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 serious injuries sustained by a 52-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On November 1, 2024, at 7:15 a.m., the Niagara Regional Police Services (NRPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the NRPS, on October 31, 2024, at 11:10 p.m., NRPS received a call from a person reporting that the Complainant was texting them, while alone at a rural address in the area of Jordan, that he had ingested “magic mushrooms” [psilocybin]. He was threatening to commit suicide by cutting his throat. Police and ambulance were dispatched, and a perimeter was set up because the Complainant said he would stab himself in the neck and fight police officers. Four NRPS officers, including a canine unit officer, set up at the property’s entrance. After a period of time, police officers contacted the Complainant through a friend, the Civilian Witness (CW). The Complainant subsequently entered his vehicle and drove to the entrance where the police officers were set up. The Complainant exited his vehicle and charged on foot towards the officers. A struggle ensued and the police service dog (PSD) bit the Complainant’s right leg and an arm. The Complainant was apprehended under the Mental Health Act (MHA). Paramedics attended to the Complainant and sedated him. He was taken to Niagara Health Systems Hospital (NHSH) in St. Catharines, where he was admitted under the MHA and treated for the leg injury. At 2:27 a.m., police officers were advised that the Complainant had received 20 staples and six stitches.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/11/01 at 9:09 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/11/01 at 9:12 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 1, 2024.

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on November 21, 2024.

Subject Official

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

Witness Official

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on November 14, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the entrance of a property near Vineland, Ontario.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Communications Recordings & Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

A person called 911 several times on October 31, 2024. The caller was concerned for the safety of the Complainant. He was threatening to commit suicide by cutting his throat.

At 11:46 p.m., the CW, a friend of the Complainant’s, arrived at the address where the Complainant was located. Shortly after, the Complainant exited his residence, entered a vehicle, and drove to the front entrance of the property where he stopped. The Complainant exited his vehicle and aggressively approached police officers, ignoring their commands. The Complainant was subsequently handcuffed.

On November 1, 2024, at 12:20 a.m., WO #2 escorted the Complainant in ambulance to NHSH. He had been apprehended under the MHA.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the NRPS between November 13, 2024, and November 20, 2024:

• Communications recordings
• CAD Report
• Canine Involvement Report – the SO
• Scene photographs
• Notes of WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from Niagara Health Centre on November 14, 2024.

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 or the release of his notes.

In the evening of October 31, 2024, OPP officers were dispatched to a rural property in Vineland to check on the Complainant. The police had received a report that the Complainant was at the property having ingested an unknown substance and threatening to cut his throat.

Officers arrived on scene and attempted to call the Complainant without success. Some of them remained at the entrance of the property while others entered to try to locate his residence. In time, they learned that the Complainant had consumed psilocybin and had mentioned dying at the hands of police.

A friend of the Complainant’s, the CW, arrived on scene at about 11:45 p.m. He was prevented from entering the property by the police. The CW called the Complainant and told him he had been denied entry.

The Complainant exited his residence, entered his vehicle, and drove to the property’s entrance, stopping short of the police cruisers that had gathered in the area. He exited his vehicle and approached the police with his hands in the air. He was told to stop his advance but continued to close the distance. When he was within a few metres of the officers, the SO, a dog handler, released his dog.

The dog bit the Complainant and took him to the ground. The SO and other officers approached and, following a struggle on the ground, handcuffed the Complainant behind the back.

The Complainant was taken to hospital and treated for a serious dog bite wound to the inner right thigh.

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 in Vineland on October 31, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming the Subject Official 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 his arrest, the police were aware that the Complainant was of unsound mind – he had consumed a hallucinogenic substance – and had threatened to kill himself. Accordingly, it would appear the officers had grounds to apprehend the Complainant under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.

It would also appear that the SO’s decision to release the dog was a reasonable one. The Complainant presented as angry when he exited his vehicle and advanced on the officers with purpose. The officers would have been concerned at the time that the Complainant was in possession of a knife; he had been threatening to cut his throat. In the circumstances, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO was precipitous in deploying the dog when the Complainant ignored his warnings to stop. A hands-on engagement would have risked the officers engaging an armed individual and the consequent risk of serious injury, while the dog’s deployment promised to temporarily neutralize the Complainant allowing for a window of opportunity to safely approach and take him into custody. While it is regrettable that the Complainant suffered a serious dog bite in the process, injuries of this nature are part of the risk inherent in police dog deployments. In the instant case, I am satisfied that the risk was commensurate with the exigencies of the moment. It should be noted that one eyewitness was of the view that the dog deployment was excessive as there were several officers on hand that could have dealt with the Complainant. This witness, however, would not have been aware of the Complainant’s behaviour to the extent of the officers’ knowledge, including his suicidal ideations with a knife.

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

Date: February 24, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit