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 27-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On September 5, 2024, at 5:35 a.m., Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On September 4, 2024, at 8:59 p.m., the PRP received a Mental Health Act (MHA) - related call to a residential address near Bloor Street and Dixie Road, Mississauga. Two police officers attended and attempted to arrest a male – the Complainant - under the MHA. There was an altercation between the police officers and the Complainant, in the course of which he was grounded before being apprehended. When the Complainant was brought to his feet, he complained of a sore shoulder. The police officers transported him to the Mississauga General Hospital (MGH) where he was diagnosed with a fractured nasal bone requiring future medical treatment.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 09/05/2024 at 9:10 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 09/05/2024 at 9:42 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

27-year-old male; declined interview

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between September 6 and 9, 2024.

Subject Officials

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Official

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on November 21, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the front driveway of a residence located near Cliff Road North and Central Parkway East, Mississauga.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Communications Recordings – Phone

CW #2 called 911 to report a male [the Complainant] lying in the street. The Complainant seemed to be hallucinating and talking to himself. The dispatcher advised CW #2 that police and paramedics were on their way to the location. CW #2 said two people had approached the Complainant and spoken to him. The Complainant had stood up before he returned to yelling and lying on the ground. CW #2 observed that the police had arrived and approached the Complainant, and that the Complainant had become physical with the police officers.

Another civilian called 911 to report a male [the Complainant] outside his home located near Cliff Road North and Central Parkway East. The Complainant was lying in the middle of the road screaming that he had taken LSD.

Communications Recordings – Radio

A police officer advised that a man [the Complainant] had run away from the police and jumped a fence into the backyard of a residence located in the area of Cliff Road North and Central Parkway East. The dispatcher asked if the police officer needed more units to attend, and the police officer agreed. The dispatcher said over the radio that the Complainant had an extensive history with the police, including a recent call involving his possession of a weapon.

A police officer advised she was with the Complainant.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – SO #1

On September 4, 2024, at 8:44:05 p.m., SO #1 was captured operating a police vehicle before stopping and exiting. The Complainant was lying on a roadway face down. He stood up and moved towards SO #1. She grabbed the neck area of his shirt, held his right hand, and asked him not to advance on her. She asked him multiple times to calm down and sit down. The Complainant was very upset. He repeatedly spoke of a laser light and said he was afraid to be shot in the head.

At 8:45:18 p.m., the Complainant sat on the grass. He was upset and feared he was going to be killed. Both SO #1 and SO #2 were now present. The Complainant was obsessed with lights and demanded the police officers watch them or turn them off.

At 8:46:26 p.m., SO #1 asked the Complainant for identification and then searched his pocket. SO #2 retrieved a nearby knapsack and bag, and found his identification in a wallet.

At 8:50:51 p.m., an ambulance arrived. The Complainant got up, ran a short distance, fell and rolled, and then righted himself before running into a bushy, treed area. SO #1 and SO #2 followed and told him he was not in trouble. SO #1 repeatedly asked the Complainant to come out of the trees but he refused to do so.

At 8:54:12 p.m., SO #1 and SO #2 moved branches away and the Complainant jumped over a fence into a backyard. SO #1 ran to the front door of the house, knocked on the door and asked a man [CW #1] for access to his backyard. SO #1 located the Complainant, after which SO #2 arrived. The Complainant was brought to the ground and complained his right shoulder was dislocated. SO #1 turned him onto his stomach and the Complainant resisted.

At 8:58:10 p.m., the Complainant was handcuffed with his hands behind the back. He complained about shoulder pain and SO #1 told him to stop resisting. SO #1 told him he would be brought to his feet, and he was brought to a standing position. The Complainant was escorted out of the backyard with SO #1 on his left side and SO #2 on his right side. The police officers held his arms on either side.

At 9:00:06 p.m., the Complainant fell forward, face first on the ground. SO #1 and SO #2 brought him to his feet, and he complained about his glasses.

At 9:00:30 p.m., the Complainant was sat on a stretcher. He complained that his shoulder was dislocated. SO #1 advised someone on her cellular phone that the Complainant’s shoulder was possibly dislocated. The Complainant was put in an ambulance.

At 9:05:05 p.m., SO #1 asked SO #2 to accompany the Complainant in the ambulance and she would follow in her police vehicle.

At 9:37:37 p.m., SO #1 was captured at MGH. SO #1 and SO #2 were adjusting the Complainant’s handcuffs while he was seated on a stretcher. He had blood on his nose and around his right eye. The recording ended.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the PRP between September 5, 2024, and November 21, 2024:

• Notes – the WO;
• Incident Details Report;
• Incident History Report;
• Occurrence Report;
• Person Details Report – the Complainant;
• BWC footage – SO #1, SO #2, the WO, and two other officers; and
• Communications recordings.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the evening of September 4, 2024, PRP received 911 calls from citizens reporting a male – the Complainant – behaving strangely in the area of Cliff Road North and Central Parkway East. He was variously yelling, lying on the roadway, and seemingly hallucinating.

SO #1 and SO #2 arrived on scene at about 8:45 p.m. to find the Complainant lying on the road in front of a residence located in the area of Cliff Road North and Central Parkway East. The Complainant was very agitated. He spoke of flashing lights and admitted to having consumed LSD. The officers attempted to calm the Complainant pending the arrival of paramedics. They had him sit down on the grass boulevard in front of the address.

Shortly before 9:00 p.m., the Complainant rose to his feet and ran from the police, eventually scaling a fence into the rear yard of a residence located in the area of Cliff Road North and Central Parkway East. With the homeowner’s permission, SO #1 accessed the rear yard through the home and confronted the Complainant. SO #2 arrived moments later. The officers placed the Complainant on the ground and handcuffed his hands behind the back.

Following his arrest, and while being escorted by the officers out of the rear yard towards the front of the property, the Complainant fell forward, striking his face on the ground and breaking his nose. He was picked up and placed on a waiting ambulance stretcher.

The Complainant was transported to hospital where his injury was diagnosed.

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.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by PRP officers on September 4, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. Two PRP officers were identified as subject officials – SO #1 and SO #2. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official 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.

The Complainant was of unsound mind and unable to care for himself at the time of the events in question. As such, I am satisfied he was subject to apprehension under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.

I am also satisfied that neither subject official used unlawful force in arresting the Complainant. The officers did guide the Complainant to the ground and into a prone position, and then manipulated his arms behind the back, but these maneuvers were accomplished with minimal force and made necessary by the Complainant’s resistance. With respect to the fall that broke the Complainant’s nose, the evidence indicates he either tripped and fell in what was an accident, or that he intentionally dropped himself to the ground. In either case, there is no criminal liability attributable to the officers. Indeed, the video footage suggests the officers had little if any opportunity to prevent the fall given how quickly it occurred. If anything, it might well be that the officers, each with a hold of the Complainant on either side as he fell, slowed the Complainant’s drop and lessened his impact with the pavement.

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

Date: January 3, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit