SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OFP-378
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 discharge of a firearm by the police at a 33-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU[1]
On September 12, 2024, at 3:41 a.m., the Brantford Police Service (BPS) contacted the SIU and reported that a police officer had discharged an Anti-riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN).
According to the BPS, at 1:51 a.m., BPS officers were called for an assault in progress at a residence near Salisbury Avenue and Erie Avenue, Brantford. Police had received a report that a person was armed with a knife and had assaulted someone. Officers responded and located the Complainant inside a unit. There was a standoff during which the Complainant held the knife to his neck and threatened to harm himself. After nearly one hour of negotiations, the Subject Official (SO) of the Emergency Response Team (ERT) deployed an ARWEN and successfully disarmed the Complainant. The Complainant was taken to Brantford General Hospital (BGH) pursuant to the Mental Health Act (MHA). No serious injuries were reported from the ARWEN.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2024/09/12 at 4:26 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/09/12 at 4:44 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
33-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on September 12, 2024.
Subject Official (SO)
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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
The witness official was interviewed on September 18, 2024.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in and around a residence near Salisbury Avenue and Erie Avenue, Brantford.
Physical Evidence
Three large knives were located at the scene by SIU.
Figure 1 - Two of the knives located at the scene
SIU examined the scene and collected one ARWEN cartridge case and one ARWEN baton projectile.
SIU attended BPS and photographed the ARWEN used by the SO.
Figure 2 - The SO’s ARWEN
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage
On September 12, 2024, at 2:16:09 a.m., BPS officers were captured in the hall outside the door to the unit.
The BPS officers negotiated with the Complainant inside the unit. A male officer asked the Complainant to put his knives down.
At 2:45:48 a.m., the officers continued to talk with the Complainant, who was heard speaking to the officers.
At 2:49:07 a.m., a shot was heard, and the officers went inside the apartment and yelled, “Drop the knife. Drop it.” A BPS officer came out of the apartment and told a waiting paramedic that an ARWEN had been deployed.
At 2:50:43 a.m., the Complainant was escorted out of the apartment by an officer in tactical uniform.
BPS In-car Camera (ICC) Footage from BPS Cruisers
The internal ICC recording commenced on September 12, 2024, at 5:55 a.m., when the Complainant was placed in the rear seat for transport from BGH to BPS. The Complainant complained about not being released on a recognizance. An officer told the Complainant that he would be held for bail. At 6:05 a.m., they arrived at BPS and the Complainant was escorted from the cruiser without incident.
BPS Communications Recordings
A caller phoned 911 and reported that a person had been assaulted by the Complainant, who had pulled a knife on the victim. The caller reported that he had earlier heard yelling from that unit about stolen property. It was requested that the Complainant be removed.
At 1:57:46 a.m., WO #1 responded to the residence and reported he could hear voices inside the apartment. He knocked on the door.
At 2:03:48 a.m., officers were negotiating with the Complainant, who had two knives.
At 2:07 a.m., WO #4 advised that both non-lethal and lethal use of force options were considered. The Complainant continued to threaten suicide. Negotiations and updates continued to be reported.
At 2:49:29 a.m., WO #4 advised that an ARWEN had been deployed and the Complainant was in custody.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the BPS between September 12, 2024, and September 18, 2024:
- BPS ICC recordings;
- BWC recordings;
- BPS communications recordings;
- Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
- BPS General Occurrence Report;
- Notes – the SO and WO #5, and WO #1, WO #4, WO #3 and WO #2;
- The SO’s use of force training records; and
- BPS policies – Persons in Crisis / Arrest / Use of Force.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
On September 19, 2024, the SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from the BGH.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with the Complainant and 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. He did authorize the release of his notes.
In the early morning of September 12, 2024, BPS officers were dispatched to a residence near Salisbury Avenue and Erie Avenue, Brantford. A caller had contacted police to report a disturbance in the apartment involving a male – the Complainant – armed with a knife having reportedly assaulted another male.
WO #1 and WO #2 were the first to arrive on scene, shortly before 2:00 a.m., followed by the SO of the BPS ERT. A man exited the apartment and provided the officers the key. He confirmed that the Complainant was inside the residence and had earlier threatened someone with a knife.
The officers opened the door and observed the Complainant at the back of the apartment. He was carrying a knife in his back pocket and another around his waist in a sheath. WO #1 and WO #2 were armed with C8 rifles. The SO had an ARWEN at the ready. The Complainant was ordered to place the knives on the floor, and did so. From the doorway’s threshold, and led by WO #1, the officers communicated with the Complainant. They explained that he was under arrest for assault and ordered him on the floor. The Complainant said he would kill himself if the officers entered the apartment, and told them at one point to shoot him in the head. At about 2:30 a.m., he retrieved a couple of other knives nearby and held them to his head and abdomen as his level of agitation increased. He subsequently let go of one knife but held onto the other.
At about 2:49 a.m., the SO fired a single round from his ARWEN. The projectile struck the Complainant in the groin. Directed to drop the knife, the Complainant did so before falling onto a nearby bed. The officers entered the apartment, approached the Complainant and handcuffed him without further incident.
The Complainant was taken to hospital after his arrest and found to be without serious injury.
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
On September 12, 2024, the BPS notified the SIU that one of their officers had fired an ARWEN in the course of a standoff with a male – the Complainant – earlier that day. The SIU 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 use of the ARWEN.
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 officers were within their rights in seeking to arrest the Complainant. Given the information at their disposal from the call to police and a witness, they had grounds to believe that the Complainant had assaulted another male with a weapon and were entitled to take him into custody on that basis.
The force used by the SO to effect the Complainant’s arrest was justified. The officers comported themselves in a measured fashion from the moment of their arrival. Having attempted to negotiate the Complainant’s safe surrender over a period of about an hour, it made sense to consider other options in light of the Complainant’s growing agitation and the ever present risk that he might attempt to harm himself with the knife or turn it against the officers. Rushing into a physical confrontation with the Complainant was not a realistic option given the knife in his possession. The use of the ARWEN was a reasonable tactic in the circumstances. If it worked as designed, the impact of the ARWEN round would sufficiently distract or deter the Complainant without inflicting serious injury to allow the officers to safely approach and apprehend him. That, in essence, is what occurred.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: January 7, 2025
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.