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 22-year-old woman and a 35-year-old man (Complainants #1 and Complainant #2, respectively).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 3, 2024, at 3:36 p.m., the OPP notified the SIU of an injury to Complainant #1.

According to the OPP, at 10:02 a.m., the Subject Official (SO) was being tailgated by Complainant #2 while driving on Highway 401. The SO stopped the car at the 748-kilometre marker, obtained the driver’s information, and returned to his cruiser. Complainant #2 approached the officer and started to attack him. The officer was able to get Complainant #2 on the ground before he was jumped by Complainant #1. The SO arrested both parties. They were taken to Winchester District Memorial Hospital where Complainant #1 was diagnosed with a fractured radial head.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/07/04 at 6:40 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/04 at 11:00 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Persons (aka “Complainant”):

Complainant #1 22-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

Complainant #2 35-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainants were interviewed on July 8, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on July 25, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired by the westbound lanes of Highway 401, a distance west of Cornwall.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

In-car Camera (ICC) and Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – The SO

The footage captured the SO following a SUV on the westbound Highway 401.

At 10:37:00 a.m., the SO activated his emergency lights, and the SUV pulled over to the north shoulder of the highway. The SO exited his police cruiser and walked over to the passenger side of the SUV. The SO engaged in a lengthy conversation with the two occupants, Complainant #2, the driver, and Complainant #1, the passenger. The SO asked Complainant #2 why he was tailgating him. Complainant #2 replied they were on their way to Toronto. The SO requested a driver’s licence, insurance, and registration. Complainant #2 referenced their status as persons who had recently settled in the country, and said they had an appointment in Toronto at 3:00 p.m. The SO replied it was already 10:30 a.m. Complainant #2 swore he was telling the truth. The SO asked if Complainant #2 came here to follow the rules, then why was he speeding and tailgating. Complainant #2 said he did not know his speed, and the SO told him there were signs along the highway.

The SO was given some documents and began to walk back to the driver’s side of his cruiser. As he did so, Complainant #2 exited the driver’s side of the SUV and began to walk towards the SO. The SO shouted to Complainant #2 to get back inside his car. Complainant #2 continued to walk towards the SO. Complainant #2 had his right hand, palm open, clasped against his left chest and began to gesture with his left arm off to his side. The SO walked towards Complainant #2 with his left arm extended, directing Complainant #2 back towards the SUV. Complainant #2 removed his right hand from his chest and extended his right arm up with an open palm towards the left side of the SO’s face. The SO blocked Complainant #2’s right hand from touching his face. Complainant #2’s left hand then moved towards the SO’s left arm. He tried to touch, or clasp, the SO’s left arm with both hands, bending his torso forward in what appeared to be an attempt to kiss the SO’s left forearm. The SO pushed Complainant #2 away, and Complainant #2 then began to walk away. The SO moved forward and grabbed Complainant #2’s right arm and told him that he was under arrest for assaulting a police officer. The officer put the right hand behind Complainant #2’s back and applied one cuff to the right wrist. Complainant #2 tried to squirm away. The SO used his right leg in a sweeping motion behind Complainant #2’s legs and took Complainant #2 to ground. Complainant #1 exited the passenger side of the SUV and approached the SO. The SO grabbed Complainant #1 by her scarf and swung her around, knocking her off balance and causing her to fall into the ditch, first on her backside and then onto her back. The SO directed Complainant #1 to get back into their car. Complainant #1 got up and again approached the SO as he struggled to handcuff Complainant #2. The SO pushed Complainant #1 away with an outstretched arm causing Complainant #1 to fall into the ditch a second time. Complainant #1 got up and again approached the SO in an attempt to comfort Complainant #2. The SO pushed her a third time; however, Complainant #1 maintained her balance.

The SO tried to get Complainant #2 to his feet. He dragged him in the ditch a short distance before getting Complainant #2 to stand up. Complainant #2 was then placed into the rear of the SO’s cruiser.

The SO arrested Complainant #1, whom he placed chest first onto the hood of the cruiser. Complainant #1 was handcuffed and placed in the rear seat of a second OPP cruiser that had arrived on scene.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between July 4 and July 9, 2024:

• Release documents - Complainant #1 and Complainant #2;
• General Occurrence Reports;
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
• Notes – the SO;
• ICC footage; and
• BWC footage – the SO.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between July 4 and 16, 2024:

• Still images from Ministry of Transportation of Ontario;
• Ambulance Call Report from Cornwall Paramedic Services; and
• Complainant #2’s and Complainant #1’s medical records from Winchester District Memorial Hospital.

The events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.

In the morning of July 3, 2024, the SO, operating a marked cruiser westbound on Highway 401 west of Cornwall, pulled over a Volkswagen Taos. The Taos had been tailgating his cruiser and speeding.

Complainant #2 was driving the Taos. Complainant #1 was in the front passenger seat. The two had recently settled in Canada and had difficulty understanding and speaking English. At the request of the SO, who had exited his cruiser and was standing by the open front passenger window, Complainant #2 provided the officer his driver’s licence.

The SO returned to his cruiser to run some checks when he observed Complainant #2 walking towards the vehicle. The officer exited and told Complainant #2 to return to his vehicle. Complainant #2 continued forward and reached with both arms towards the officer’s head. The SO took hold of Complainant #2’s right arm with his left hand, and Complainant #2 bent forward as if to kiss the officer’s left arm, grabbing the officer’s arm in the process. The SO pulled his left arm away and then moved to arrest Complainant #2 for assault.

The SO affixed a handcuff to Complainant #2’s right wrist and attempted to bring it behind his back. When Complainant #2 resisted, the officer tripped him onto the grass ditch north of the highway. Complainant #1 ran to Complainant #2’s aid and was pushed aside by the officer. She lost her balance and fell onto the grass. Complainant #1 picked herself up and went back to Complainant #2, who was prone on the ground. The officer pushed her away and she fell on her back. She approached again and was pushed a third time. Shortly thereafter, the SO completed the handcuffing process. He picked Complainant #2 up and placed him in the rear of his cruiser. He then proceeded to arrest Complainant #1 for obstruction.

Complainant #2 and Complainant #1 were taken to hospital. The former was diagnosed with a possible fleck fracture of the right wrist. The latter, a fractured right elbow.

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.

Complainant #2 and Complainant #1 were seriously injured in and around the time of their arrests on July 3, 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 arrests and injuries of Complainant #2 and Complainant #1.

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 stopping Complainant #2. He had seen the Taos tailgating his cruiser and exceeding the 100 km/h speed limit. The officer was also entitled to arrest Complainant #2 for assault. Though it seems Complainant #2 might have only been attempting to hug and kiss the officer in an expression of respect or deference, the officer could not have known that, nor, if he had, was he bound to accept those gestures at face value. When Complainant #2 attempted to touch the officer without his consent, and then grabbed his left arm as if to kiss it, he had essentially committed an assault. Lastly, with respect to Complainant #1, though she meant the officer no harm, she did in fact physically intervene in a lawful process. At that point, the SO had grounds to repel Complainant #1’s overtures and arrest her for obstruction.

I am satisfied that the SO used no more force than was necessary in the execution of his duties. He forced Complainant #2 to the ground, but that only occurred after Complainant #2 resisted the officer’s efforts to handcuff him on his feet. The SO had grounds to want to avoid any kind of a prolonged struggle with Complainant #2 on their feet as they were on the shoulder of the highway and in danger of passing motorists. Putting Complainant #2 on the ground would position the officer to more safely take Complainant #2 into custody. At no point was Complainant #2 struck by the SO. The force directed at Complainant #1 were hand pushes and executed without undue force. They were delivered to distance Complainant #1 from the scene of Complainant #2’s arrest on each occasion that she approached and physically intervened.

For the foregoing reasons, 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