SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-PCI-427

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 injury of a 51-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 6, 2024, at 12:50 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Essex/Tecumseh Detachment contacted the SIU with the following information.

On October 5, 2024, at 7:08 p.m., OPP officers attended an address in the area of Lesperance Road and E.C. Row Expressway in Tecumseh for a noise complaint. The Subject Official (SO) arrived, followed by Witness Official (WO) #1. The SO issued parking tickets. A group of people from the residence, including the Complainant, confronted the OPP officers, specifically the SO, and yelled obscenities. The SO began to return to his OPP vehicle when the Complainant yelled a threat. The SO turned back and apprehended the Complainant. He resisted and was taken to the ground, where the SO and WO #1 placed him in handcuffs behind his back. The Complainant was transported to the OPP Tecumseh Detachment where he was processed in front of WO #2. The Complainant complained of an injury to his left elbow and emergency medical services (EMS) were called but had a one-hour wait time. OPP officers offered to take the Complainant to the hospital, which he refused. He was charged with resisting arrest and assaulting a peace officer, and released on a promise to appear. On October 6, 2024, at 12:15 p.m., the Complainant contacted the OPP and informed them that he was at the Windsor Regional Hospital – Metropolitan Campus (WRHMC), where he had been diagnosed with a fractured right elbow sustained in his arrest on October 5, 2024.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/10/07 at 8:07 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/10/07 at 11:00 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

51-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on October 23, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between October 8, 2024, and October 23, 2024.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on November 14, 2024.

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on October 15, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired out front on the grounds of a property situated in the area of Lesperance Road and E.C. Row Expressway, Tecumseh.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – The SO

On October 5, 2024, at 7:31 p.m., the Complainant sat in the SO’s police vehicle in the rear prisoner compartment. The Complainant told the SO that he punched him in the back of the head, threw him to the ground, and then jumped on him without saying stop or anything to him. The Complainant said he just wanted to go home, and denied resisting arrest.

The SO advised the Complainant he was arrested for assaulting a peace officer, which the Complainant denied. The Complainant explained that he walked away but the SO wanted to escalate the problem. The Complainant said the SO twisted his arm, and later said he jerked his elbow. At one point in the seven-minute ride to the OPP detachment, the Complainant told the SO the words he used were, “Geez man, you’re lucky, people like you usually get punched in the mouth.” The Complainant continuously questioned the SO about his actions, and the charges, to which the SO did not respond. The Complainant said he thought police would have thicker skin and use de-escalation techniques.

At 7:38 p.m., the Complainant requested medical treatment for his elbow.

Communications Recordings and Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report

At 7:07 p.m., on October 5, 2024, a caller who wished to remain anonymous contacted the OPP and stated that there was a party going on at an address in Tecumseh. People were drunk and pick-up trucks were parked facing the wrong way, blocking the street.

At 7:09 p.m., WO #1 and the SO were sent to the address provided by the caller.

At 7:31 p.m., the SO advised that he had an arrest. WO #2 asked (over the police radio) what the arrest was for, and the SO replied it was for uttering threats and resisting arrest.

At 7:33 p.m., CW #3 called the OPP as CW #1 was causing a disturbance at his front door. CW #1 accused CW #3 of calling the OPP and called him every name in the book. He went outside to see what was going on as police officers were present. CW #3 spoke with CW #1’s husband [now known to be CW #2] about her knocking on the door, and asked him to control his wife. CW #2 threatened to punch CW #3. CW #3 wanted CW #2 charged.

The SO broadcast that he and WO #1 were both unavailable. Officer #1 advised he would attend.

At 7:45 p.m., the SO requested EMS as the Complainant complained of elbow pain. The SO was told that EMS was busy, and it would be about one hour before their arrival.

At 7:47 p.m., the dispatcher updated the communications sergeant.

Officer #1 updated dispatch that he had spoken to CW #3; his complaint was not a threat, and he would talk to the two persons that attended his residence.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between October 10, 2024, and November 14, 2024:

  • General Occurrence Report;
  • Orders: Arrest / Detention & Use of Force;
  • Notes - WO #1;
  • Notes - WO #2;
  • Notes - the SO;
  • ICC footage - the SO;
  • Communications recordings; and
  • CAD Report.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between October 8, 2024, and October 28, 2024:

  • The Complainant’s medical records from WRHMC; and
  • Video recording from CW #3.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, the SO, and other police and civilian witnesses, as well as video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the late afternoon of October 5, 2024, the SO and WO #1 were dispatched to a noise complaint for a loud party at a residence in the area of Lesperance Road and E.C. Row Expressway in Tecumseh. People were reportedly drinking, and vehicles were blocking lanes and parked on the roadway. Upon arrival, the SO and WO #1 did not notice anything untoward; no loud music, just a lot of vehicles. The SO saw two vehicles parked on the road in front of the residence, which he knew was a bylaw infraction as parking on the roadway was prohibited. He began to issue the two parking tickets.

CW #1 approached the officers and asked what they were doing. She argued against the tickets because there was nowhere else to park, and there were no signs that indicated no parking. The Complainant and CW #2 came out front and confronted the officers, followed by about 10 to 15 people. The Complainant and the SO exchanged words about the parking tickets. This exchange carried on for a while and escalated. The Complainant stepped towards the SO and got up close, and the SO instructed him to stand back. The Complainant clenched his fists and waved his arms. From his training, the SO recognized these actions as “pre attack cues”. The Complainant would not relent on the parking tickets, and the SO finally said that the answer had been provided, and he completed issuing the tickets. As the SO walked away, the Complainant said something about assaulting the officer. The SO tackled the Complainant to the ground from behind and told him he was under arrest for assaulting a peace officer.

The Complainant went to the ground and his arms ended up under his body. The SO positioned himself on the right side of the Complainant and pried his right arm out from underneath his body and brought it behind his back. With WO #1’s assistance, the Complainant was handcuffed, raised to his feet, and transported to the OPP Tecumseh Detachment where he was processed.

The following day the Complainant attended hospital and was diagnosed with a displaced right proximal ulna fracture.

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

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by OPP officers on October 5, 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.

I am satisfied that based on the Complainant’s behaviour towards the SO there were grounds to arrest him for what reasonably could have been interpreted as a threat to assault the officer.

I am also satisfied that the evidence falls short of any reasonable suggestion the force used by the SO was excessive. The SO and WO #1 were in a potentially volatile situation; they were outnumbered and surrounded by an agitated crowd yelling profanities. The Complainant was aggressive, used confrontational gestures, and had seemingly become verbally threatening. The SO believed that the Complainant had the means to execute his threat and needed to get him under control quickly before the situation escalated any further. As the Complainant was belligerent and threatening, it was important to control his movements in order to safely effect his arrest. Forcing him to the ground via a tackle made sense in these circumstances; once on the ground, the officers could better manage any anticipated resistance on his part. When on the ground, there is evidence that the Complainant did not immediately surrender his arms to be handcuffed; and officers were forced to resort to a measure of force to achieve compliance, resulting in his arms having to be wrested from underneath him and twisted behind his back to effect the arrest. That force would not appear to have been disproportionate to the exigencies of the situation.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was incurred in the physical altercation that marked his arrest, and that is regrettable, there are no grounds to believe that the subject official comported himself other than within the limits of the criminal law. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: February 3, 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.