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 man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 10, 2024, at 3:38 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) of the Brantford Police Service (BPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 10, 2024, at about 2:30 a.m., BPS received a call about a situation in which a man, the Complainant, had pepper-sprayed a woman at a residence located in the area of Rawdon Street and Colborne Street East, Brantford. The woman, Civilian Witness (CW) #2, fled and the Complainant followed. BPS officers arriving on scene saw the Complainant in the area entering the home. Patrol officers set up containment and were later relieved by Emergency Response Team (ERT) officers at around 7:00 a.m. The ERT supervisor was Witness Official (WO) #2 and he, too, was later relieved by the SO shortly after 7:00 a.m. At about 11:11 a.m., following negotiations, the Complainant exited of his own accord without incident. No force had been used. The Complainant was seated in a police cruiser and read his rights in the presence of a family member, after which he fell unconscious. Emergency medical services, who were already on scene, transported the Complainant to the Brantford General Hospital (BGH) where he remained under police guard. It was anticipated that his admission would be for a drug overdose.

At 5:24 p.m., the SO further reported that the Complainant had been admitted to hospital.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/07/10 at 6:30 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/10 at 7:48 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 16, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between July 11, 2024, and August 28, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO[2] Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

Witness Official #1 was interviewed on August 28, 2024.

Investigative Delay

The SIU is required to notify police officers in writing, indicating whether they are subject or witness officials for the purposes of the investigation, before requesting an interview and / or a copy of their notes. This was not done until the SIU determined the cause of the Complainant’s medical distress. Once it was determined, the boxer’s fracture was noted, and requests were issued to speak to officers who were on scene for the entire event.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a residence situated in the area of Rawdon Street and Colborne Street East, Brantford.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

BPS Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report

The initial call for service was on July 10, 2024, at 2:31:06 a.m., when CW #2 had an employee at a nearby store call 911. CW #2 said she had been “pepper sprayed” and someone had attempted to strangle her. She subsequently indicated that the person, later confirmed to be the Complainant, was following her. She indicated that the Complainant was known to carry weapons.

At 11:11:38 a.m., the Complainant exited the home and was arrested.

At 11:21:49 a.m., the Complainant was slumped in the back seat of a BPS cruiser and an ambulance was requested.

At 11:23:11 a.m., the Complainant was breathing but drowsy, awake and talking. At 11:32:57 a.m., paramedics transported the Complainant to the BGH.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the BPS between August 20 and 30, 2024:

• BPS Arrest and Prisoner Care and Control Policy;
• BPS Domestic Occurrences Policy;
• BPS Major Incident Command Policy;
• Charge Summary;
• CAD Report;
• Communications recordings;
• General Occurrence Report;
• BPS witness statement of Civilian #1 regarding assault;
• BPS witness statement of Civilian #2 regarding assault;
• BPS witness statement of CW #2 regarding assault; and
• Notes - WO #1 and WO #2.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from BGH on August 14, 2024.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police witnesses, 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, BPS officers were dispatched to a residence in the area of Rawdon Street and Colborne Street East, Brantford. A woman – CW #2 – had called police to report that the Complainant had physically assaulted her in the residence. Officers arriving on scene set up containment around the home. They received information that the Complainant was inside with two other males; CW #2 had fled. They also had reason to believe that the Complainant had access to crossbows in the home.

ERT officers were deployed and began arriving on scene at about 7:00 a.m. A negotiator – WO #1 – attended and attempted to establish contact with the Complainant. The officer was eventually able to reach the Complainant via a phone belonging to one of the other two males. He told the Complainant he was subject to arrest and asked that he surrender himself. The Complainant was reluctant, saying he first wanted to speak to a lawyer and protesting his innocence. At about 11:11 a.m., the Complainant stepped out of his house and was taken into custody without incident.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was placed in the backseat of a police cruiser. A family member, who was on scene, was permitted to speak to him. They found him unwell – he was unable to communicate clearly – and alerted the officers. Paramedics, who were on standby nearby, assessed the Complainant and transported him to hospital.

The Complainant was treated in hospital for community-acquired pneumonia, a drug overdose, and a fractured right finger.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

On July 10, 2024, the BPS notified the SIU that a male they had arrested earlier that day, the Complainant, following a standoff at his residence, had been admitted to hospital. The SIU initiated an investigation naming an officer who had overall command of police operations during the latter stages of the standoff – the SO – the subject official. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s arrest and hospital admission.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the SO or any of the officers who participated in police operations at the scene, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s medical conditions. In my view, there was not.

With reason to believe that the Complainant had seriously assaulted CW #2, the officers who took part in police operations around the residence were lawfully present throughout the events in question and within their rights in seeking to take him into custody.

Those operations, under the command of the SO, were conducted with due care and regard for public safety, including the Complainant’s safety. The decision to attempt to negotiate a peaceful resolution of the standoff from outside the residence was a reasonable one. Information received from the Complainant’s family had satisfied the officers that the two males in the home with the Complainant were not in any danger, foregoing the need for a more proactive posture. Indeed, the course adopted by the police bore fruit when the Complainant, of his own volition and under his own power, exited the home and surrendered to police without incident. The Complainant’s medical conditions – a fractured finger that seems to have been incurred days before the police interaction, pneumonia that was contracted in the community, and a drug overdose – cannot be attributed to any police conduct. With respect to the overdose, while it is conceivable the Complainant consumed the drugs during the standoff, the police cannot be faulted for having failed to intercede sooner given the information at their disposal regarding weapons in the home and the Complainant’s seeming coherence during his phone communications with WO #1.

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

Date: November 7, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit