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 21-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 16, 2024, at 11:42 p.m., the Barrie Police Service (BPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 16, 2024, at 6:15 p.m., plainclothes officers were conducting surveillance in the downtown area of Barrie for drug activity. At that time, they observed the Complainant engaged in what were believed to be drug transactions. As it also appeared that the Complainant was in possession of a gun, the Tactical Support Unit (TSU) was contacted. A short time later, two unmarked TSU vehicles arrived and assumed surveillance of the Complainant. All TSU officers were attired in tactical uniforms.

At 7:56 p.m., TSU officers converged on the Complainant, and he fled. While running, the Complainant discarded a loaded Glock 9 mm handgun and a sizable quantity of what was believed to be fentanyl. After about six metres, the Complainant was tackled to the ground on Mary Street, and his face struck the pavement. The Complainant complained of pain to his face, and he was transported directly to the Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre (RVRHC), where X-rays confirmed a fractured nose.

The Complainant was discharged at 11:15 p.m. and transported to BPS where he was processed on criminal charges relating to drug trafficking and possession of a restricted weapon.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/07/17 at 3:36 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/17 at 7:10 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 17, 2024.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on July 17, 2024.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

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

SO #1 was interviewed on July 26, 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

The witness officials were interviewed on July 24, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on Mary Street, Barrie.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Communications Recordings and Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report

On July 16, 2024, at 7:56 p.m., a TSU officer broadcast that a person [now known to be the Complainant] was in custody. In a subsequent transmission, he said, “We have a firearm,” and provided the location. He also broadcast that the arrest was for the Street Crime Unit (SCU), and that the Complainant was arrested for “possession for the purpose of trafficking”, and for a firearm. Uniform BPS officers were asked to attend to take custody of the Complainant. A later broadcast indicated paramedics were on scene.

At 8:14 p.m., a BPS officer broadcast that the Complainant was being driven by ambulance to RVRHC.

Video Footage - City of Barrie - Dunlop Street West and Mary Street

The City of Barrie had a pole-mounted camera at the intersection of Dunlop Street West and Mary Street. The footage did not contain an audio track.

On July 16, 2024, at about 7:55 p.m., a white Caravan turned onto Mary Street. The Complainant could be seen on Mary Street as the white Caravan made its way up Mary Street towards him. At about 7:56:01 p.m., brake lights could be seen on the white Caravan and the passenger side sliding door started to open. As this happened, a second BPS vehicle (an unmarked white SUV) also turned onto Mary Street, a few car lengths behind the white Caravan.

At 7:56:04 p.m., the Complainant saw something that made him dart from the roadway to the sidewalk, just as a puff of smoke appeared. SO #1 and SO #2 got out of the white Caravan and ran after the Complainant. WO #3 and WO #2 were the third and fourth TSU officers to exit the Caravan. As the Complainant ran, the white SUV pulled across the east sidewalk to impede the Complainant. The Complainant turned sharply to his right and ran onto Mary Street on the driver’s side of the white SUV. SO #1 was still a few steps behind the Complainant. As the Complainant ran onto Mary Street, he appeared to stumble and fall forward onto the roadway. A second later, the Complainant was captured sliding on the ground on his stomach with his hands outstretched in front. No police officer was in physical contact with the Complainant as he fell forward. SO #1 got on top of the Complainant and SO #2 arrived and knelt on the left side near the Complainant’s head. WO #1 arrived and dealt with the Complainant’s feet and legs, followed by WO #3, who provided cover with his rifle. SO #1, SO #2 and WO #1 struggled with the Complainant for a few seconds. SO #2 delivered three quick strikes with his right hand before SO #1 delivered one strike with his right hand.

The video clip ended with the TSU officers perched over the Complainant. No kicks were seen being delivered.

Body-worn camera (BWC) Footage - WO #2

WO #2 had no physical contact with the Complainant. He dealt with the Glock 9 mm handgun on the sidewalk.

BWC Footage - SO #2

SO #2 engaged his BWC after the Complainant was already on the ground on Mary Street. No punches were seen on the footage. It was possible the strikes happened prior to 7:56:30 p.m., when SO #2 turned on his BWC. At that time, the Complainant already lay on his stomach. SO #2 was on the left side of the Complainant’s upper body. The Complainant’s hands were visible behind his back, but only one handcuff had been applied. Shortly thereafter, both hands were placed in handcuffs behind his back.

