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 39-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 29, 2024, at 7:26 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 29, 2024, at 9:30 a.m., a male passenger [Civilian Witness (CW) #1] of a vehicle reported that the driver of the vehicle, his spouse - the Complainant, was involved in a single motor vehicle collision. The vehicle went into a ditch in the area of Bald Indian Bay Road, Wauzhushk Onigum First Nation [formerly known as Rat Portage First Nation]. CW #1 became concerned when the Complainant, due to her state of drug impairment and suicidal ideations, fled the vehicle into a wooded area. CW #1 flagged down a passerby and requested that he contact the Treaty Three Police Service (TTPS). TTPS police officers responded and, a short time later, they requested the aid of the OPP (Kenora Detachment) and their Canine Unit to assist in locating the Complainant. It was not believed that the Complainant had sustained any injuries during the collision. At 10:46 a.m., an OPP dog handler, the Subject Official (SO), and his dog Hank, together with two Emergency Response Team (ERT) members, Witness Official (WO) #1 and WO #2, responded to the area and initiated a canine search. At 12:30 p.m., the Complainant was located by the dog and bitten. The dog used a bite and hold technique to the lower calf area of the Complainant’s leg. Three doses of naloxone were administered to the Complainant during her apprehension. She was assisted out to the roadway where Kenora Northwest Emergency Medical Services (EMS) responded and transported her to the Lake of the Woods District Hospital (LOTWDH). The Complainant was reported to be extremely volatile with medical staff and continued to display symptoms of excessive drug consumption. Because of her violent state, medical staff had trouble diagnosing and treating her injury. The Complainant was admitted to hospital at 6:19 p.m.

Following further inquiries made by the OPP liaison officer, it was revealed by the attending physician that the Complainant had sustained a severe laceration to the lower calf of one of her legs. The Complainant was to be transferred to Winnipeg Health Sciences (WHS) for surgery and skin grafts.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/06/29 at 8:58 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/08 at 10:59 a.m.[2]

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

39-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on July 8, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between July 8 and 23, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on August 13, 2024.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between July 5 and 9, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in a wooded and bushed area off of Bald Indian Bay Road, near Matheson Bay Road, Wauzhushk Onigum Nation.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Communications Recordings

The OPP and the TTPS operated on the same radio band.

At 8:54 a.m., on June 29, 2024, the Thunder Bay OPP Communications Centre received a telephone call from a male civilian, who was calling on behalf of CW #1. The caller reported that he had been flagged down by CW #1 on Bald Indian Bay Road, Wauzhushk Onigum Nation. CW #1 had explained that his wife, the Complainant, had driven their car into a ditch, after which she ran into the woods with the intention of committing suicide. The Complainant was intoxicated from alcohol and drugs; however, she was not injured from the collision.

At 9:15 a.m., CW #2 located a red SUV in the ditch off Bald Indian Bay Road. Subsequently, CW #2 located CW #1, who related the story to him. CW #1 pointed out where the Complainant had entered the woods, CW #2 investigated but could not find anything.

At 9:28 a.m., CW #2 made a request for another TTPS constable to attend with a drone, and for the attendance of the OPP Canine Unit.

At 10:46 a.m., the SO, along with WO #1, WO #2, and the police dog, started the track.

At 11:35 a.m., WO #2 advised they had the Complainant in custody.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between July 3, 2024, and August 29, 2024:

• 2023 General Service Dog Annual Validation Certification - the SO and the police dog;
• 2023 General Service Dog Annual Validation – the police dog;
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
• ERT Operational Report;
• Communications recordings;
• Incident History – the police dog;
• Police History – the Complainant;
• Notes – the SO;
• Notes – WO #1;
• Notes – WO #2;
• Notes – WO #3;
• In Service Training Records - the SO; and
• OPP Canine Program Manager Policy Memorandum - Bite & Hold.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between July 8, 2024, and August 22, 2024:

• Ambulance Call Records - Kenora Northwest EMS;­
• The Complainant’s medical records from LOTWDH;­
• The Complainant’s medical records from WHS;
• CW #2 notes; and
• TTPS Arrest Report.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, the SO and other police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the morning of June 29, 2024, intoxicated by alcohol and illicit drugs, the Complainant drove the vehicle she was operating off the road into a ditch. She had been quarreling with her husband, who was seated in the front passenger seat, when she decided to crash the vehicle, driving it off Bald Indian Bay Road on the lands of the Wauzhushk Onigum Nation. Exiting the vehicle, the Complainant told her husband she would commit suicide and made her way into a heavily wooded and bushed area. She had with her syringes and methamphetamine. Her husband flagged down a passerby and had him call police.

As the incident occurred on the lands of the Wauzhushk Onigum Nation, TTPS officers attended the location. When searches conducted by the TTPS officers, including with the use of a drone, failed to locate the Complainant, they sought the assistance of the OPP.­

The SO, a dog handler, and his dog arrived on scene to start a track for the Complainant. They were accompanied by two ERT officers – WO #1 and WO #2. The track started at about 10:45 a.m.

At about 11:30 a.m., after the team had travelled about two kilometres, they entered into an area of waist high grass. Shortly thereafter, the sounds of a female screaming were heard. The dog had located and bitten into the left calf of the Complainant.­

The Complainant had fallen asleep after attempting to conceal herself in a swampy area of the field. She awoke to the dog biting her lower left leg. The Complainant attempted to release the dog’s grip without success. Officers arriving moments after the dog had latched onto the Complainant directed her to stop fighting the dog. WO #2 proceeded to strike her twice in the forehead after which the SO released the dog’s bite and the Complainant was handcuffed.­

The Complainant was transported from the area by ambulance to hospital. She was diagnosed and treated for a laceration of her left calf.

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 her arrest by OPP officers on June 29, 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 was within his rights in moving to take the Complainant into custody. He and the other ERT officers had information that the Complainant had operated a vehicle while intoxicated, and they were entitled to arrest her on that basis. Aware that the Complainant had threatened suicide, the officers were also acting pursuant to their common law duty regarding the preservation of life.

I am also satisfied that the SO used only lawful force in aid of the Complainant’s arrest. He knew that the police dog, when he located the Complainant, would bite onto a limb and hold its bite until released by the dog handler. That was what the dog was trained to do. And that contingency, in my view, was reasonable in the circumstances. The situation the officers faced was not without risk. They knew the Complainant was in possession of syringes and intoxicated, had cautions for violence on file, and had chosen to conceal herself in difficult terrain. On this record, it made sense to have the dog exert a level of control over the Complainant before the officers moved in to effect her arrest. It is regrettable that the Complainant suffered a serious laceration as a result of the dog bite, but an injury of this nature is always a possibility when a dog is deployed. Moreover, a review of the dog’s training and incident history suggests there was no reason to be concerned that the dog’s deployment presented an unreasonable risk.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in his case.[4] The file is closed.

Date: October 24, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit