 and WO #5;
  • Video footage;
  • Policy - Arrest, Security, Prisoner Care and Control; and
  • Policy - Use of Force.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from BGH on July 17, 2024.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, 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 26, 2024, the Complainant was operating an e-bike westward on the south sidewalk of Dalhousie Street, approaching Queen Street, when he was cut off by a vehicle that had jumped the curb ahead of him. The Complainant struck the vehicle and fell from the bike, landing on the passenger side of the vehicle.

The vehicle was a police cruiser being operated by WO #1. With other officers, WO #1 had responded to the area following reports that a male had stabbed another male and had fled the scene on an e-bike. The Complainant matched the description of the assailant. The officer had located the e-bike and the Complainant, and positioned his cruiser on an angle in front of the e-bike, watching as the Complainant struck the vehicle and was thrown from the bike. WO #1 exited the cruiser and confronted the Complainant on the ground. He told him to roll onto his stomach with his hands behind the back. The Complainant did not do so.

With the arrival of additional officers on scene, the Complainant was engaged physically on the ground. He struggled against the officers’ efforts to handcuff his arms behind the back, and was met with a number of strikes, including two from the SO that impacted his right side. The SO also deployed his CEW twice in drive stun mode, after which the officers were able to secure the Complainant in handcuffs.

The Complainant was transported to hospital following his arrest and diagnosed with one and, possibly, another rib fracture.

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 BPS officers on June 26, 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.

In light of the reports received by the police of a stabbing in the area, and the extent to which the Complainant matched the description of the suspect, I am satisfied that the BPS officers were within their rights in seeking to take him into custody.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the officers, including the strikes by the SO, constituted lawful force. When the Complainant refused to submit peacefully to arrest, the officers were entitled to resort to reasonable force to effect their purpose. The use of several hand and knee strikes would not appear disproportionate in the circumstances, particularly as the Complainant continued to struggle even after the last of these blows. The use of the CEW – an escalation in the quantum of force – seems equally commensurate with the exigencies of the moment. With reason to fear that the Complainant might be in possession of a knife, the SO had good cause to want to bring the struggle to an end as quickly as possible lest the Complainant be in a position to access the weapon. The use of the CEW effectively accomplished this objective without itself being the reason for the Complainant’s serious injury.

In the result, while I accept that one or both of the SO’s knee strikes were responsible for the Complainant’s injury, there are no grounds to believe that the officer comported himself other than within the limits of the criminal law. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

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) 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.