SO #1 was on the Complainant’s right side torso, WO #3 was kneeling with his left knee on the Complainant’s right buttock, and WO #1 was kneeling at the Complainant’s legs. The Complainant was searched. He stated his face was injured. He had visible marks to his forehead, nose and chin.

BWC Footage - SO #1

SO #1 turned on his BWC after SO #2, just as the Complainant was placed in handcuffs behind the back. SO #1 searched the Complainant and advised him that he was under arrest for “possession for the purpose of trafficking”.

At 8:01 p.m., SO #1 spoke with WO #1 and asked if WO #1 had given the Complainant, “A little shove, or did he just hit your car?” WO #1 answered in the negative, and explained “[The Complainant] started to stumble here…,” pointing to the ground with both hands.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the BPS between July 22, 2024, and July 31, 2024:

• BWC footage;
• Recording from City of Barrie pole camera;
• Communications recordings;
• CAD Report;
• Involved Persons Report;
• Arrest Report;
• Notes – WO #3;
• Notes – SO #1;
• Notes – WO #1;
• Notes – WO #2;
• Booking photograph of the Complainant;
• Images taken by BPS of drugs and firearm;
• BPS Policy - TSU Procedure; and
• BPS Policy - Investigative Detention.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the medical records of the Complainant from RVRHC on July 19, 2024.

The evidence collected by SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, SO #2 chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

On the evening of July 16, 2024, BPS SCU officers were conducting surveillance in the downtown area of Barrie for drug activity. Throughout the course of their surveillance, the Complainant was observed to be engaged in what appeared to be drug transactions. He was also seen to be concealing a large, heavy object on the right side of his waistband consistent with a gun poking through his shirt. As the Complainant was considered a high-risk target, the TSU was contacted to assist with his arrest for possession for the purpose of trafficking drugs, and for unauthorized possession of a firearm.

While the Complainant was walking southbound on Mary Street, a white van headed towards him from the opposite direction. Once the white van was near him, it stopped and a distractionary device was thrown from an open door on the passenger side of the van. The Complainant began to run southbound on the sidewalk. SO #1 and SO #2 got out of the white Caravan and started to chase the Complainant on foot along the sidewalk on the east side of Mary Street. WO #1 drove his police SUV across the sidewalk south of where the Complainant was running in an effort to cut him off. The Complainant ran from the sidewalk and back onto the road. He began to stumble and fell towards the ground. The Complainant fell face first on Mary Street. No police officer was in physical contact with the Complainant as he fell forward.

SO #1 was able to catch up to the Complainant and tackled him from behind, landing on the Complainant’s back. SO #1 got on top of the Complainant. SO #2 arrived and knelt on the left side near the Complainant’s head. WO #1 arrived and dealt with the feet and legs of the Complainant. WO #3 was the last to arrive. He provided cover with his rifle. SO #1, SO #2 and WO #1 struggled with the Complainant. The Complainant’s hands were underneath him. SO #1 tried to pull the Complainant’s right hand out, but the Complainant was actively resisting. He told the Complainant to stop resisting. The other police officers were on their knees assisting in trying to gain control of the Complainant. SO #2 delivered three quick strikes to the Complainant with his right hand, and SO #1 delivered one strike with his right hand to the right side of the torso, after which officers were able to secure the Complainant in handcuffs. No kicks were seen being delivered.

The Complainant was transported to the hospital following his arrest and diagnosed with a small, slightly displaced, nasal bone fracture.

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 BPS officers on July 16, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming SO #1 and SO #2 as the subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that SO #1 or SO #2 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.

As a result of the surveillance conducted by the SCU, I am satisfied that the BPS officers were within their rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody for drug trafficking.

I am also satisfied that the force used by SO #1 and SO #2 - four hand strikes to the body of the Complainant - was not disproportionate. It constituted lawful force and was no more than what was reasonable in the circumstances. The Complainant had fled from police, engaging them in a foot pursuit, and refused to submit peacefully to arrest when grounded, struggling against efforts to handcuff his arms behind his back. There was also legitimate reason to fear that the Complainant might be in possession of a firearm. SO #1 and SO #2 had compelling cause to want to bring any struggle to an end as quickly as possible, lest the Complainant be in a position to access the firearm.

The injury sustained by the Complainant could have resulted from his falling forward onto his face while fleeing arrest, or from SO #1 tackling him from behind and landing on his back while he was on the ground. In whichever circumstance, there are no grounds to believe that either subject official comported himself other than within the limits of the criminal law.

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

Date: November 13, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit