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 57-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On August 27, 2024, at 2:33 a.m., the Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) reported an injury sustained by the Complainant.

According to the NRPS, on August 26, 2024, at 11:05 a.m., Civilian Witness (CW) #1 contacted the NRPS via 911, and requested that police officers attend her address in the area of James Street and St. Paul Street, St. Catherines. CW #1 advised she had attempted to conduct repairs inside an apartment, which was rented to the Complainant. While inside the apartment, the Complainant reportedly threatened her with a knife. She fled the apartment to call police. The Subject Official (SO) and Witness Official (WO) #5 attended the call, but the Complainant had left the building and could not be located. At 3:14 p.m., CW #2 called the NRPS to report that the Complainant had returned to the building. When the SO and WO #5 arrived and confronted the Complainant in the area of James Street and St. Paul Street [later found to be 32 James Street], [he became combative. At 4:07 p.m., a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) was deployed, and the Complainant was taken to the ground and handcuffed. The Complainant was transported to the Greater Niagara General Hospital (GNGH) in St. Catharines by Niagara Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to have the CEW probes removed. At the time, the Complainant gave no indication of pain or discomfort. Upon discharge, he was taken to the NRPS custody facility in Niagara Falls. At about 7:00 p.m., the Complainant complained of pain to his right wrist, which appeared red and swollen. He was transported to the GNGH where X-rays confirmed a fractured right wrist. The Complainant’s right wrist was placed in a cast, and he was returned to NRPS custody to await a bail hearing.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 08/27/2024 at 6:00 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 08/27/2024 at 8:15 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on August 27, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on August 29, 2024.

Subject Official

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

Witness Officials

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 August 31 and September 3, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the sidewalk in front of 32 James Street, St. Catharines.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data - The SO

On August 26, 2024, at 4:07:36 p.m., the SO pulled the trigger on his CEW and electricity was discharged for 4.786 seconds.[2]

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Video Footage - St. Paul Street

The camera had a southward view of St. Paul Street. There was no sound component to the video.

On August 26, 2024, at 1:14:50 p.m., a man [the Complainant] was captured walking north on the west side of St. Paul Street, from James Street. Another man [CW #2] entered the view from the bottom of the screen. The Complainant and CW #2 walked towards each other and both men stopped about three metres apart. The Complainant could be seen speaking. All that could be seen of CW #2 was his back.

At 1:15:40 p.m., the Complainant pulled a knife from his right pocket with his right hand. He pulled the red sheath off the knife with his left hand, and pointed the knife at CW #2. CW #2 had a cell phone in his right hand. There appeared to be a short, heated verbal exchange, after which the Complainant put the knife back in the sheath and placed the knife and sheath in his right pocket. The Complainant then continued to walk northward and passed the left side of CW #2, who walked southward. CW #2 put his cell phone back in his right pocket.

Video Footage - James Street

The video was 15 seconds in length and the screen size was small. The video was recorded on a cell phone from a computer screen.

The video captured a police officer on the sidewalk in front of 32 James Street. The officer had his arms pointed northbound, in a manner indicating the police officer had a gun or CEW in his/her hand. To the west of the officer was a man [the Complainant], about four metres away. Behind the officer were four other officers. The Complainant walked westward several steps and then stopped before falling to the pavement. As the Complainant fell to the ground, a fully marked NRPS cruiser turned left onto James Street from Summer Street.

NRPS Communications Recordings

On August 26, 2024, at 11:05 a.m., CW #1 called 911 and reported that the Complainant had threatened her. CW #1 advised that she was at the apartment for a water emergency. The resident, the Complainant, gave her a hard time as he has done in the past. The plumber arrived and CW #1 allowed the plumber into the bathroom of the unit. The Complainant grabbed a knife and threatened them. The knife was now in his pocket. CW #1 informed the call-taker that the Complainant suffered from mental health conditions. He was known to use drugs, but it was unknown if he had used on this date. The Complainant had been violent in the past. The Complainant was described, and he was said to have a cooking knife in his possession. The communicator called CW #1 back to apologize for the delay. CW #1 said the Complainant had left the building and provided his direction of travel. The Complainant approached CW #2.

At 12:11 p.m., the communicator apologized for not having an officer attend yet and said they were working on that.

At 2:35 p.m., two NRPS officers were dispatched and a third officer said he would back-up.

At 3:14 p.m., a man called police and advised police that he had received a report of a man [the Complainant] outside a restaurant with a knife. He checked the cameras and saw the Complainant pull a knife, about ten centimetres in length, out from his pocket. It was sheathed. The Complainant unsheathed the knife and waved it at another male. He then sheathed it and put it back in his pocket before the men walked away in separate directions. About ten minutes prior, the Complainant had been seen walking east on St. Paul Street.

At 3:28 p.m., WO #4 and the SO were dispatched to a weapons call at St. Paul Street. The dispatcher advised the police officers of the information that the caller had provided. The Complainant was last seen walking eastbound on St. Paul Street about 20 minutes ago. A responding officer stated that this call might be related to his call, involving the Complainant who was wanted for assault. WO #3 said she would back them up. A records check revealed that the Complainant was anti-police and very confrontational. WO #4 confirmed she reviewed camera footage, and the Complainant did in fact possess a knife covered with a sheath, which he had placed in his right pocket. He was last seen 20 minutes ago walking eastbound on St. Paul Street. WO #4 said a witness advised her to use extreme caution with the Complainant as he appeared jumpy and mentally ill. The dispatcher advised that CW #2 had called and provided the Complainant’s location and direction of travel. WO #2 confirmed he was nearby and would attend. The dispatcher asked WO #1 to attend. The dispatcher advised that the Complainant was supposed to be sitting on steps at a building in the area. CW #2 said the Complainant had crossed the street. An officer advised that the Complainant was wanted for two counts of ‘assault with a weapon’.

At 4:07 p.m., WO #4 broadcast, “We got the male, taser deployed.” WO #4 requested an ambulance attend and said they were at 32 James Street.

NRPS Booking Video

At 1:36 minutes into the video, a male prisoner [the Complainant] was brought into the booking hall by a uniformed officer [the SO]. A uniformed special constable sat behind a counter. The Complainant stood in front of the counter in front of the special constable, who asked him questions. The Complainant appeared sober and calm, and identified himself verbally. He stated that he wanted to speak to duty counsel. He asserted that he had not taken drugs or alcohol, did not take medication, did not suffer from mental health issues, and was not suicidal. He complained his right wrist was sore and swollen. The supervisor said he had just come from the hospital where he was checked out and medically cleared. The Complainant was taken to a different location in the booking hall where a frisk search was conducted, and was then placed in a cell.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records between August 28, 2024, and September 3, 2024:

• Booking video;
• Video footage - St. Paul Street;
• NRPS video footage - St. Paul Street and James Street;
• Communications recordings;
• Civilian Witness Statements;
• Civilian Witness Information;
• General Order -Use of Force;
• General Order -Powers of Arrest;
• History of the Complainant;
• Prosecution Summary (General Occurrence);
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
• Notes – WO #3, WO #5, WO #4, WO #2, and WO #1; and
• CEW deployment data.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between September 3, 2024 and September 4, 2024:

• Ambulance Call Reports from EMS.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and 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, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the morning of August 26, 2024, CW #1 contacted the NRPS to report that she had attended an apartment in the area of James Street and St. Paul Street with a plumber to conduct repairs. On entry to the apartment, the Complainant, grabbed a knife and threatened CW #1. CW #1 and the plumber backed out of the apartment, and she contacted police.

CW #1 reported that the Complainant suffered from a mental health condition. It was believed that he was suffering a mental health crisis.

The SO and WO #5 attended the area of James Street and St. Paul Street, but by the time they arrived the Complainant had left and could not be located.

In the afternoon, CW #2 came upon the Complainant while walking along St. Paul Street. CW #2 engaged the Complainant, at which point the Complainant pulled out a paring knife and removed it from a red sheath. The two men exchanged words. This exchange was captured by a video surveillance camera from a building on St. Paul Street. A man called NRPS and advised that he had received a report of a man [the Complainant] outside with a knife.

WO #3, WO #4 and the SO attended St. Paul Street. WO #4 and the SO viewed security video, which showed the Complainant brandishing a red-handled knife and waving it at a man [CW #2]. Police patrolled the downtown and searched for the Complainant. At 4:03 p.m., CW #2 reported that the Complainant was believed to be inside one of the stores. Police commenced a search of the businesses in the immediate area.

The Complainant was located by police officers, on the sidewalk in front of 32 James Street, at 4:07 p.m. WO #1 engaged the Complainant with verbal commands, and told the Complainant he was under arrest and to show his hands. The Complainant took a fighter’s stance and began to make karate chops. He travelled westward a distance and then stopped and faced the officers. WO #1 attempted to deploy his CEW but it malfunctioned. The SO deployed his CEW once and the Complainant fell to the sidewalk allowing for him to be handcuffed and arrested.

The Complainant was searched while he was on the ground. A black-handled knife was located in the right pocket of his cargo shorts, a folding knife was found in another one of his pockets.

The Complainant was transported to the hospital following his arrest and diagnosed with a fractured right wrist.

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 NRPS 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 they had received via the 911 call made by CW #1, the further call received from the man, and the video surveillance viewed by WO #4 and the SO, I am satisfied that there were grounds to seek the Complainant’s arrest for multiple criminal offences, including assault with a weapon.

The force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, namely, discharging his CEW once, was legally justified. The officers had cause to be concerned about their safety and the safety of the public. The Complainant, reportedly of unsound mind, was armed with a dangerous weapon in a public space and had already threatened at least two other members of the public. When confronted by police, informed he was under arrest, and instructed to show his hands, the Complainant took a fighter’s stance and began to make karate chops. The officers might have considered physical engagement, but doing so risked a struggle in a downtown area close to the roadway with an armed individual, which could jeopardize the safety of an officer, the Complainant, or a member of the public. In that moment, the use of the CEW was a reasonable approach given its potential of briefly neutralizing the Complainant so he could be disarmed and taken into custody without serious injury, which is exactly the outcome achieved.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was the result of his fall to the ground, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that it was attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the SO. For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: December 24, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit