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 39-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On August 26, 2024, at 9:10 p.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On August 26, 2024, at 4:10 p.m., LPS received a 911 call from Civilian Witness (CW) #1 at a residence in the area of Dundas Street and Saskatoon Street, London. CW #1 reported seeing an unknown male with a pipe walk into the rear yard of her neighbour’s residence. She heard the neighbour’s dog barking excessively. It was believed that the owners of the residence were not home at the time of the incident. A short time later, LPS officers arrived and observed the Complainant exit the home and walk across the front lawn. He was carrying a backpack and refused to acknowledge or speak to LPS officers. The SO delivered one kick to the Complainant to gain his attention. The Complainant continued to walk away without acknowledging police. WO #1 deployed a conducted energy weapon (CEW) and delivered a kick. The Complainant remained unresponsive to the police presence. The SO then delivered one blow to the Complainant’s facial area, causing him to fall to the ground. The Complainant was placed in handcuffs with his hands behind his back. He was transported via ambulance to the London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) Victoria Hospital, where he was diagnosed with a facial fracture and sedated because of erratic behaviour.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/08/27 at 7:29 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/08/27 at 8:28 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

39-year-old male; declined interview

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on August 27, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO #1 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

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between September 6 and 9, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the front lawn of a home situated in the area of Dundas Street and Saskatoon Street, London.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – WO #1’s CEW

The trigger was pulled on august 26, 2024, at 4:19:05 p.m.,[2] and ‘cartridge one’ was deployed. Electricity was discharged for 4.603 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Communications Recordings and Computer-Assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report

At 4:14 p.m., August 26, 2024, LPS dispatch requested that units respond to an ‘animal call’ at a residence in the area of Dundas Street and Saskatoon Street. WO #4, the SO, WO #1, WO #3, WO #2 and WO #5 were dispatched.

At 4:19 p.m., WO #1 arrived on scene.

At 4:20 p.m., there was a broadcast that the Complainant was in custody.

Emergency medical services (EMS) were requested for a CEW deployment.

At 4:22 p.m., the EMS response was upgraded in urgency as the Complainant was said to have struck his head.

At 4:32 p.m., EMS arrived at the scene.

At 4:43 p.m., EMS transported the Complainant to LHSC Victoria Hospital.

911 Calls

On August 26, 2024, at 4:10 p.m., CW #1 reported an unknown man [now known to be the Complainant] in her neighbour’s back yard. CW #1 said that the Complainant was not the resident of the home, and she was afraid he was going to kill the dog as he was in the back yard harassing the animal. The dispatcher asked if he was hitting the dog and CW #1 confirmed he was hitting the dog with a sharp instrument, but she was not sure if it was a knife. CW #1 tried to speak to the Complainant, but he just yelled incoherently.

At 4:14 p.m., CW #1 again called 911. The urgency of the attack on the dog was upgraded. A description of the Complainant was provided.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the LPS between August 29, 2024, and September 11, 2024:

• General Occurrence Report (including scene photographs, officers’ notes, and CEW deployment data);
• CAD Report;
• Communications recordings; and
• Statement and notes of the WOs and SO.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

On August 28, 2024, CW #1 provided three digital images taken on her cellular telephone.

On September 4, 2024, the Ambulance Call Report was obtained from Middlesex London Emergency Medical Services.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police eyewitnesses to the events in question, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of August 26, 2024, LPS received a call from an address in the area of Dundas Street and Saskatoon Street. An unknown male had been seen in the back yard of a home behaving strangely. He ignored a neighbour’s request that he leave and started striking a dog on the property with an object.

The male – the Complainant – was of unsound mind. At the sound of police sirens approaching the scene, the Complainant made his way to the front of the home just as officers were arriving.

WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3 were among the first officers to arrive. They told the Complainant to drop what he was holding and get on the ground. When the Complainant ignored their commands and attempted to walk away across the front lawn, WO #1 kicked him in the hip. The Complainant fell but quickly righted himself and continued as if he would walk away. Again surrounded by officers, the Complainant squared up on them as if preparing to fight. WO #1 fired his CEW causing the Complainant’s body to lock-up and fall, his head striking the sidewalk in the process. In and around the same time of the CEW discharge, the SO was arriving on scene with other officers. The SO struck the Complainant in the head with an open palm.

The SO, WO #1 and the other officers struggled with the Complainant on the ground as he resisted arrest. WO #1 and WO #2 delivered several punches to the Complainant’s back before he was subdued and handcuffed.

The Complainant was transported to hospital following the arrest where he was admitted for psychiatric examination and diagnosed with a facial 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.

Section 445.1, Criminal Code - Cruelty to Animals - Causing Unnecessary Suffering

445.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who

(a) wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird;

(b) in any manner encourages, aids, promotes, arranges, assists at, receives money for or takes part in

(i) the fighting or baiting of animals or birds, or

(ii) the training, transporting or breeding of animals or birds for the purposes of subparagraph (i);

(c) wilfully, without reasonable excuse, administers a poisonous or an injurious drug or substance to a domestic animal or bird or an animal or a bird wild by nature that is kept in captivity or, being the owner of such an animal or a bird, wilfully permits a poisonous or an injurious drug or substance to be administered to it;

(d) promotes, arranges, conducts, assists in, receives money for or takes part in any meeting, competition, exhibition, pastime, practice, display or event at or in the course of which captive birds are liberated by hand, trap, contrivance or any other means for the purpose of being shot when they are liberated; or

(e) being the owner, occupier or person in charge of any premises, permits the premises or any part thereof to be used for a purpose mentioned in paragraph (d).

(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day, or to both.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by LPS officers on August 26, 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.

Based on the information received via the 911 calls, the officers were proceeding lawfully to arrest the Complainant for cruelty to animals contrary to section 445.1 of the Criminal Code.

The force used by the officers in aid of the Complainant’s arrest was lawful. The officers had tried and failed to have the Complainant submit peacefully to arrest. When he attempted to walk away, it was apparent that some measure of force would be necessary to take him into custody. Given the information regarding the Complainant abusing a dog with an object, and his erratic behaviour on being confronted by police, the officers had cause to be concerned that the Complainant might have a weapon and would physically resist their efforts. The use of the CEW and kick by WO #1, and the SO’s strikes, made sense in the circumstances as they were designed to take the Complainant to the ground, where the officers could better manage any resistance and possible weapon in his possession. The Complainant continued to struggle with the officers on the ground and was met with about four punches to the back from two officers, a not disproportionate use of force.

For the foregoing reasons, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was incurred in the altercation with police that marked his arrest, I am unable to reasonably conclude that any of the arresting officers comported themselves 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: December 23, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit