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 39-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 19, 2024, at 5:24 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the OPP, on October 19, 2024, at about 10:30 a.m., OPP [Dufferin Detachment] officers were investigating an assault in progress at 100 Rolling Hills Drive, Orangeville, when they became involved in a foot pursuit of the Complainant. The pursuit concluded at 50 Fourth Avenue, Orangeville, after a conducted energy weapon (CEW) was deployed. The Complainant locked-up and fell to the ground, landing on his side and head. He was transported to the Headwaters Health Care Centre (HHCC), and diagnosed with a fractured clavicle and brain bleed. The Complainant was later transported to the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC) to await surgery on his clavicle.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/10/21 at 10:40 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/10/21 at 11:20 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on October 22, 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

The witness officials were interviewed between October 29, 2024, and December 13, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the parking lot of the plaza located at 50 Fourth Avenue, Orangeville.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data - The SO

On October 19, 2024, at 12:52:45 p.m.,[2] the CEW was armed and, at 12:52:49 p.m., the trigger was pulled. Electricity was discharged for seven seconds. At 12:53:21 p.m., 12:53:23 p.m., 12:53:27 p.m. and 12:53:27 p.m., the CEW reported an arc [drive stun] for one second, two seconds, one second and one second, respectively. At 12:53:28 p.m., the trigger was pulled, and electricity was discharged for three seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

OPP Phone and Radio Communications

On October 19, 2024, at 10:22 a.m., a man from the HHCC called 911 and reported that a man [the Complainant] had phoned the hospital about seven times demanding that a person he identified with a first name be released. He threated to shoot and kill staff at the hospital. Officers responded to the hospital.

At 12:10 p.m., a woman called 911 to report that the Complainant had demanded keys to an unknown Jeep and said there were explosives inside. He threatened to burn the residence down.

At 12:16 p.m., a convenience store employee called 911 to report that the Complainant had stolen beer and punched him in the face.

At 12:17 p.m., a man called 911 and reported being punched in the face by the Complainant in a parking lot. The Complainant had also threatened to kill him.

At 12:31 p.m., the SO located the Complainant behind a Goodlife Fitness studio and requested additional officers. Shortly after, an officer reported a CEW being deployed and requested Emergency Medical Services.

At 12:34 p.m., the Complainant was reported in custody.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between October 23, 2024, and November 21, 2024:

• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• General Occurrence Report
• CEW deployment data - the SO
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2 and the SO
• OPP Use of Force training records – the SO
• OPP policies: Arrest and Detention and Use of Force

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

On October 27, 2024, the SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from HHCC and SHSC.

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 an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the early afternoon, OPP officers – the SO and WO #2, and WO #1 – located the Complainant behind the GoodLife Fitness at 50 Fourth Avenue, Orangeville. They had been looking for him after calls to police reporting that he had threatened staff at a hospital and residence, and assaulted two persons in and around a convenience store.

The Complainant was of unsound mind at the time and under the influence of illicit substances. On seeing the officers, he ran southward towards a skateboarding park. He had not travelled very far when he was tasered by one of the officers, locked-up, and fell, striking his head and right shoulder on the pavement.

The SO had fired the CEW. He and the other officers had chased after the Complainant, and came upon him on the ground following his fall. After a struggle, in which the SO discharged his CEW several more times, the Complainant was handcuffed and taken into custody.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with fractures of the right jawbone and clavicle, an epidural hematoma, and a left temporal lobe hemorrhagic contusion.

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.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by OPP officers on October 19, 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 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.

Given what they knew of the 911 calls to police reporting threatening and violent behaviour on the part of the Complainant, the SO was within his rights in seeking to effect his arrest.

With respect to the force brought to bear by the SO in the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was excessive. The nature of the behaviour described by the 911 callers meant there was a pressing public interest in taking the Complainant into custody as soon as possible. The SO, as he described in his notes, was also rightly concerned that the Complainant not reach the skateboarding park, where users of the park would be put at risk by his behaviour. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO acted precipitously when, having cautioned the Complainant to stop, he proceeded to use the CEW to bring his flight to an end. The additional CEW discharges were perhaps at the upper end of the range of what was reasonable in that there were three officers who might have been able to wrestle control of the Complainant in time. However, I am unable to assess that the force used on this occasion by the SO was over the top given the evidence that the Complainant physically resisted arrest and the latitude the common law confers on officers when gauging their responsive force; what is required is a reasonable response, not an exacting one: R v Nasogaluak,[2010] 1 SCR 206; R v Baxter(1975), 27 CCC (2d) 96 (Ont. CA).

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

Date: February 12, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit