SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OCI-407
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 serious injury of a 43-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU[1]
On September 24, 2024, at 10:14 p.m., the London Police Service (LPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.
According to the LPS, on September 24, 2024, at 4:49 p.m., LPS officers responded to a mental health call to assist paramedics at an apartment in the area of Colborne Street and King Street, London. The Complainant, located on the couch of her apartment holding a knife, was suspected of having consumed a large quantity of pills. LPS officers deployed a conducted energy weapon (CEW) and took control of her using a shield. The knife was successfully removed but the Complainant was cut in the process. She was taken to London Health Sciences Centre Victoria Hospital (LHSCVH) and admitted under the Mental Health Act. The Complainant was diagnosed with cut tendons to her fingers, which required surgery.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2024/09/25 at 6:36 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/09/25 at 11:18 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
43-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on September 25, 2024.
Civilian Witness (CW)
CW Interviewed
The civilian witness was interviewed on September 25, 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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on October 3, 2024.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in the living room of an apartment in the area of Colborne Street and King Street, London.
Physical Evidence
On September 25, 2024, at 6:55 p.m., SIU forensic investigators attended the Complainant’s apartment in London. Photographs of the scene and suicide notes were taken. The forensic investigators subsequently attended LHSCVH to photograph the Complainant’s injury.
Forensic Evidence
CEW Deployment Data
The trigger was pulled at 4:48:57 p.m., September 24, 2024, the cartridge in Bay 1 was deployed, and electricity was discharged from the weapon for 15.221 seconds.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]
LPS Communications Recordings & Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report
On September 24, 2024, at 3:55 p.m., Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was dispatched to an apartment in the area of Colborne Street and King Street for a woman [the Complainant] with a history of mental health issues. LPS were sent to assist EMS but, at 4:18 p.m., were cancelled.
At 4:19 p.m., EMS contacted LPS to advise police were required as the Complainant had produced a knife from under a pillow and threatened self-harm. Several LPS officers were dispatched, as well as a negotiator [WO #1].
At 4:24 p.m., WO #2 advised that contact had been made with the Complainant and she was still holding a knife.
At 4:27 p.m., WO #3 reported that officers were attempting to negotiate with the Complainant, but she was not receptive.
At 4:36 p.m., WO #3 reported that there had been no major change, but the Complainant had become lethargic due to consumption of pills prior to police arrival. The Complainant had positioned the knife by her throat. A staff sergeant, Officer #1, directed that negotiations continue. Negotiations continued.
At 4:44 p.m., WO #3 broadcast a plan whereby a CEW and shield would be used simultaneously if the Complainant did not have the knife near her body. Officer #1 approved the plan and explained the mission statement was to apprehend the Complainant in the safest manner possible.
Updates were supplied that negotiations continued with the Complainant, who refused to give up the knife.
At 4:49 p.m., WO #3 advised that the CEW had been deployed with a 15-second cycle. WO #3 further stated the Complainant had a laceration to her finger from hanging onto the knife.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the LPS between September 27, 2024, and October 9, 2024:
- Communications recordings;
- General Occurrence Report;
- CAD Report;
- Notes – WO #1;
- Notes – WO #2;
- Notes – the SO;
- Notes – WO #3;
- Policy – Use of Force; and
- Policy – Mental Health Crisis Response.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from LHSCVH on November 6, 2024.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses to the events in question, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.
In the afternoon of September 24, 2024, police were dispatched to an apartment in the area of Colborne Street and King Street, London, to assist paramedics. EMS, having been called to the address with respect to a woman – the Complainant – in mental health distress, had contacted police when it was learned the Complainant was in possession of a knife and threatening self-harm.
The Complainant was not of sound mind and had taken an overdose of medication prior to police arrival.
Police officers began arriving on scene at about 4:25 p.m. They found the Complainant lying on the living room sofa on her right side and holding a knife. Led by WO #1, the officers spoke with the Complainant to have her let go of the knife. The Complainant was drowsy and mostly non-responsive. She continued to hold the knife, its blade sometimes pressed against her chest, sometimes against her left arm. It was decided that a CEW would be used in tandem with a shield if and when the Complainant held the knife away from her body.
An opportunity presented itself at about 4:50 p.m. when the Complainant sat up on the sofa with the knife in her right hand and held at a distance. WO #1 fired his CEW at the Complainant. Shortly after, the SO, holding a shield, moved towards the Complainant and pressed it onto her torso. Her arms pinned under the shield, the SO attempted to remove the knife from the Complainant’s grip. After a short struggle, he managed to pry the knife from the Complainant’s possession, her left hand suffering serious lacerations in the process.
The Complainant was taken into custody without further incident and transported to hospital where she was admitted under the Mental Health Act.
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.
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.
Analysis and Director’s Decision
The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of her arrest on September 24, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The SO was identified as 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 injuries.
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.
I am satisfied the officers, including the SO, were within their rights in moving to apprehend the Complainant under section 17 of the Mental Health Act. The evidence establishes that the Complainant was of unsound mind and at risk of self-harm.
I am also satisfied that the force used by the officers in taking the Complainant into custody was lawful. The officers’ efforts at negotiation were not going anywhere and there was the ever present risk that the Complainant might use the knife in her possession to harm herself at any moment. In the circumstances, it made sense to attempt to temporarily incapacitate her from a distance with the CEW; a hands-on engagement would have risked harm coming to the Complainant and the police officers. The CEW had its intended effect, allowing the officers the time to move in safely. The use of the shield by the SO was part of the plan that had been agreed and was reasonable given the knife was still in the Complainant’s possession. Lastly, I am unable to fault the SO for doing what one would expect him to do in the situation in which he found himself, namely, wrestle free the knife from the Complainant’s grip notwithstanding the fact that serious cuts to her left hand were incurred in the process.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: January 22, 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.