SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-PCI-274

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 67-year-old man (the Complainant).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 26, 2024, at 3:56 p.m., an email inquiry was made to the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), followed by a phone message at 4:39 p.m., by a civilian wishing to report an injury to the Complainant.

The civilian was contacted on June 27, 2024, at 9:37 a.m. The civilian reported the following information on behalf of the Complainant, due to his current medical state. The civilian said that on June 22, 2024, at approximately 9:00 p.m., the Complainant was travelling to his residence in Thedford from Goderich. The Complainant saw a grey Ram pick-up truck following him in the area of Grand Bend, which continued to follow him as he pulled into his driveway. The pick-up truck then stopped and parked a short distance away. At the same time, a marked Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) vehicle, occupied by two uniformed officers, pulled in behind the Complainant as he drove up the laneway to his residence. As the Complainant attempted to park his vehicle, the police vehicle maneuvered to prevent the Complainant from driving further. The Complainant was reported to have exited his vehicle to ask the police to allow him to park, after which he walked back in the direction of his vehicle to turn the ignition off. It was at that point that one officer approached the Complainant and stood in front of him. The second officer also approached. When the Complainant stepped back, each officer grabbed one of the Complainant’s arms. The Complainant was then reported to have begun to flail his arms, which led to one officer punching the Complainant in the face. Both officers were said to have taken the Complainant’s legs out from under him and one officer again punched the Complainant in the head. The Complainant was handcuffed and brought to his feet.

The officers went to the Complainant’s vehicle, which was still being occupied by a female passenger, CW #1, and asked her about the Complainant’s whereabouts that evening and his alcohol consumption. It is reported that the entire incident, which was recorded on the home security system, lasted approximately 25 minutes.

It was revealed some time later that a call was made to police about the Complainant being a suspected impaired driver. It was believed that the occupant of the pick-up truck was the caller that initiated the police response. The Complainant was not subjected to a roadside screening device or standardized field sobriety testing and was released without charges.

On June 23, 2024, the Complainant attended Bluewater Health in Sarnia to seek medical attention regarding the incident the day prior. The Complainant was treated, reportedly diagnosed with a serious concussion, and released from hospital with directions to abide by concussion protocol.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/06/28 at 5:37 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/02 at 9:08 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 3, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between July 3 and 12, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on July 31, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the parking lot of a rural address in Thedford.

The parking lot was a level, gravel area. This incident occurred during daylight hours, 10 to 15 minutes before sunset.[2] The weather was dry and clear.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

OPP Communications Recordings

On June 22, 2024, at 8:57 p.m., a call was placed from the Communications Centre to CW #3 after a 911 call from her was dropped. The operator asked if CW #3 required assistance. She advised she had already spoken to an officer they found on the side of the road. CW #3 said they called regarding an impaired driver they were following on the highway, and that officers had just stopped the vehicle. The officers told them to wait around so they could speak to them.

In-car Camera (ICC) Recording

On June 22, 2024, at 8:56:25 p.m., the police vehicle approached a pick-up truck driven by the Complainant. The truck activated its left turn signal, slowed down, and made a left turn onto a dirt road. The police vehicle followed the Complainant onto his property.

At 8:57:12 p.m., the police vehicle stopped behind the truck, which started to reverse towards them and stopped. The truck moved further forward and right towards a building, widening the gap between the rear of the truck and the police vehicle. The police vehicle drove forward and closed the gap between the two vehicles. The police vehicle’s emergency lights reflected off the truck.

At 8:57:25 p.m., the driver’s side door of the truck opened, and the Complainant exited the vehicle. He raised his right arm and pointed straight ahead. The SO approached the Complainant from the driver side of the cruiser while the WO approached from the passenger side. The Complainant continued to walk towards the SO with his hand stretched outward pointing at him.

At 8:57:49 p.m., the Complainant took out his wallet and provided the SO his driver’s licence. The Complainant walked towards his truck and the WO blocked him with his body and hands.

At 8:58:04 p.m., the Complainant tried to walk around the WO. Both officers moved towards the Complainant as he tried to move towards his truck. The SO placed his right hand on the top of the Complainant’s head causing his face to look downward. The SO delivered a knee strike to the Complainant’s right leg. About one second later, the Complainant went to the ground face first. The SO and the WO went to the ground with him and appeared to be on their knees.

At 8:58:16 p.m., the SO bent his right elbow, lifted his arm, and struck in the direction of the Complainant on the ground. It was not discernable whether his hand was opened or closed. The camera view did not capture where his strike made contact. Both officers continued to move around and appeared to struggle.

At 8:58:22 p.m., the WO screamed, “Stay where you are,” at CW #1. The rapid movements of the officers slowed down and the SO motioned towards CW #1.

At 8:59:23 p.m., the SO and the WO slowly assisted the Complainant to his feet and then handcuffed his hands to the front of his body.

At 8:59:44 p.m., the SO looked at his right hand.

At 9:02:35 p.m., the WO poured bottled water over the Complainant’s right and left elbows, as well as his lower arm area.

At 9:03:11 p.m., the WO returned to the police vehicle and said, “He’s not drunk,” to the SO. The SO said he was going to run him, and then said, “I don’t know what that was about.” The WO told the SO the Complainant had a very bad temper and had a bad day with CW #1.

At 9:07:25 p.m., the WO removed the Complainant’s handcuffs.

Video Footage from the Complainant’s Property

The video recording time-stamp was approximately 71 minutes ahead of the ICC recording provided by the OPP.

On June 22, 2024, at 10:08:36 p.m., the Complainant’s vehicle turned left into the driveway of his property with the police vehicle following with its emergency lights activated.

At 10:09:00 p.m., the Complainant exited the driver’s door with his right arm up in the air as he walked towards the police vehicle. The Complainant approached the SO at the police vehicle with his right arm outstretched in front of him. The WO approached the Complainant from his left side. The Complainant waved his right arm around as he stood close to the officers.

At 10:09:35 p.m., the Complainant began to walk back towards his vehicle and gestured with his arms in the air. The WO stepped in front of the Complainant, who attempted to sidestep around him.

At 10:09:45 p.m., the SO took hold of the Complainant’s right arm and the WO took hold of his left wrist. The Complainant struggled with the officers. The SO placed his right arm on the back of the Complainant’s upper body or head. Simultaneously, as the WO used his right leg to knock the Complainant’s left leg out, the SO used his right knee and delivered a knee strike to the Complainant’s right mid-thigh. All three men went to the ground. The Complainant fell on his left side with his arms underneath him.

At 10:09:51, the SO used his hands to push the Complainant’s head towards the ground, then struck the Complainant on the right side of the head with his right hand.

CW #1 walked around the front of the Complainant’s truck and stood by the open driver’s door. Both officers looked up and gestured at her. The Complainant did not move on the ground as both officers knelt beside him.

At 10:10:58 p.m., the officers assisted the Complainant to his feet.

At 10:14:23 p.m., the WO examined the Complainant’s injuries.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between June 22, 2024, and October 4, 2024:

  • ICC recording from the SO’s police vehicle;
  • Photographs of the Complainant’s injuries;
  • Communications recordings;
  • Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
  • Witness statement;
  • Email from OPP;
  • Global Positioning System data;
  • Arrest Report; and
  • Notes – the SO and the WO.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between June 22, 2024, and July 23, 2024:

  • Photographs from CW #3;
  • Photographs of scene and the Complainant’s injuries;
  • Video footage from the Complainant’s property;
  • The Complainant’s medical records – Bluewater Health Sarnia; and
  • The Complainant’s medical records – Strathroy General Middlesex Hospital.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, 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 evening of June 22, 2024, the Complainant was driving a pick-up truck on his way home to Thedford with CW #1 as his front seat passenger. The Complainant had turned into the parking lot of his property in Thedford and begun to reverse his truck into a parking space when he was prevented from doing so by another vehicle that had maneuvered in behind him.

The other vehicle was a police cruiser. The SO (the driver) and his partner, the WO, had been involved in a traffic stop in the area when they were approached by motorists reporting a possibly impaired driver. The motorists pointed out the vehicle in question – the Complainant’s pick-up truck – and the officers left in their cruiser to stop it.

With the cruiser blocking his path behind him, an irate Complainant exited the truck and walked towards the driver’s door. He raised his arm in the direction of the SO, who had stepped out of the cruiser, and yelled at the officer to remove the cruiser from the property. The officers explained they were to investigate a complaint of impaired driving and attempted to calm the Complainant. When the Complainant moved towards his pick-up truck, the officers took hold of the Complainant and brought him to the ground. There followed a brief struggle in which the SO punched the Complainant once to the right side of the head.

The Complainant was handcuffed on the ground and lifted to his feet. Further investigation satisfied the officers that the Complainant was not impaired. The handcuffs were removed, and he was unconditionally released.

The following day, the Complainant attended hospital and was diagnosed with a concussion.

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 an interaction with OPP officers on June 22, 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 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 and the WO were acting in the execution of their duties through the series of events culminating in the takedown. They had information from motorists that the Complainant had been operating his pick-up truck erratically on the road, possibly because of impairment, and had themselves observed the Complainant cross over the centre line of the road just before he turned onto a rural property in Thedford. This, in my view, gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that the Complainant was driving under the influence of alcohol, providing the officers lawful grounds to detain the Complainant for investigation of impaired driving: R v Mann, [2004] 3 SCR 59.

With respect to the force used by the officers in aid of the Complainant’s detention, the evidence falls short of any reasonable suggestion it was excessive. The attempt to handcuff the Complainant followed by the takedown made sense. The Complainant was belligerent and threatening to re-enter a vehicle when it had yet to be determined whether or not he was under the influence of alcohol. It was important to control his movements in order to safely conduct their impaired driving investigation, and to force him to the ground when he struggled against the officers’ efforts to secure him in handcuffs. Once on the ground, the officers could better expect to manage any continuing resistance on the part of the Complainant. The punch delivered by the SO was significant, and might have resulted in a temporary loss of consciousness by the Complainant. That said, there is evidence that the Complainant did not immediately surrender his arms to be handcuffed when on the ground. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that a single punch was beyond the pale. Following the punch, the Complainant was handcuffed, and no further blows were struck by the officers.

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

Date: October 24, 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) Sunset in the Petrolia area on June 22, 2024, was at 9:11 p.m. [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]

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.