SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OCI-436
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 37-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU[1]
On October 13, 2024, at 4:13 a.m., the Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.
On October 13, 2024, at 12:33 a.m., a call was placed to the GSPS regarding a man reportedly causing damage to his apartment, located near Falconbridge Road and Margaret Street, Garson. The man [now known to be the Complainant] had also pulled the fire alarm for the building and had been involved in an incident in which he damaged the windows of his partner’s vehicle. Police officers arrived at the apartment at 12:49 a.m., and were met by the Complainant. The Complainant armed himself with a chair and approached the police officers. At 12:54 a.m., one of the officers discharged his conducted energy weapon (CEW) causing the Complainant to fall forward on his face. The Complainant was apprehended under the Mental Health Act (MHA) and transported to Health Sciences North (HSN). He was diagnosed with a fractured nasal bone.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2024/10/15 at 7:56 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/10/15 at 11:17 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
37-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on October 17, 2024.
Civilian Witness
CW Interviewed
The civilian witness was interviewed on October 17, 2024.
Subject Official
SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
Witness Official
WO Interviewed
The witness official was interviewed on October 17, 2024.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in and around an address near Falconbridge Road and Margaret Street, Garson.
Forensic Evidence
Deployment Data – The SO’s CEW
On October 13, 2024, the SO moved the safety of the weapon to the armed position at 12:52:50 a.m. Bay 1 and Bay 2 were both loaded with 12-degree cartridges, each with a unique serial number. At 12:53:13 a.m., the trigger was pulled, and the Bay 1 cartridge was deployed. Beginning at 12:53:14 a.m., electricity was discharged for 4.822 seconds.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]
Communications Recordings - 911 Call
On October 13, 2024, at about 12:33:28 a.m., the CW called 911 to report a disturbance involving the Complainant. The Complainant was acting like he did not know the CW. This behaviour was out of character for the Complainant, who was usually calm and quiet. The CW wanted the Complainant taken to the hospital. He had set off the building fire alarm and torn a railing from a wall. The Complainant had told the CW to stay away from him. The CW did not know if the Complainant had consumed drugs or alcohol. The Complainant had left the building and the CW reported his direction of travel. The CW was concerned that the Complainant would hurt someone or himself. He noted that the Complainant had mental health issues in the past. He was not in possession of a weapon.
Communication Recordings - Radio
October 13, 2024, at about 12:40 a.m., the dispatcher sent the SO and WO to attend an address near Falconbridge Road and Margaret Street for a person in crisis. The dispatcher relayed the information obtained from the 911 caller.
At about 12:43 a.m., the dispatcher provided an update that the Complainant had a record for violence and robbery.
At about 12:49 a.m., the WO and SO were reportedly on scene.
At about 12:53 a.m., there was a broadcast of a CEW deployment, and indication that one person was in custody.
At about 12:54 a.m., an ambulance was requested as the Complainant was reportedly bleeding from the face. The police officers escorted the ambulance to HSN.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
The SIU obtained the following records from the GSPS between October 16 and 21, 2024:
- Notes – the WO;
- Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
- Communications recordings;
- CEW deployment data;
- GSPS procedures; and
- Charge Summary.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from HSN on October 22, 2024.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, and a police and non-police witness, 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 early morning of October 13, 2024, the SO and the WO were dispatched to an address near Falconbridge Road and Margaret Street. A call had been received about a disturbance involving the Complainant. The Complainant, whom the caller described as having had mental health issues in the past, had reportedly damaged property and was not acting himself.
The Complainant was of unsound mind at the time. He was highly agitated and breaking things in the building.
The SO and WO spoke to the 911 caller on their arrival and made their way to the Complainant’s apartment. They observed blood drops leading to the unit and blood on the front door handle. The SO knocked on the door and the Complainant opened it partially before attempting to close it. The WO kept the door open and the officers entered the apartment.
The Complainant yelled at the officers as they questioned him asking if he was okay. His belligerence grew to the point that he swept items from a shelf onto the floor and grabbed a metal chair. The SO told the WO to step back and fired his CEW at the Complainant. The Complainant was immobilized by the discharge and fell forward, striking his face on the floor and breaking his nose in the process.
The Complainant was arrested and taken to hospital where his injury was diagnosed.
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 his arrest by GSPS officers on October 13, 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.
By the time the officers entered the apartment, they had information that the Complainant was behaving strangely, had a history of mental health issues, had damaged property and, given the blood they had seen, was possibly injured. On this record, I am satisfied there were exigent circumstances justifying the officers’ entry into the apartment to apprehend the Complainant under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.
I am further satisfied that the SO used lawful force when he fired his CEW at the Complainant. The officers had tried to talk to the Complainant to calm him and explain that they were there to help. Regrettably, in the state he was in, the Complainant could not be assuaged. Rather, he became increasingly bellicose towards the officers. The WO says that the SO fired the CEW after the Complainant took hold of a chair. On that version of events, the use of the CEW was clearly reasonable given the potential use of the chair as a weapon against the officers. There is evidence from a witness who was in the vicinity at the time which indicates that the Complainant did not have anything in his hands. Even assuming that is true, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the use of the CEW was excessive. Given the Complainant’s level of hostility, the officers could reasonably expect he would physically resist them were they to take hold of him to effect an arrest. In the circumstances, they could risk a physical altercation with the Complainant that might itself result in injury, or they could attempt to temporarily immobilize him from a distance ahead of a hands-on engagement. The latter, in my view, would appear a reasonable option.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: January 24, 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.