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 injuries of a 58-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 11, 2024, at 1:22 a.m., the Brantford Police Service (BPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On October 10, 2022, a man obtained a Form 2 under the Mental Health Act (MHA) from a physician to have his wife, the Complainant, apprehended. At 4:03 p.m., BPS officers attended the Complainant’s residence to take her into custody. At the residence, the Complainant would not co-operate and refused to open the door. Officers used a tool to open the door and were confronted by a screwdriver in the Complainant’s hands. The officers backed away and formed their own grounds to apprehend the Complainant. The Emergency Response Team (ERT) was notified and responded. ERT officers entered the residence via the patio door. They saw the Complainant at a kitchen drawer and feared she was getting a knife. The Complainant fled up a flight of stairs. The officers pulled her back and she was apprehended at 5:57 p.m. The Complainant was transported to Brantford General Hospital (BGH) as a result of the MHA apprehension. There, she complained of a sore knee, wrist and back. X-rays were taken and she was diagnosed with a broken left knee and broken left wrist.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/10/11 at 2:00 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/10/11 at 4:45 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

58-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on October 11, 2024.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on October 18, 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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

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

The witness officials were interviewed on October 29, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a residence in the area of Terrace Hill Street and St. Paul Avenue, Brantford.

Physical Evidence

The SIU forensic investigator took photos to document the interior of the residence.

Upon SIU arrival at the scene, the side slider of the patio door (opening section) was boarded up. Shattered glass was on the ground inside and outside the closed door.

The SIU forensic investigator took photos to document the interior.

On the floor near the doorway into the kitchen was a plastic container with zip ties, fasteners and tools. Among the tools were two screwdrivers.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Communications Recordings

On October 10, 2024, at 3:07 p.m., the CW informed BPS that the Complainant had barricaded herself in her residence. She suffered from paranoid delusions and was afraid of police. She had no weapons and was alone.

Starting at about 4:00 p.m., BPS ERT responded to the barricaded residence. A Halligan bar was used to attempt to open the front door. The Complainant reportedly used a knife at the officer [later identified as a screwdriver]. She was apprehended under the Mental Health Act as BPS had grounds to believe that the Complainant “lunged at officers with a screwdriver when they knocked on her front door”.

Starting at about 4:03 p.m., BPS had verbal confirmation that the Complainant was inside her residence and refused to approach the door.

Starting at about 4:05 p.m., a Deliberate Action Plan (DAP) was implemented to apprehend the Complainant. The residence door would be unlocked or forced open if the door was barricaded.

An Immediate Action Plan was subsequently developed whereby entry would be made into the residence if the Complainant attempted to injure herself. A capture shield and less-lethal options were available.

Starting at about 4:09 p.m., the DAP was initiated.

Starting at about 4:11 p.m., the Complainant was reported to have a knife.

The Complainant was reportedly in possession of a knife and had attempted to stab BPS officers through a gap in the door. The primary entrance was barricaded but the patio door would allow access.

Starting at about 4:30 p.m., the Complainant wanted to speak with a judge and refused to exit the residence.

Starting at about 5:05 p.m., it was noted that communication with the Complainant through a closed door was limited. She said, “I would rather die than go back to the hospital.”

Starting at about 5:53 p.m., grounds were established to arrest the Complainant under the Mental Health Act. A new DAP was implemented to breach the patio door and attempt a peaceful surrender.

Starting at about 5:55 p.m., the patio door was breached, and the Complainant attempted to grab an object from a kitchen drawer. The Complainant mounted two to three stairs to escape. The SO grabbed her from behind and she fell.

Starting at about 5:57 p.m., the Complainant was said to be in custody. The Complainant was taken to BGH where she complained about pain in her knee, wrist and back. X-rays revealed a broken left knee and broken left wrist.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the BPS between October 18, 2024, and October 31, 2024:

• In-car camera recordings;
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
• Communications recordings;
• General Report;
• Notes - the SO;
• Notes - WO #1;
• Notes - WO #2;
• Notes - WO #3;
• Notes - WO #4;
• Policy - Emergency Response / Perimeter Control & Containment / Tactical Units / Hostage Rescue;
• Policy - Major Incident Command; and
• Policy – Police Response to Emotionally Disturbed Persons.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from BGH on November 7, 2024.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree a SIU interview. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of October 10, 2024, BPS officers arrived at the front door of a residence in the area of Terrace Hill Street and St. Paul Avenue, Brantford. Officers had been at the address earlier that day to check on the Complainant’s well-being following concerns reported to them by her family about her mental health. On this occasion, however, an apprehension order had been issued under the Mental Health Act and the officers were prepared to force their way into the residence in order to transport the Complainant to hospital.

The Complainant was of unsound mind at the time. Paranoiac and delusional, she had locked her husband out of their residence and barricaded the entrances. She refused to come out at the officers’ requests and declared that she would rather die than be taken to hospital. At one point, as officers tried to force the front door open with a pry bar, the Complainant used a screwdriver to try to push the bar out through the door’s opening. Concerned that the Complainant had used a weapon, the officers took a step back to reconsider their tactics.

Negotiations continued for a period. The Complainant was very agitated and could not be persuaded to cooperate. Concerned with the Complainant’s condition inside the residence, the police decided it was time to force entry. The time was about 5:55 p.m., upwards of two hours from the time police started arriving on scene.

A team of tactical officers gathered on the ground-floor balcony of the residence, among them the SO. WO #3 broke the glass of the balcony door, and the officers entered the residence. The Complainant ran to the kitchen and rummaged through a drawer before fleeing to a flight of stairs leading to the second floor. She had climbed about three steps when her shirt was grabbed from behind by the SO. The Complainant attempted to press forward as the SO held her back. That dynamic resulted in the Complainant rotating in the officer’s direction and tumbling towards him, after which she was handcuffed without further incident.

The Complainant was taken from the scene in ambulance to hospital, and diagnosed with fractures to her left knee and wrist. She was also admitted for psychiatric assessment.

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.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of her apprehension by BPS officers on October 10, 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 apprehension 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.

By the time of their entry into the residence, the officers would have understood the concerns raised by the Complainant’s family regarding her mental health and ability to care for herself. They would have also acquired firsthand knowledge of those concerns from their dealings with the Complainant at the front door. On this record, I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights in seeking to apprehend the Complainant under section 17 of the Mental Health Act so she could be taken to hospital and assessed.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO in taking the Complainant into custody was legally justified. Having given negotiations a fair chance to work, and with a growing concern that the Complainant might do something rash inside the residence, the officers acted reasonably in deciding to force entry into the residence. Once inside, it was imperative that the Complainant be apprehended as soon as possible lest she have an opportunity to harm herself. That concern was a real one as she had earlier been seen with a screwdriver and had opened a kitchen drawer as she fled from officers upon their entry. In the circumstances, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO acted precipitously when he grabbed hold of the Complainant’s shirt from behind to prevent her further progress up the stairs. Thereafter, it would seem the Complainant’s tumble was more the product of a pulling match than any excessive force having been brought to bear by the SO.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant was injured when she fell down several stairs, there are no reasonable grounds to believe her injuries are attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the SO. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: February 6, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit