SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-PCI-341

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 injuries of a 33-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On August 14, 2024, at 9:40 a.m., the Belleville Police Service (BPS) notified the SIU of an injury related to an arrest made by Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) officers.

According to the BPS, the Complainant was wanted by the BPS. On August 13, 2024, at approximately 4:00 p.m., members of the OPP Community Street Crime Unit attended the area of North Park Street and College Street East in Belleville, after learning the Complainant was in the area. OPP officers located the Complainant in the passenger seat of a vehicle parked in front of a residence. At 4:02 p.m., the OPP officers engaged the Complainant and he resisted. A struggle ensued and the Complainant was extricated from the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle sped off. During the struggle with the Complainant, an officer asked a bystander to notify the local police. BPS officers responded and found the Complainant to be under control and handcuffed. The Complainant was transported to the BPS station and booked into custody at 4:13 p.m. Approximately 20 minutes later, the custody sergeant noticed the Complainant was having difficulty breathing and called for an ambulance. Paramedics responded and transported the Complainant to Belleville General Hospital (BGH), where it was determined the Complainant had sustained a fractured rib and a perforated lung.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/08/14 at 11:12 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/08/14 at 12:16 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on August 15, 2024.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on September 26, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on November 12, 2024.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between August 19, 2024, and September 20, 2024.

Service Employee Witness (SEW)

SEW Interviewed

The service employee witness was interviewed on September 20, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the driveway of a residence in the area of North Park Street and College Street East, Belleville.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

BPS Communications Recordings

The CW called the BPS, and reported that undercover police detectives had apprehended someone and provided the address in Belleville. The BPS call-taker asked if the officers were looking for assistance and she asked the officers if they needed help. She then advised the BPS call-taker the officers did need assistance and asked BPS to send officers.

BPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

WO #4 was captured arriving at the scene of the Complainant’s arrest. WO #1 was dressed in plainclothes, and he had no police identifiers visible. Although his holster was on his hip, he had his pistol lodged in the waistband of his pants. The SO was nearby, adjusting a ballistic vest with the word “POLICE” across the front. Under the vest he was dressed in plainclothes.

WO #1 explained to WO #4 that he (WO #1) attempted to arrest the Complainant at gunpoint while he was in the passenger seat of a vehicle. WO #1 reported that the Complainant climbed through the vehicle and WO #1 went after him and grabbed him in the driveway. WO #1 told WO #4 it was a BPS warrant for which the Complainant was arrested.

At 4:06:30 p.m., as WO #4 was transporting the Complainant to the BPS station, the Complainant reported he was punched. WO #4 responded the Complainant was resisting at the time.

At 4:11 p.m., the Complainant was removed from WO #4’s vehicle at the BPS station. The Complainant’s elbows and knees had several abrasions. He made no complaint of rib pain.

At 4:12 p.m., while sitting in the booking hall, the Complainant requested medical attention for the scrapes he had sustained.

Video Footage - BPS Custody Area

The Complainant arrived at the BPS station in WO #4’s police vehicle. He exited the vehicle in the sally port and displayed no indication he was in pain.

At 4:13 p.m., the Complainant was paraded in front of WO #3. During the process, he asked for medical attention in relation to the scrapes he sustained during his arrest. Although the sound quality in the custody area was poor due to reverberation, there was no indication the Complainant made any complaint of rib pain. WO #3 sprayed disinfectant on the Complainant’s knees and provided bandages to him to place on his knee abrasions. The Complainant displayed no indication he was suffering pain in his flank as he wiped at his knees.

During the booking process, the Complainant admitted to having consumed crack cocaine and fentanyl earlier in the day.

At 4:20 p.m., the Complainant was lodged in a cell. He used the sink in the cell to wash his forearms and elbows, and then wiped at his knees with a napkin.

At 4:24 p.m., the Complainant was lying down on the cell bunk and holding onto his right side using his left hand.

At 4:34 p.m., the Complainant sat up on the bunk and held onto his right side. He again cleaned his knee abrasions and then reclined again on the bunk.

The Complainant attempted to sleep.

At 4:44 p.m., the Complainant spoke to someone at the cell door. He was holding onto his right side during the discussion.

At 4:53 p.m., the Complainant was grimacing and holding onto his right side. He stood and appeared to be in significant pain. He sat on the bunk, and was rocking back and forth, and breathing heavily.

At 5:02 p.m., an officer spoke to the Complainant from the cell door and the Complainant complained his ribs were hurting. He asked for some water. The officer returned to the cell at 5:04 p.m. and provided a cup to the Complainant. When the Complainant stated he could hardly breath, the officer said they would have the Complainant taken to the hospital.

At 5:12 p.m., WO #4 and the SEW entered the cell and applied handcuffs and shackles to the Complainant, after which they escorted him out.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the BPS between August 13, 2024, and November 1, 2024:

  • Warrant for Arrest – the Complainant;
  • Subject Profile – the Complainant;
  • Arrest Booking Report;
  • Notes – WO #4;
  • Notes – WO #3;
  • Notes – the SEW;
  • BWC footage – WO #4;
  • BWC footage – Officer #1;
  • Communications recordings; and
  • Video footage - booking and custody area.

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between August 20, 2024, and November 12, 2024:

  • Notes - WO #2;
  • Notes - WO #1; and
  • Notes - the SO.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from the BGH on August 26, 2024.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the afternoon of August 13, 2024, with the knowledge and support of the BPS, OPP officers were in Belleville looking for two wanted individuals, including the Complainant. There was a warrant in effect for the Complainant on assault and weapons charges, and OPP had learned that he was in Belleville.

At about 4:00 p.m., WO #1, among the OPP officers conducting surveillance in the area, identified the Complainant in the front passenger seat of a vehicle parked in the driveway of a residence. He alerted other members of the surveillance team and then moved in to effect an arrest. The officer drove his unmarked cruiser to a stop on the driveway directly behind the Complainant’s vehicle and exited with his firearm drawn in his right hand. He approached the open front passenger door and told the Complainant he was under arrest.

The Complainant did not submit to arrest. He climbed over the driver in his vehicle attempting to escape through the front driver’s door as WO #1 entered the vehicle and began to grapple with him. The two soon found themselves wrestling each other outside the driver’s door on the driveway. The officer tossed his firearm to the side.

The SO made his way to the scene and entered the fray. The officer kneed and punched the Complainant several times in the upper body before he was subdued and secured in handcuffs.

A BPS officer arrived on scene following the arrest and took custody of the Complainant. He was transported to the BPS station and lodged in cells.

The Complainant complained of pain to the right side while in cells. He was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a punctured lung and a fracture of a right-sided rib.

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 OPP officers in Belleville on August 13, 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.

There was a warrant in effect for the Complainant and the OPP were within their rights, having consulted BPS ahead of time, in seeking to take him into custody.

With respect to the force brought to bear by the police in effecting the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was excessive. The wrestling match that unfolded between WO #1 and the Complainant seemed a fairly even contest. But for the officer’s questionable decision to chase the Complainant through a car, climbing over the driver while holding a firearm in his right hand, it does not itself give rise to concern. The evidence regarding the force used by the SO is discrepant. He says he delivered a single knee strike to the body, and two punches to the head, all of which occurred as the Complainant was resisting the officers’ efforts to secure him in handcuffs. That would not seem a disproportionate use of force on its face. There is a version of events proffered in the evidence, however, describing the SO repeatedly kicking and kneeing the Complainant, and punching him four or five times. Some of this force is alleged to have occurred after the Complainant had stopped resisting arrest. There is other evidence, including that of WO #1, that describe the SO’s force somewhere in the middle of these accounts, namely that the SO delivered between three and five punches to either the ribs or back of head, but importantly, these accounts indicate that the Complainant was physically resisting arrest at the time. On the whole, I accept the preponderance of evidence and believe the SO used more force than he acknowledged, but not to the extent strikes were delivered after the Complainant ceased resisting. Doing so, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officer used more force than was necessary when he delivered a knee strike and four to five punches. The Complainant had proven a formidable challenge and there was some urgency to subduing him as quickly as possible given the firearm on the driveway in close proximity to the struggle.

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

Date: December 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.