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 35-year-old man (the Complainant).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 10, 2024, at 3:07 p.m., the Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 10, 2024, at 12:26 a.m., the NRPS received a call for service to the mental health unit at the Niagara Health System (NHS) - St. Catharines site. A male patient, the Complainant, was in crisis and out of control. At 12:51 a.m., the Subject Official (SO) and the Witness Official (WO) attended. The Complainant settled down and the officers left. At 1:20 a.m., hospital staff went to the police vehicle, still outside, and asked the police officers to return to help again with the Complainant. The officers returned and grounded the Complainant, the SO falling on top of the Complainant in the process. The Complainant was subsequently diagnosed with two fractured ribs.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/07/10 at 3:46 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/10 at 7:58 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 10, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on July 16, 2024.

Subject Official

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Official

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on July 25, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the mental health unit of the NHS – St. Catharines site, 1200 Fourth Avenue, St. Catharines.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Police Radio Transmissions

On July 10, 2024, at 12:51 a.m., the WO advised there was a man - the Complainant - who had tried to elope from the mental health unit.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the NRPS between July 25, 2024, and July 26, 2024:

• General Occurrence Report;
• Notes – the WO;
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
• Radio transmissions;
• Use of Force Policy; and
• Training Records – the SO.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from NHS between July 23, 2024, and July 25, 2024:

• The Complainant’s medical records; and
• Video footage.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police eyewitnesses, 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 or the release of his notes.

In the early morning of July 10, 2024, the Complainant found himself involuntarily admitted at hospital in St. Catharines under the authority of the Mental Health Act. When a hospital staff member opened the door to the room he was in, the Complainant seized the occasion to push his way through in an attempt to escape the hospital.

Hospital security staff confronted the Complainant in a common area of the mental health unit. They attempted to de-escalate the situation and convince the Complainant to return to his room. Officers responding to assist – the SO and the WO – did the same. The Complainant could not be assuaged.

The SO and the WO eventually advanced on the Complainant and took hold of him. The Complainant struggled against their efforts. Shortly, the three found themselves on the floor, the officers on top of the Complainant. The officers wrestled control of the Complainant’s arms and handcuffed him behind the back. The Complainant was lifted to his feet, escorted to his room and sedated.

The Complainant subsequently complained of rib pain and was diagnosed with a fractured right-sided rib.

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 his arrest by NRPS officers on July 10, 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 Complainant, clearly of unsound mind at the time, had pushed a hospital staff member and remained a threat to himself and others as he attempted to escape the confines of the mental health unit. In the circumstances, I am satisfied he was subject to arrest for a variety of reasons, including assault.

I am also satisfied that the evidence falls short of any reasonable suggestion that either the SO or the WO used excessive force in taking the Complainant into custody. There are discrepant accounts of the nature of the force brought to bear by the officers, including one in which the SO is said to have delivered an elbow strike to the Complainant’s head before the three went down. The fall to the ground is also alternately described as a forceful and intentional grounding, on the one hand, and, on the other, an inadvertent tumble resulting from the dynamics of the initial skirmish between the parties. While the video footage of the incident was not dispositive, it did not capture an elbow strike or a definitive takedown. It did capture the officers over several minutes attempting to calm the Complainant before they moved in to effect his arrest. On this record, there being nothing to suggest the version of events suggesting excessive force is more accurate than the more benign rendition, and some reason to suspect it is a less reliable account of what happened, the evidence is insufficiently cogent to sustain criminal charges.

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

Date: November 6, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit