SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-PCI-325
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 injuries of a 24-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU[1]
On July 28, 2024, at 12:45 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.
On July 28, 2024, at 9:30 a.m., the Subject Official (SO) was on general patrol in Cochrane when he observed a man riding a bicycle, who was wanted on a warrant. The SO attempted to stop him, and the Complainant fled. At some point, there was a collision between the bicycle and the SO’s police cruiser. The Complainant ditched the bicycle and ran off. The SO chased him on foot and was able to take the Complainant into custody. The Complainant was taken to hospital where X-rays confirmed fractures to his 6th and 7th ribs. Medical staff were unable to provide an opinion regarding the age of the fractures.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2024/07/29 at 8:20 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/29 at 9:17 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
24-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on July 29, 2024.
Civilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1[2] Not interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4[3] Not interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between July 29, 2024, and August 2, 2024.
Subject Official
SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The witness officials were interviewed between July 31, 2024, and August 2, 2024.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in and around the intersection of Sixth Street and Ninth Avenue, Cochrane.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[4]
Communications Recordings / Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report
On July 28, 2024, at about 9:27 a.m.,[5] the SO broadcast that he required backup at Ninth Avenue and Sixth Street. A man - the Complainant - could be heard yelling in the background.
At about 9:29 a.m., WO #1 arrived, followed by WO #2. Shortly thereafter, there was an announcement that the Complainant had been arrested.
In-car Camera (ICC) Recording - WO #1
At 9:27 a.m., on July 28, 2024, WO #1 left the OPP Detachment.
At 9:28 a.m., as WO #1 turned onto Ninth Avenue, the Complainant was captured laying face down on the gravel near the sidewalk. The SO was on the Complainant’s left side with his left knee positioned on the Complainant’s back. The Complainant was moaning and screaming as he moved his lower legs. The SO’s police vehicle was stopped on the wrong side of the road further up Ninth Avenue. WO #1 approached and assisted in handcuffing the Complainant with his hands behind the back.
At 9:29 a.m., the SO and WO #1 brought the Complainant to his feet and walked him to the SO’s police vehicle. They were joined by a third police officer, who walked behind them.
ICC Recording - The SO
On July 28, 2024, at 9:31 a.m., the Complainant was placed in the rear compartment of the SO’s police vehicle while handcuffed with his hands behind the back. The Complainant was told of outstanding warrants because of his failure to appear for court. When asked if he was hurt, the Complainant replied his ribs felt broken, and said they were sore prior. The Complainant wanted to be taken to the hospital.
At 9:36 a.m., the SO made his way to Lady Minto Hospital.
At 9:38 a.m., the Complainant was removed from the rear compartment.
Images taken by OPP
The images taken by OPP showed that the Complainant’s bicycle and the SO’s cruiser had no damage.
Figure 1 – The Complainant’s bicycle
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between July 30, 2024, and September 9, 2024:
- Notes - WO #2;
- Notes - WO #1;
- Notes - the SO;
- Communications recordings;
- CAD Report;
- Arrest warrant - the Complainant;
- Witness statement taken by OPP from CW #1;
- Witness statement taken by OPP from CW #4;
- ICC recording - the SO; and
- ICC recording - WO #1.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from Lady Minto Hospital on July 29, 2024.
Incident Narrative
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. He did authorize the release of his notes.
In the morning of July 28, 2024, the Complainant was riding a bicycle eastbound on Sixth Street when he observed a police cruiser. The Complainant had warrants in effect for his arrest. He began to accelerate away from the cruiser.
The SO was operating the cruiser. He pursued the Complainant onto Ninth Avenue and attempted to cut him off with his vehicle. The Complainant struck the driver’s side of the cruiser before continuing his flight on foot southwards on Ninth Avenue. The SO caught up to the Complainant and brought him to ground.
Following a struggle on the ground, the SO, with the assistance of another officer arriving on scene, WO #1, handcuffed the Complainant behind the back.
The Complainant was transported to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with fractures of two ribs.
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 diagnosed with serious injuries following his arrest by OPP officers on July 28, 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 injuries.
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 a number of warrants in effect authorizing his apprehension.
With respect to the force applied by the SO during the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence falls short of any reasonable suggestion it was excessive. The use of a motor vehicle to thwart a person in flight is always risky. However, in the instant case, it would not appear that the SO intentionally struck the Complainant with his cruiser. Rather, he positioned it in front of the Complainant, who was likely unable to avoid a collision. The impact, moreover, does not appear to have resulted in the Complainant’s fractured ribs. There is evidence that the Complainant was tackled to the ground and his injuries might have been incurred with the pressure of the SO’s knee on his back. The takedown would not appear problematic given the evidence of the Complainant’s flight on foot. Some physical interdiction was going to be necessary to effect his arrest and a tackle of some variety would seem a reasonable tactic in the circumstances. Thereafter, the weight of the evidence indicates the Complainant struggled against the officers’ efforts to handcuff him behind the back. The use of a knee to counteract that resistance would not appear a disproportionate use of force, particularly in the context of a struggle in which no strikes of any kind were delivered by the officers.
It remains unclear when precisely the Complainant’s broken ribs happened. There is a suggestion in the evidence that they pre-existed his run-in with police on the date in question. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe they were attributable to any unlawful conduct on the part of the SO, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: November 25, 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) Interviewed by OPP [Back to text]
- 3) Interviewed by OPP [Back to text]
- 4) 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]
- 5) The times are derived from the CAD Report and, therefore, are approximations. [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.