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 23-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 29, 2024, at 7:00 p.m., the Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At a bail court appearance on October 29, 2024, the Complainant reported through his counsel that he might have sustained a hairline fracture of a wrist while in police custody. The Complainant had been arrested on October 22, 2024, at 10:54 p.m., by the Subject Official (SO). According to the arrest report, the incident involved a firearm-related investigation, in which the Complainant reportedly pointed a firearm. He was arrested without incident and taken to GSPS headquarters where he was lodged in a cell. Nothing occurred at the police station that brought attention to any injury. The Complainant attended court the following day and was remanded in custody to the Sudbury District Jail (SDJ). On October 24, 2024, the Complainant advised jail staff he had an injury to a wrist that might have been sustained when he punched something or someone while in police custody. This was learned when a sergeant at the courthouse spoke to a nurse at the jail. On October 28, 2024, the Complainant was brought to Health Sciences North (HSN) from the jail. He was examined and diagnosed with no fracture. On October 29, 2024, a medical staff member read the report and diagnosed a hairline fracture of the wrist. The Complainant was not admitted. He was discharged back to SDJ, with instructions to have him returned to hospital later to have a cast applied.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/10/30 at 6:00 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/10/30 at 1:20 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on November 7, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on November 15, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired outside in front of a residence in the area of Lorne Street and Brady Street, Sudbury.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Interior Transport Footage

The footage began on October 22, 2024, at 11:00 p.m. A man - the Complainant - was in the back seat of a police vehicle with his hands handcuffed behind the back. The Complainant started to twitch and move about, and he closed his eyes as if resting or sleeping.

Starting at about 11:08 p.m., the police vehicle arrived in the sally port of the GSPS. The Complainant sat up, but his eyes remained closed. The Complainant continued to twitch, and open and close his mouth.

Starting at about 11:10 p.m., the SO asked the Complainant if he took medication for Tourette Syndrome. The Complainant acknowledged that he did, but advised he was out of his medication.

Starting at about 11:12 p.m., the Complainant contorted his left shoulder and attempted to bring his handcuffed hands to the front of his body via his left side.

Starting at about 11:14 p.m., the rear passenger door opened, and the Complainant exited the cruiser.

Custody Footage – Booking

The footage started on October 22, 2024, starting at about 11:09 p.m. A fully marked GSPS vehicle entered the sally port. The SO exited the police vehicle and entered the booking area. Within seconds, the SO went back to the front driver’s side of the police vehicle. He subsequently went into the booking area and then returned and opened the rear passenger door at 11:14 p.m. The Complainant exited the police vehicle and entered the booking area.

Starting at about 3:19 minutes into the footage, the SO had a conversation with WO #2, who was at the booking counter.

Starting at about 6:17 minutes into the footage, the Complainant was brought into the booking area and stood on top of a yellow square, painted on the floor, in front of the booking counter. The Complainant continued to move and twitch as he stood handcuffed with his hands behind the back.

Starting at about 10 minutes into the footage, the SO performed a pat-down search of the Complainant.

Starting at about 11:30 minutes into the footage, the SO removed the handcuffs. The Complainant stood with his hands against the wall and the SO finished the pat-down search. The Complainant then stood on the square and WO #2 had a conversation with him as he wrote on paper.

Starting at about 23 minutes into the footage, the Complainant was placed in a room by himself [now known to be a telephone room].

Starting at about 24 minutes into the footage, the Complainant came out of the telephone room.

Starting at about 24:34 minutes into the footage, the Complainant was led out of the booking room and placed in a cell. The Complainant twitched and lay down.

Starting at about 30 minutes into the footage, a uniformed police officer checked on the Complainant.

The footage ended at 31:47 minutes.

Video Recorded GSPS Statement from the Complainant

The video started on October 23, 2024, starting at about 12:54 a.m., as the Complainant sat in an interview room. The Complainant twitched and spoke to himself.

Starting at about 12:58 a.m., a plainclothes detective entered the room and spoke with the Complainant. During this conversation, the Complainant moved both his hands with no apparent impediment.

Starting at about 1:05 a.m., the Complainant stood up. His hands were stretched out with his wrists and palms up. The detective handcuffed him and led him out of the interview room. The Complainant did not appear to be in a pain, and he did not make any complaint about having pain in his wrist.

Communications Recordings

On October 22, 2024, at 8:37 p.m., a woman called the GSPS and reported that a man [the Complainant] had earlier pointed a gun at her head, and had just left in a taxi.

The GSPS made numerous calls to cab companies looking for the Complainant.

At 11:01 p.m., the SO advised dispatch that he had a person in custody [the Complainant].

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the GSPS between October 31, 2024, and November 12, 2024:

• Booking footage
• Communications recordings
• ICCS footage
• Notes - WO #1
• Notes - WO #2
• Officer and Witness List
• Pending Charges Report
• Subject Profile Report
• Prisoner Log - the Complainant
• Arrest Reports
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Reports
• General Occurrence Report
• Supplementary Report
• Arrest Procedure
• Use of Force Procedure
• Witness statement – Civilian #1
• Witness statement – Civilian #2

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from HSN 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 chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

The SO arrested the Complainant without incident in the vicinity of a residence located in the area of Lorne Street and Brady Street, Sudbury, in the evening of October 22, 2024. The arrest followed a complaint to police that day that the Complainant had pointed a handgun at a female. The officer handcuffed the Complainant behind the back. The Complainant explained that he had Tourette Syndrome and might involuntarily jolt or twitch.

Following his remand in custody at the Sudbury Jail, the Complainant told staff that his left wrist hurt. He was transported to hospital on October 28, 2024, and diagnosed with a fractured left wrist the next day.

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 29, 2024, the GSPS notified the SIU that a male – the Complainant – had reportedly been seriously injured while in the custody of the service. 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 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 the Complainant was lawfully arrested by the SO based on information in the officer’s possession, including from a 911 call, that he had pointed a firearm at a female earlier in the day.

I am also satisfied that there is insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that the Complainant was subjected to excessive force. At its highest, the evidence indicates that the Complainant’s wrist injury was the product of his involuntary twitches after being handcuffed behind the back (the result of his Tourette Syndrome) and countervailing force by the SO on those occasions to maintain hold of the Complainant. There is a version of events proffered in the evidence that the officer used more force than was necessary, particularly as the Complainant had explained to the officer the nature of his sudden movements. I accept that the Complainant might well have offered that explanation. However, as the SO would not have had an opportunity to verify the Complainant’s information at the time, one can understand why the officer would have believed it necessary to respond with firm force to maintain control. The Complainant had just been arrested for having pointed a firearm at another person, and it was important that he not be allowed to break free of the officer’s hold.

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

Date: February 19, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit