SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OCI-403

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 54-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On September 21, 2024, at 2:59 a.m., the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) contacted the SIU with following information.

On September 20, 2024, a radio broadcast by emergency medical personnel, employed by St. John’s Ambulance, advised of a man [the Complainant] who had kicked a vehicle in the area of the volunteer parking lot at the Acton Fall Fair. When the registered owner of the vehicle saw this, he confronted the Complainant, who was reported to have then assaulted the vehicle owner. A paid-duty police officer responded to the area and, at 11:20 p.m., arrested the Complainant. As the officer placed his hand on the Complainant’s shoulder to gain his attention, the Complainant turned around and punched the police officer in the chest. The police officer punched the Complainant in the face, which caused him to fall to the ground. Since emergency medical personnel were on standby at the Acton Fall Fair, they attended and assessed the Complainant. At 12:06 a.m., he was transported to the Georgetown Hospital and diagnosed with a brain bleed. Due to the nature of the injury, the Complainant was transferred to Mississauga Hospital and admitted. Medical staff advised the brain bleed was considered severe to life-threatening.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/09/21 at 4:15 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/09/21 at 4:26 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

54-year-old male; not interviewed (declined); medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Not interviewed (declined)

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between September 21, 2024, and October 23,

2024.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between September 24, 2024, and October 21, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired at the Acton Fall Fair on the asphalt parking lot of the Acton Agricultural Society located in Prospect Park, 30 Park Avenue, Acton. The parking lot was approximately 30 metres from the park entrance on Park Avenue.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

HRPS Communications Recordings

On September 20, 2024, at 11:13 p.m.,[3] a police officer [the SO] requested that additional police officers and an ambulance attend the fairgrounds.

At 11:16 p.m., a police officer [WO #2] advised there was a man [the Complainant] in custody. She also requested an ambulance.

At 11:19 p.m., WO #2 advised the Complainant was unconscious, bled from his nose, and had a possible head injury.

On September 21, 2024, at 12:05 a.m., WO #1 was in the ambulance with the Complainant. She reported he had been sedated.

At 4:03 a.m., Ornge air ambulance service was en route to Georgetown Hospital to transfer the Complainant to Mississauga Hospital.

Cell Phone Video from Civilian #1

On October 3, 2024, the SIU received a cell phone video from Civilian #1 in response to a SIU media release appealing for witnesses and video. The video was a recording of a cell phone screen, which displayed a Snapchat video. The video was sent to Civilian #1 from an unidentified person. The original source of the video was unknown.

The video captured three men [including the Complainant] and a woman as they walked near a building [Acton Agricultural Society]. They were followed closely by two police officers [the SO and WO #1]. The SO walked over to the Complainant and there appeared to be a brief exchange of words between them before the Complainant turned and walked away. The SO followed.

At nine seconds into the video, the SO stood in front of the Complainant with WO #1 to his right. The Complainant fell backwards and landed on his back on the pavement. The SO appeared to go to the ground at the same time as the Complainant.

At 15 seconds, the Complainant was rolled from his back to the recovery position.

At 46 seconds, the SO kneeled next to the Complainant and supported his head with his hands.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the HRPS between September 23, 2024, and September 26, 2024:

  • General Occurrence Report;
  • CAD Report;
  • Written Statement – CW #5;
  • Written Statement – CW #1;
  • Audio Statement – CW #2;
  • Communications recordings;
  • Use of Force Policy;
  • Notes – WO #2;
  • Notes – WO #1;
  • Notes – WO #3;
  • Google image of arrest location; and
  • Use of Force Training Records – the SO.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between October 3, 2024, and December 10, 2024:

  • Cell phone video from Civilian #1;
  • The Complainant’s medical records from Georgetown Hospital;
  • The Complainant’s medical records from Guelph General Hospital; and
  • The Complainant’s medical records from Mississauga Hospital.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, 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 evening of September 20, 2024, the SO (and other HRPS officers) were working a paid-duty assignment at the Acton Fall Fair when he was alerted to an altercation involving two men in the parking lot. An intoxicated Complainant had without provocation assaulted another male – CW #2 – as CW #2 was attempting to exit the parking lot in his vehicle. Together with WO #1, the SO moved to separate the men, focusing his attention on the Complainant as his partner dealt with CW #2. In doing so, the SO was either pushed or punched by the Complainant in the upper body. The officer reacted by punching the Complainant in the face. The Complainant fell, struck his head and lost consciousness.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a skull fracture and brain bleed.

Relevant Legislation

Section 34, Criminal Code - Defence of Person – Use or Threat of Force

34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:

(a) the nature of the force or threat;

(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;

(c) the person’s role in the incident;

(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;

(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;

(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and

(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

Analysis and Director’s Decision

The Complainant was seriously injured in an altercation with a HRPS officer on September 20, 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 injury.

Section 34 of the Criminal Code provides that conduct that would otherwise constitute an offence is legally justified if it was intended to deter a reasonably apprehended assault, actual or threatened, and was itself reasonable. The reasonableness of the conduct is to be assessed in light of all the relevant circumstances, including with respect to such considerations as the nature of the force or threat;the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon; and, the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force.

The SO was engaged in the performance of his lawful duties preserving the peace and ensuring public safety at the time of the events in question. Aware of a physical altercation between the Complainant and CW #2, the officer was within his rights in intervening to prevent a continuation of the hostilities.

I am further satisfied that the SO acted within the confines of the protection prescribed by section 34 when he struck the Complainant. He had just been assaulted by the Complainant and was entitled to take action to defend himself from a further attack by way of like force. While it is regrettable that the Complainant fell, struck his head and suffered serious injuries as a result of the officer’s punch, I am unable to reasonably conclude on this record that the SO comported himself other than in a fashion commensurate with the exigencies of the moment.

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

Date: January 17, 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]
  • 3) The times are derived from the Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report and, therefore, are approximations. [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.