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 50-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 25, 2024, at 10:17 p.m., the Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At approximately 3:00 p.m., police officers responded to a shopping plaza in St. Catharines for a man [subsequently identified as the Complainant] causing a disturbance. When the police officers arrived, witnesses directed them to an apartment building in the area of Lakeshore Road and Lake Street. The police officers observed the man on his balcony. The man told the police officers to come up and get him. Officers attended the Complainant’s floor, and the man invited them into his apartment. After a brief conversation, the police officers suggested the man should be apprehended under the Mental Health Act. Hearing that, the man bolted towards the open balcony door. The police officers were able to apprehend him before he could make it to the balcony and, possibly, jump. The man was transported to hospital by ambulance and diagnosed with a fracture of the C4 vertebra.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/10/25 at 11:30 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/10/29 at 4:54 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on October 30, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on November 18, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired inside, and on the balcony of, an apartment in the area of Lakeshore Road and Lake Street, St. Catharines.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Police Communications Recordings & Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report – 911

At 2:53 p.m., October 25, 2024, a 911 call was received by police from a man who said he was inside Bugsy’s restaurant in a plaza at 33 Lakeshore Road. The caller said a man [now known to be the Complainant] was in the parking lot “losing his mind”. According to the caller, “They’re about to start fighting… He’s freaking out, jumping in front of this guy’s car who’s trying to reverse.” The caller provided more details of the disturbance, including that the Complainant was “using his cane as a weapon, swinging it around like a maniac”. Raised voices were heard in the background of the phone call. The caller provided a description of the Complainant and his clothing. He then said the Complainant was laying in the middle of the parking lot and, subsequently, that he was taking his shirt off.

The call-taker said the police were on the way.

At 2:55 p.m., a second man [Caller #2] called 911 from the parking lot of the plaza. The Complainant was heard yelling obscenities in the background. Caller #2 said the Complainant had “kicked the crap out of my car”. Caller #2 said the Complainant had damaged his car with a cane and the side view mirror was hanging off. Caller #2 spoke to someone else in the background, who identified the Complainant by name.

At 2:56 p.m., Caller #3, who said she was at a business in the plaza, indicated the Complainant was harassing everyone, including her. She said the Complainant was “shaking a cane at everyone” and “losing his mind”. She then said the Complainant was “taking his shirt off now and coming at people”.

At 3:28 p.m., a woman called from an apartment building. She said that the Complainant was on his balcony, yelling at everyone, including derogatory comments directed at random people. She said the Complainant was “obviously in distress”. She said the Complainant sounded like he was “under the influence of something”. She knew him to be very aggressive. She gave the 911 communicator an entry code for the building.

Police Communications Recordings & CAD Report – Radio Transmissions

At 3:01 p.m., October 25, 2024, the SO and the WO were cleared from another police radio call and dispatched to the plaza. Details of the information provided by the 911 callers were provided to the police officers. The Complainant was identified by name.

At 3:25 p.m., the dispatcher checked with the officers to see if they were okay. They said the Complainant had left.

At 3:29 p.m., the dispatcher said the Complainant was on a balcony and provided the address of the building. She asked if the police officers wanted another police officer to attend with them. It sounded like either the SO or the WO said they would “advise”.

At what would appear to be about 3:37 p.m., the dispatcher called the SO and the WO in an apparent response to a brief open microphone.

A police radio microphone (presumably from either the SO or the WO) then opened for a couple of seconds. There was the sound of a commotion, and a male voice said something that was not discernable.

At 3:38 p.m., the dispatcher typed into the CAD “WE HAVE A 92”. In an apparent reaction to the nature of the radio transmission from the SO or the WO, additional police officers were dispatched to respond to the Complainant’s apartment.

An out of breath sounding male voice (either the SO or the WO) said something about injuries and “92” [now known to be a code for a person in custody]. He said they were on the balcony. The Complainant was heard yelling in the background.

Many of the next transmissions related to the response of the additional police officers were short in duration.

A sergeant asked for an ambulance and suggested the Complainant required sedation.

At 3:44 p.m., as per the CAD, a male voice said the Complainant was handcuffed and the situation was under control. He said the Complainant had a severe cut to his right arm.

At 3:46 p.m., as per the CAD, the sergeant clarified the bleeding was from the Complainant’s head, not his arm. A male voice said they were going to bring the Complainant inside the apartment from the balcony because he was kicking at the railing.

At about 5:00 p.m., as per the CAD, the final police radio transmissions on the recording were related to the transportation of the Complainant to the hospital.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from NRPS between October 15, 2024, and November 18, 2024:

• Notes – the WO;
• CAD Report;
• Occurrence Report submitted by the WO;
• List of involved police officers;
• List of civilian witnesses; and
• Communications recordings.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The Complainant’s medical records were obtained from Niagara Health on December 6, 2024.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and a police eyewitness, 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 afternoon of October 25, 2024, police were dispatched to the shopping plaza at the northwest corner of Lakeshore Road and Lake Street, St. Catharines, following 911 calls from persons in the area of a male - the Complainant - causing a disturbance. The Complainant was acting strangely, swinging his cane and damaging the vehicle of a patron.

The SO and the WO arrived on scene to find the Complainant had left the area. They spoke to some of the 911 callers, who conveyed their belief that the Complainant was either under the influence of drugs or in mental health crisis. Shortly, they were advised of another 911 call indicating that the Complainant was on his apartment balcony, yelling at people.

The officers made their way to the building, took the elevator to the Complainant’s floor and found him in the hallway outside his apartment. The Complainant walked into his residence and invited the officers inside. They explained they were there to help and mentioned a visit to the hospital. The Complainant’s belligerence grew to the point he threw his dentures and a ladle at the officers. At the mention of hospital, he made his way quickly towards the nearby partially open sliding door to the balcony. Concerned that the Complainant intended to do himself harm, the SO caught up to the Complainant and tackled him from behind. The two fell through the door’s threshold onto the balcony, the Complainant suffering a fractured vertebra in the process. The Complainant tried to fight off the SO and the WO, who was now also on the balcony. The WO punched the Complainant twice in the face, after which the officers handcuffed him behind the back.

The Complainant was taken to hospital, diagnosed with his injury, and admitted for psychiatric examination.

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 his arrest by NRPS officers on October 25, 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 of the tackle, the SO had spoken to witnesses of the Complainant’s strange and violent conduct, and had himself been witness to the Complainant’s erratic behaviour inside the apartment. On this record, the officer had cause to believe that the Complainant’s wellbeing and that of others around him were at risk because of mental health crisis, rendering him subject to apprehension under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.

The tackle, in my view, constituted lawful force in aid of the Complainant’s apprehension. The Complainant was making his way quickly to his balcony, giving the officer reason to be concerned he might do himself harm by jumping. An immediate interdiction was necessary to prevent the Complainant reaching the balcony railing. A tackle seems a reasonable tactic given the exigencies of the moment as it would thwart the Complainant’s further progress and position the officers to better manage his safe apprehension.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.[3] The file is closed.

Date: February 18, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit