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 46-year-old man (the Complainant).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 1, 2024, at 3:41 p.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the OPS, on July 1, 2024, at 1:06 p.m., the Complainant was reported to have broken into a residence on North River Road, Ottawa. He was confronted by the homeowner and a neighbour, and a scuffle ensued. One of the men threw the Complainant down a few steps. The Complainant got to his feet and attempted to flee the area. Police officers arrived on scene at 1:09 p.m. The Complainant attempted to climb over a fence to escape. The police officers pulled the Complainant from the fence and grounded him while effecting his arrest. The Complainant had sustained a bump to the head, so Ottawa Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called. The Complainant was transported to Ottawa General Hospital (OGH) and diagnosed with a fractured clavicle.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/07/01 at 4:17 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/02 at 7:15 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

46-year-old male; declined interview

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between July 4 and 5, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject official was interviewed on July 17, 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

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between July 5 and 11, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the rear yard of a home in the area of North River Road and Queen Mary Street, Ottawa.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage 1 - Private Residence

An elderly, disheveled male dressed in dark clothing - the Complainant – was captured running onto the side porch of a residence from a driveway. The Complainant fell face first onto the wooden porch, which was carpeted. Barely getting to his feet, he opened the side door to the residence and entered.

Video Footage 2 - Private Residence

CW #2 was captured standing at the top of the steps of the porch, facing the front of the driveway and the roadway. The Complainant tried to come up the steps onto the porch, but CW #2 stopped and pushed him back. The Complainant ran down the driveway at the side of the porch towards the rear of the residence. CW #2 followed and, at the same time, another man, CW #1, stood at the entrance to the door.

OPS Communications Recordings

On July 1, 2024, at 1:05 p.m., the OPS received a call from CW #5 reporting that someone had broken into her residence in the area of North River Road and Queen Mary Street. CW #5 advised that the suspect - the Complainant - was possibly running away from someone.

At 1:06 p.m., CW #5 told the call-taker that her husband – CW #1 – and a neighbour – CW #2 – had dragged the Complainant out from inside the residence, after which the Complainant went through the backyard and was now likely on an adjacent street. CW #5 kept the line open and, at 1:08 p.m., she advised that police officers were on scene.

At 1:08 p.m., the SO advised that the Complainant was in custody.

At 1:13 p.m., the SO advised that the Complainant had shortness of breath and uncontrolled bleeding from his forehead.

EMS responded and transported the Complainant to the OGH.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPS between July 2, 2024, and August 28, 2024:

• Policy - Arrest;
• Policy - Use of Force
• Booking footage;
• Video footage - private residence;
• Communications recordings;
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
• Notes - WO #2;
• Notes - WO #3;
• Notes - WO #5;
• Notes - WO #1;
• Notes - WO #4;
• Investigative Action Report - the SO;
• List of Witnesses;
• Statement - CW #5;
• Statement - CW #2; and
• Photos – the Complainant in cells.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on August 26, 2024:

• Ambulance Call Report from the Ottawa EMS.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the SO and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the afternoon of July 1, 2024, OPS officers were called to a home in the area of North River Road and Queen Mary Street, Ottawa. CW #5 had observed the Complainant breaking into her home, and called police.

The Complainant had wandered into the home. There, he was confronted by CW #5’s husband – CW #1 – and CW #2, a family friend. The two physically forced him out the kitchen door when he would not leave. Once outside, the Complainant fell down a set of stairs leading from a porch to the driveway. He eventually fled to the rear of the residence.

The SO arrived in the area with his partner and trainee, WO #1. CW #5 met and directed them to the Complainant, who was then fleeing towards the rear yard of another home in the neighbourhood.

The officers caught up to the Complainant attempting to scale the rear backyard fence of that home onto another property. The SO directed him to come down, and then forced him down and onto the ground. With WO #1’s assistance, the officer proceeded to handcuff the Complainant without incident.

The Complainant was transported to hospital following his arrest and diagnosed with a fractured clavicle bone.

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 or around the time of his arrest by OPS officers on July 1, 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.

The SO was within his rights in moving to arrest the Complainant. He had information that the Complainant had just broken into a home and observed him trespassing onto a neighbouring property.

The force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s arrest was necessary, proportionate and legally justified. The officer had given the Complainant an opportunity to desist of his own volition and only physically intervened when he failed to do so. The takedown, which was accomplished with moderate force, was a legitimate tactic in the circumstances as it would bring the Complainant’s flight to an end while positioning the officer to better manage any additional resistance. No strikes of any kind were delivered.

It remains unclear when precisely the Complainant suffered his injury. The evidence indicates he took several tumbles before his arrest, which could explain the broken bone as well as the takedown performed by the SO. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the officer comported himself unlawfully in his dealings with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.

Date: October 23, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit