Director's Report Details

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.

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.

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 52-year-old[1] man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[2]

On October 8, 2024, at 9:32 a.m., the Brantford Police Service (BPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the BPS, on November 8, 2022, BPS drug unit officers executed a Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) warrant at an address in the area of Linden Avenue and Colborne Street East, Brantford. While arresting the Complainant, a BPS officer deployed a conducted energy weapon (CEW), striking the Complainant near his left eye. He was taken to the hospital by ambulance where the probe was removed. The attending doctor advised that it was not likely the Complainant would be admitted, nor would he sustain any long-term injury. SIU was not notified. On October 2, 2024, BPS received notice of a civil lawsuit alleging the Complainant sustained serious and permanent injuries on November 8, 2022, including blindness and seizures. When BPS learned of the threshold injury, they notified SIU.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/10/08 at 12:38 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/10/08 at 12:55 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on November 15, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Not interviewed (declined)

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on January 10, 2025.

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

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on November 26, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question occurred in and around a residence in the area of Linden Avenue and Colborne Street East, Brantford.

Physical Evidence

N/A

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – The SO’s CEW

Starting at 7:58:49 p.m., November 8, 2022, the device was armed.

Starting at 7:58:49 p.m., the trigger was pulled and cartridge one deployed for a five

second duration [now known to strike the Complainant].

Starting at 7:58:56 p.m., the device was rendered safe.

Starting at 7:59:14 p.m., the device was armed.

Starting at 7:59:15 p.m., the trigger was pulled and cartridge two deployed for a two

second duration [now known to strike CW #3].

Starting at 7:59:17 p.m., the device was rendered safe.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

BPS Communication Recordings

On November 8, 2022, WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4 and the SO advised BPS communications that they were on the radio channel.

Starting at 7:56:51 p.m., the entry team was making their approach.

Starting at 7:58:40 p.m., they were holding on the residence.

Starting at 7:58:45 p.m., the residence was clear and secure.

Starting at 7:59:16 p.m., a CEW was said to have been deployed.

Starting at 7:59:19 p.m., an ambulance was requested.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the BPS between October 8, 2024, and December 12, 2024:

• Names and roles of involved police officers;
• General Occurrence / Arrest Reports;
• Crown Brief Synopsis;
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
• Communications recordings;
• Scenes of Crime Officer photographs;
• CDSA search warrant;
• Deployment data - the SO’s CEW;
• Notes - the SO, WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4; and
• Policies: Use of Force - Conducted Energy Weapon / Use of Force / Arrest, Security, Prisoner Care and Control / Search of Premises and Persons

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between December 13, 2024, and January 16, 2025:

• The Complainant’s medical records from Brantford General Hospital; and
• The Complainant’s medical records from a medical centre.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, and police and non-police witnesses, 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 evening of November 8, 2022, operating on the authority of a drug warrant under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, BPS Emergency Response Team (ERT) officers convened outside a residence situated in the area of Linden Avenue and Colborne Street East, Brantford. The target of the search warrant was CW #3. In the residence at the time with CW #3 were the Complainant, CW #1 and CW #2.

The officers forced open the door and were immediately met by the Complainant, who ran to the door and attempted to force it closed again. Through a partial opening in the door, the SO, a member of the ERT, reached over some officers and discharged his CEW in the direction of the Complainant, one of the weapon’s probes striking him in the face.

With the Complainant momentarily incapacitated, the ERT officers entered the room. The Complainant was kneed twice and punched once by WO #1 and WO #2, respectively, before he was handcuffed and taken into custody.

The Complainant was taken to hospital after his arrest. The CEW probe that had lodged under his left eye was removed. He was not diagnosed with any serious injury.

The following month, the Complainant was diagnosed with hyphema, which subsequently resolved.

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.

On October 8, 2024, the BPS notified the SIU that they had recently come into information in which it was alleged that a male - the Complainant - was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by BPS officers on November 8, 2022. 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 Complainant’s arrest.

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 ERT had lawful authority, based on the warrant that had been issued, to enter the residence to conduct a search of the premises. Accordingly, when the Complainant attempted to prevent them from entering, he rendered himself subject to arrest for obstructing justice.

With respect to the force used by the officers in effecting the Complainant’s arrest, I am satisfied it was legally justified. The evidence indicates that the Complainant pushed against the inside of the door to prevent the officers entering the room. There is also evidence that the Complainant attempted to push the officers away from the door’s threshold as he tried to close it shut. On this record, and in light of the need to move quickly to enter the room given the inherent risks associated with drug searches, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the use of the CEW was something other than a reasonable escalation in the officers’ use of force. If it worked, the Complainant would be sufficiently subdued so that the officers could open the door. That, in effect, is what happened. While it is regrettable that one of the weapon’s probes struck the Complainant in the face, there is reason to believe the SO’s explanation that that was the unfortunate result of his aim being disrupted by the skirmish happening at the doorway. As for the strikes administered by WO #1 and WO #2, though not the focus of the SIU investigation, it would not appear that they were excessive given there is also evidence that the Complainant physically resisted the officers’ efforts to arrest him once inside the room.

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

Date: January 31, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit