SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OCI-333

Warning:

This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.

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 36-year-old man (the Complainant).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On August 7, 2024, at 8:14 a.m., the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) contacted the SIU with the following information.

LECA was in receipt of a complaint in which it was reported that the Complainant, in the evening of May 30, 2024, contacted 911 for assistance after experiencing an episode of psychosis at his residence, an apartment in Mississauga. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and police attended at his home. The Complainant resisted attempts by EMS to place him on a stretcher for transport to hospital, and an officer grabbed his left arm causing it to snap. The Complainant was subsequently handcuffed to the back by officers, placed on the ambulance stretcher, and transported to Credit Valley Hospital where he was admitted for a mental health assessment. X-rays revealed a fracture to his left arm.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/08/07 at 11:29 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/08/07 at 11:35 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on August 12, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on August 12, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on September 16, 2024.

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on August 16, 2024.

Service Employee Witness (SEW)

SEW Interviewed

The service employee witness was interviewed on August 16, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired in a bedroom of an apartment in Mississauga.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The WO and The SO

On May 30, 2024, starting at about 11:08:08 p.m., the SO and two paramedics arrived on scene, and the SO knocked on the door of the Complainant’s apartment. The door opened, and CW #1 said, “He’s [the Complainant] not going to come out.” The SO asked, “Do you need police, or do you need ambulance?” CW #1 said the Complainant was in his bed. The paramedic informed CW #1 that the Complainant had called 911 over 30 times and wanted to check on him. CW #1 stepped aside, and the WO asked, “Do you mind if we come in with them just to make sure all’s okay?” and CW #1 said, “Yes.”

A paramedic entered the Complainant’s bedroom and asked, “Are you okay? Have you been calling 911?” The WO stood at the door to the Complainant’s bedroom. A paramedic stood at the Complainant’s bedside and another paramedic stood at the doorway. The bed headboard was located at the left side wall and the foot of the bed projected into the centre of the room. The Complainant rested on his right side on the bed, facing the door. A paramedic asked, “You want to go to the hospital? Okay, because you’re feeling paranoid?” The Complainant said, “No. It’s not.” The Complainant said it started last night, and he had consumed alcohol. The WO informed the paramedic the Complainant had schizophrenia. The paramedic asked the Complainant why he called 911 if they were right there. The Complainant had his cellular phone in his left hand. The WO informed the Complainant he could hang up with 911 because the paramedics and police were there to help him. The WO asked the Complainant if he had thoughts of self-harm or harming others, and he said no. The Complainant agreed with the WO that he believed he was in the state he was in due to substances, and he reported he had taken his medication. The Complainant confirmed he had mixed the substances with his medication. The Complainant called 911 again. The WO said, “We need to get the phone away.” The SO stepped into the bedroom and stood at the side of the Complainant’s bed close to the headboard. The SO spoke with the 911 dispatcher on speakerphone. The SO informed the Complainant, “We’re going to get you some help, okay?” The SO turned to the WO and asked, “RPG for section 17?” The WO said, “He’s not suicidal, he doesn’t want to harm others, he’s just having a medication with the drugs, he’s saying he’s taking his medication, he’s just paranoid, it’s up to you. I think there’s like, full grounds.”

Starting at about 11:16 p.m., the SO said, “[The Complainant’s name], I’m gonna ask you again, would you like to go to the hospital?” The Complainant said, “Yes,” and the SO directed the Complainant to turn off the phone. The SO pointed to the paramedic and informed the Complainant he was a paramedic as he walked back into the bedroom. The paramedic and the SO kept asking the Complainant to go with them. The Complainant reported he was paranoid and did not get up.

Starting at about 11:17 p.m., the WO stepped into the bedroom, directed the Complainant to hang up the phone, and informed him he could go with them and that he would be placed into an ambulance. The Complainant hung up the phone and dialed 911 again. The Complainant informed the 911 dispatcher he required police. The WO spoke over the Complainant and informed the dispatcher they were with the Complainant. The SO reached for the Complainant’s phone, and he moved it out of reach. The WO turned to face the hall and informed the SEW, “We’re just gonna apprehend him.” The WO entered the kitchen and informed CW #1 they would apprehend the Complainant and take him to the hospital so he could see a doctor.

Starting at about 11:19 p.m., CW #1 walked into the Complainant’s bedroom and spoke with the Complainant. He called 911 three more times as CW #1 and the police officers tried to convince the Complainant to go with them.

Starting at about 11:20 p.m., CW #2 entered the left camera frame into the Complainant’s bedroom. The WO attempted to explain their attempts to get the Complainant to go with them as he kept calling 911. CW #2 exited the bedroom. The SO moved to the window side of the bed while CW #1 snatched the Complainant’s phone from his left hand and exited the bedroom. The WO explained to the Complainant they would get him help and take him to the stretcher. The Complainant asked for his phone and the WO informed him that they would give him his phone when he was on the stretcher. The WO stood in the doorway of the bedroom, showed the Complainant his phone, and tried to coax him from the bed with it. The Complainant stayed in the bed and asked for his phone.

Starting at about 11:28 p.m., CW #1 entered the bedroom and tried to convince the Complainant to leave the bedroom to get his phone.

Starting at about 11:30 p.m., the WO said, “I think we just need to get cuffs on.” The SO said, “To the rear?” The WO said, “Yeah.” The SO said, “[The Complainant’s first name], listen, we’re going to put you in handcuffs now, alright?” The Complainant said, “No, don’t do that.”

Starting at about 11:31 p.m., one of the paramedics entered the bedroom, and addressed the Complainant. The second paramedic pointed to the stretcher in the kitchen, informed the Complainant he was not in trouble, and told him they were going to help him get to the hospital. The WO and the SO stood in the kitchen and the WO said, “If it doesn’t work with them, we’re going hands on.” The SO said, “Yeah.”

Starting at about 11:33 p.m., the WO asked CW #1 whether the Complainant would be aggressive if they engaged him physically. CW #1 said the Complainant would fight them off. The WO informed the SO, “He’s gonna fight.” The paramedic tried to reason with the Complainant to have him go to the stretcher. The Complainant did not move and asked for his phone.

Starting at about 11:36 p.m., the SO stood to the right door frame of the bedroom and said, “Okay, [the Complainant’s first name], sir, I don’t really want to put you in handcuffs, but we have no, we’re exhausting our options, right? We need you to get some help.” A paramedic tried to convince the Complainant to come out of the bedroom and the Complainant asked for his phone. Another paramedic entered the bedroom and tried to coax the Complainant to the stretcher. The Complainant asked for his phone.

Starting at about 11:38 p.m., the WO said, “Guys, we’re just going to do it.” A paramedic exited the bedroom while the other paramedic attempted to coax the Complainant from the bed. The SO entered the bedroom and pulled off the Complainant’s blanket. Standing on the window side of the bed, the SO placed his right hand on the Complainant’s left shoulder and took the Complainant’s left wrist with his left hand, twisting it behind his back, and applied handcuffs to the Complainant’s left wrist. The WO stood at the foot of the bed and held both the Complainant’s feet with her hands and said, “You’re going to be okay.” The SEW knelt with her right knee on the door side of the bed. The Complainant turned to his right and the SEW put both knees on the Complainant’s lower left leg while the SO placed his right knee on the Complainant’s left hip. The WO circled to the right side of the bed and moved to the Complainant’s head. The SO held the Complainant’s left arm, bent behind his back, and the Complainant leaned forward onto his right arm. The Complainant’s left wrist was handcuffed, and the SO held the Complainant’s left hand with his right hand. The SO held the handcuff arm with his left hand and used his left forearm against the back of the Complainant’s left forearm. The Complainant pulled his left arm forward and the SO used the handcuffs to pull his left arm behind his back. The Complainant pulled his left arm forward. The SO tried to push the Complainant’s left arm behind his back and the Complainant pulled it forward. The WO asked the Complainant to give her his arm and he said, “No.” The Complainant said, “Stop, can you stop, please?” The Complainant struggled and turned himself to bring his right hand in front of him. Both of the Complainant’s hands were in front of him as he rested on his right side. The Complainant said he would go to the stretcher, refused to put his hands behind his back, and asked for his phone. The WO used both hands to pull the Complainant’s right arm back. The Complainant slid to the left side off the bed headfirst to the floor while the SO held the Complainant’s left arm behind his back. The WO freed the Complainant’s right arm and put it behind his back. The WO and the SO handcuffed the Complainant’s hands behind his back. The Complainant asked if he could use his phone. The SEW double-locked the handcuffs.

Starting at about 11:41 p.m., the SEW, the WO and the SO assisted the Complainant to his feet by supporting his right side. The Complainant asked if he could use the phone.

Starting at about 11:42 p.m., the Complainant sat on the stretcher, and said, “I’m paranoid.”

Starting at about 11:44 p.m., the Complainant was transported into the hall. The Complainant’s right hand was attached to the right side of the stretcher, and he was strapped in.

Starting at about 11:52 p.m., the Complainant informed the first paramedic he had pain. The paramedic said, “Well you were struggling so I’m sure you’re tired and your arms hurt and all that.” The Complainant said, “Yeah.”

Police Communications Recordings

On May 30, 2024, the Complainant called 911 repeatedly. He asked for ambulance and, when placed on hold for the ambulance call-taker, ended the call. The 911 call-takers and dispatchers collaborated to determine the Complainant had called from an apartment building in Mississauga. The Complainant was informed he could get in trouble for misusing 911 because he would not provide his address and called repeatedly. The Complainant asked if an ambulance was on the way. The dispatchers informed the Complainant they required the address to send an ambulance. The Complainant provided the street address, but reported the unit number of a neighbouring apartment on his floor. The Complainant was informed his phone carrier would be contacted for his address and the police would be dispatched. He asked that they not do that. The Complainant was informed the ambulance was at the residence.

The PRP contacted TELUS to retrieve the Complainant’s name and address. The dispatcher notified the SO and the WO to attend the Complainant’s address for a call to assist ambulance. The Complainant had called 911 several times for unknown medical help. A dispatcher notified the SO a ‘ping’ was done on the Complainant’s phone, providing the address. The SO notified the dispatcher they had found the Complainant. The dispatcher informed the SO that the Complainant had a caution on file for schizophrenia. The Complainant phoned 911 while the SO, the WO, and the SEW were with him. He requested an ambulance, and the SO informed the 911 dispatcher they were already with him.

The Complainant phoned 911, and the WO informed the dispatcher they were with him. The dispatcher asked the WO to take the Complainant’s phone from him if they could.

The Complainant phoned 911. The SO informed the dispatcher police and ambulance were there, the Complainant was under the influence of a substance, and they were tending to the call. The dispatcher asked if they could get him to stop calling. A male voice [known to be a paramedic] asked the Complainant why he called 911, and he reported he was paranoid. After numerous 911 calls, the SO informed the dispatcher the Complainant’s phone had been retrieved. The SO notified the dispatcher the Complainant could be apprehended under the Mental Health Act.

At 11:41:00 p.m., the SO informed the dispatcher the Complainant was in custody.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the PRP between July 7, 2024, and September 16, 2024:

  • BWC footage – the WO and the SO;
  • Incident Details Report;
  • Incident History;
  • Occurrence Report;
  • Person Details Report – the Complainant;
  • Person Details Report (Criminal History) – the Complainant;
  • Mental Health & Addiction Policy;
  • Criminal Investigations Policy;
  • Incident Response Policy;
  • Notes – the SO, the WO and the SEW; and
  • Communications recordings.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between August 7, 2024, and August 15, 2024:

  • The Complainant’s complaint, received from LECA;
  • Peel EMS Ambulance Call Report; and
  • Medical records from Trillium Health Partners.

Incident Narrative

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

In the evening of May 30, 2024, the SO, in the company of the WO and the SEW, attended an apartment in Mississauga. Also present were paramedics. They were there following repeated calls to 911 from the Complainant, a resident of the unit. Feeling himself very paranoid, the Complainant had decided to call 911 for help getting to a hospital.

The first responders were allowed into the unit by the Complainant’s family member. They found him lying in his bed in a bedroom. Over the course of the next half-hour or so, they spoke with the Complainant attempting to have him accompany them to a waiting stretcher.

The Complainant was of unsound mind, the result of mental illness and the effects of illicit drug consumption and its possible mixture with prescription medication. He continued to call 911 even though paramedics were there, and refused to get up from bed.

The officers eventually concluded they would have to take him into custody in order to get him on the stretcher and to hospital. The SO physically engaged the Complainant on the bed, taking control of his left arm and eventually affixing it in a handcuff. The Complainant resisted the application of the handcuffs. The WO attempted to free his right arm so it too could be handcuffed, but had difficulty doing so as the Complainant kept it under his body. Eventually, the officers were able to secure both arms behind the back.

The Complainant was escorted out the bedroom, placed on a stretcher and taken to hospital. He was diagnosed with a broken left elbow.

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.

Section 17, Mental Health Act - Action by Police Officer

17 Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician.

Analysis and Director’s Decision

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his apprehension by PRP officers on May 30, 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.

Given the manner in which the Complainant presented, and the information they had gathered from his family members, the officers were within their rights in arresting him under section 17 of the Mental Health Act. He was clearly suffering from mental disorder and unable to care for himself.

I am also satisfied that the SO used no more force than necessary to take the Complainant into custody. The Complainant was not assaultive towards the officers, but he did physically resist their efforts to secure him in handcuffs. This came after protracted efforts by the officers and paramedics to coax him out of bed. Though the SO managed to secure a handcuff on the Complainant’s left arm, the officers struggled to bring his arms behind the back. Indeed, it would appear that the fracture occurred in the toing and froing that took place with the left arm before it was handcuffed with the right arm. That injury, however, was not the result of any excessive force brought to bear by the SO, but the unfortunate consequence of countervailing forces being brought to bear in a dynamic situation. No strikes of any kind were delivered.

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

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.