SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OCI-305
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
Mandate of the SIU
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.
Information Restrictions
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.
Mandate Engaged
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”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU[1]
On July 15, 2024, at 9:18 p.m., the Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.
On July 15, 2024, at 4:40 p.m., GSPS attended an apartment in the area of Bruce Avenue and Cambrian Heights Drive, Sudbury, following a call from Civilian Witness (CW) #1, who was visiting a family member’s apartment. CW #1 reported that the Complainant was inside the apartment and under the influence of fentanyl. He became violent and had thrown a sink and sofa off the balcony prior to running into the building’s hallway. GSPS officers confronted the Complainant, who threw a bicycle at them in an attempt to flee. Subject Official (SO) #1 and SO #2 chased the Complainant and tackled him to the ground. He was handcuffed and transported to the GSPS custody facility. At about 5:10 p.m., the Complainant complained of pain to his left shoulder. He was transported to Health Sciences North, where X-rays confirmed a fractured left clavicle.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2024/07/16 at 6:30 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/17 at 2:15 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
46-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on July 24, 2024.
Civilian Witnesses
CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between July 17 and 19, 2024.
Subject Officials
SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on July 24, 2024.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in the hallway of an apartment building located in the area of Bruce Avenue and Cambrian Heights Drive, Sudbury.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]
GSPS Communications Recordings
On July 15, 2024, starting at about 4:29 p.m., CW #1 called the GSPS and reported that her family member, the Complainant, was wanted by the police. She indicated he was on drugs and throwing things over the balcony, and noted that he would try to run from the police.
At 4:32:29 p.m., a GSPS dispatcher spoke to SO #1 and requested that he attend in response to the call for service. CW #1 had reported that the Complainant was on drugs and throwing things off the balcony. Two other family members were present at the scene.
At 4:33:22 p.m., WO #1, in the same cruiser as SO #2, indicated that they were in front of the address and asked to be assigned to the call for service.
At 4:34 p.m., the dispatcher noted that bench warrants were in effect for the Complainant.
At 4:35 p.m., WO #1 noted that he and SO #2 were with the Complainant in the hallway. WO #1 asked the dispatcher to send a photo of the Complainant to his phone.
At 4:38 p.m., SO #1 indicated he was arriving on scene.
At 4:39 p.m., SO #1 noted, “He’s running,” and, “We got him in the hallway.”
Video Footage – Apartment Building
On July 15, 2024, starting at 4:43 p.m., the Complainant was captured exiting an apartment with a bicycle, followed behind by CW #2. They walked to the stairwell area where they stopped and appeared to have a conversation. The Complainant drank from a bottle. The Complainant turned his head briefly towards CW #2, then rested his right hand on a rail. The Complainant buckled and appeared unsteady on his feet. He began to sway back and forth from the rail he held onto with his right hand. The Complainant turned towards CW #2, leaned his upper body back out of camera view, his arms only visible, and then stood upright. The conversation continued between the Complainant and CW #2. CW #2 turned around and walked towards her apartment as a GSPS officer approached the top of the stairwell landing. The Complainant’s attention now focused on the police officer.
Starting at about 4:45 p.m., CW #2 entered her apartment. The Complainant became more animated, his arms waving in the air. The police officer - WO #1 - stepped out beyond the top of the landing of the stairwell as he walked towards the Complainant. WO #1 stood facing the Complainant. The Complainant moved his right arm about as he stood with his bicycle. He leaned on the rail while he continued a conversation with WO #1, his back to the camera. The Complainant moved his body, right arm, and bicycle while speaking with WO #1.
Starting at about 4:47 p.m., the hand of SO #2 appeared at the top of the stair landing as the conversation with the Complainant continued. The Complainant held the rail with his right hand and rocked back and forth. The Complainant bent forward momentarily. The Complainant turned his head, looking down the hallway, then turned back and placed his hand on his head. The Complainant then stood upright, his bicycle positioned between him and the police officers, as the conversation continued.
Starting at about 4:48 p.m., WO #1 walked towards the stairs. SO #2 moved into camera view. The conversation continued with the Complainant. He leaned over the rail, then stood up to speak with SO #2, the bicycle positioned between them.
Starting at about 4:49 p.m., the Complainant crouched down slightly, then pushed his bicycle towards SO #2. The Complainant turned quickly towards the hall and ran towards the camera. A third police officer - SO #1 - appeared from the stairwell and maneuvered around the bicycle. SO #1 took chase after the Complainant followed by SO #2. As the Complainant ran down the hall, he began to rip off his coat. SO #1 tackled the Complainant from behind. The Complainant extended his left arm to break his fall before falling to the floor on his left side. SO #1 fell to the ground along the wall following the Complainant to the ground. The Complainant continued to slide forward with momentum rolling over onto his stomach. SO #1 positioned himself on the Complainant’s back attempting to gain control of his hands. The Complainant’s duffle bag rested on the back of his upper legs as SO #2 arrived to assist. The Complainant was still on his stomach as SO #2 knelt on the back of his legs. The Complainant continued to move along the carpeted floor, his upper body now out of camera view as SO #1 and SO #2 struggled to gain control of him. SO #2 held the Complainant’s feet down with his right hand while kneeling on the back of his legs. SO #1 remained at the Complainant’s upper body. SO #1 and SO #2 attempted to handcuff the Complainant. A third police officer - WO #1 - arrived to assist. The Complainant laid on his stomach as SO #2 removed his handcuffs from his pouch. WO #1 stood up and walked towards the Complainant’s feet as SO #2 and SO #1 attempted to handcuff the Complainant. The Complainant began to move his lower legs up and down. WO #1 briefly stood on the backs of his legs to keep them down, then walked to the Complainant’s left side. SO #2 and SO #1 were struggling to handcuff the Complainant.
Starting at about 4:50 p.m., WO #1 pulled a bag from underneath the Complainant, and a light blue object could be seen protruding from the bag. WO #1 tossed the bag down the hall out of the Complainant’s reach. The Complainant’s upper body was not in camera view. SO #1 and SO #2 continued to search the Complainant, and his hands were handcuffed behind his back. The duffle bag was tossed down the hall by SO #2. SO #1, SO #2 and WO #1 stood up in the hall. The Complainant remained on the ground handcuffed, his hands and lower body in camera view. SO #2 removed a lighter from the Complainant’s waistband area. WO #1 rolled the Complainant onto his left side as officers continued their search. WO #1 then rolled the Complainant onto his right side to continue the search. More items were removed from pockets as the search continued.
Starting at about 4:52 p.m., WO #1 lifted the Complainant’s upper body to a seated position, spoke with him face to face, then assisted him to a standing position. The Complainant fell back slightly, remaining on his feet. WO #1 assisted the Complainant up and directed him towards the stairwell. The Complainant bent forward at the waist and bent his knees. WO #1 was positioned on the Complainant’s left side and SO #2 on his right side as the Complainant was escorted towards the stairwell at the far end of the hall. The Complainant was unsteady on his feet, swaying side to side. SO #1 gathered the Complainant’s property from the hallway.
Starting at about 4:53 p.m., WO #1 and SO #2, and the Complainant, exited towards the stairwell, no longer in camera view.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the GSPS between July 16, 2024, and July 18, 2024:
- Communications recordings;
- Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
- Arrest Report;
- Notes – WO #2 and WO #1;
- Policies: Arrest & Use Of Force;
- Recertification - Use of Force;
- Warrants;
- Video footage – the apartment building; and
- Images.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between July 18, 2024, and August 1, 2024:
- Ambulance Call Report from the Sudbury Emergency Medical Services;
- The Complainant’s medical records from Health Sciences North; and
- The Complainant’s medical records from the Sudbury Jail.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police witnesses and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes.
In the afternoon of July 15, 2024, police were dispatched to an apartment in the area of Bruce Avenue and Cambrian Heights Drive, Sudbury. The Complainant’s family member – CW #1 – had called police to report that the Complainant was impaired by drugs in the residence and throwing things, including a sofa, off the balcony.
WO #1 and SO #2 were the first to arrive. They made their way up the building stairwell to a landing where they encountered the Complainant. The Complainant was leaving and had his bicycle with him. The three began to talk. The officers asked if he was the Complainant. The Complainant denied it. By this time, the officers were aware that there were arrest warrants in effect for the Complainant. SO #1 was the next officer to arrive on scene. He had a photograph of the Complainant and confirmed that the male they were speaking to was the person they were looking for.
Aware that he was about to be arrested, the Complainant released his bike and ran from the stairwell landing down the corridor attempting to escape custody. He had taken several strides when he was caught from behind by SO #1 and tackled. The Complainant landed forcefully on his left shoulder and was subsequently pinned to the floor in a prone position by SO #1 and SO #2. Shortly, SO #2 handcuffed the Complainant to the back.
Following his arrest, the Complainant was transported to the station and then to hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured left clavicle.
Relevant Legislation
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.
Analysis and Director’s Decision
The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by GSPS officers on July 15, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming SO #1 and SO #2 the subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official 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 was subject to arrest at the time of the events in question. There were warrants in effect authorizing his apprehension, and the officers had reason to believe that he had committed acts of mischief inside the apartment.
In effecting the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence falls short of any reasonable suggestion that either SO #2 or SO #1 used excessive force. The tackle in the corridor made sense. Some form of physical intervention was going to be necessary to take the Complainant into custody as he was in full flight attempting to escape. The tackle accomplished the task without the use of any weapons. Thereafter, there is a version of events proffered in the evidence that one of the officers – SO #1 – repeatedly struck and jumped on the Complainant’s left shoulder, and rubbed his face on the hallway carpet. The video footage, while it did not capture everything happening with the Complainant’s head after the takedown, does not reveal SO #1 making any gross movements to that effect. Nor did WO #1, who, having gone down to his cruiser moments before the Complainant took flight, returned to find the Complainant on the floor, indicate that SO #1 used force of the nature described. Rather, his evidence, and what is apparent on the video recording, depicts the officers applying pressure to the Complainant’s lower and upper body, and struggling to bring his arms behind the back. On this record, I am not satisfied that the evidence of excessive force is sufficiently cogent to warrant being put to the test by a court.
In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, more than likely his impact with the floor, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official comported himself other than within the limits of the criminal law. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: November 12, 2024
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) Unless otherwise specified, the information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s findings of fact following its investigation. [Back to text]
- 2) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]
Note:
The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.