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 41-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On November 3, 2024, at 5:33 p.m., the Barrie Police Service (BPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On November 3, 2024, at 6:16 a.m., a BPS constable was involved in a short suspect apprehension pursuit terminated near Wellington Street in Barrie. At 7:24 a.m., Witness Official (WO) #1, from a different platoon, located the subject vehicle unoccupied at a hotel near Dunlop Street West and Highway 400. The vehicle was towed, and a woman associated with the vehicle was arrested for breach of an undertaking.

At 10:10 a.m., the vehicle owner and the man identified as the driver in the pursuit, the Complainant, was located at the hotel. WO #1 and the Subject Official (SO) saw the Complainant going into a room and attempted to arrest him. An altercation ensued. The Complainant sustained superficial cuts and was taken to Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre (RVRHC) in ambulance where he was diagnosed with a broken nose.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/11/03 at 6:00 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/11/03 at 7:35 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on November 4, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Not interviewed; unable to locate

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on November 4, 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

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on November 13, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a room at a motel near Dunlop Street West and Highway 400, Barrie.

Physical Evidence

The SIU forensic investigator attended the scene on November 4, 2024. The scene was photographed but no physical evidence was gathered during the examination.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Hotel Video Footage

The video footage from the hotel captured WO #1’s cruiser arriving but did not capture the interaction with the Complainant. The footage did not advance the investigation.

BPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – WO #1

On November 3, 2024, starting at about 10:10 a.m., WO #1 arrived at the hotel. He ran up to the Complainant at the closed door to one of the rooms. As the room door opened, WO #1 grabbed the left arm of the Complainant, who tried to get into the room as the officer held the left arm with his right hand. CW #3 stood by the bed inside the room. The Complainant made it into the room, but WO #1 maintained his hold at the threshold of the door.

Starting at about 10:10:37 a.m., the audio track kicked-in. The Complainant was ordered to the ground. He said he had not been driving, and that the vehicle was stolen. WO #1, his right hand now grabbing the Complainant’s hoody, forced him onto the ground onto his right side within the doorway. The Complainant was told to put his hands behind the back. The Complainant said he could not because WO #1 was leaning on him. He stated he was not resisting and his property had been stolen last night. The Complainant’s left arm was brought behind the back. When directed, the Complainant brought his right hand voluntarily behind the back. WO #1 completed the handcuffing process and made a radio transmission that the Complainant was in custody. The Complainant wanted to give CW #3 items from his pockets. WO #1 told the Complainant to stop reaching and attempted to prevent the Complainant removing items from his pocket. The Complainant began yelling and said, “I am not resisting,” while being told to stop fighting.

Starting at about 10:12:12 a.m., CW #3 was ordered to get on the bed and not to touch a bag. The Complainant continued to yell, “I am not resisting, and I am not doing anything.” WO #1 held the Complainant on the ground. WO #1 told CW #3 she would be arrested if she touched the “dope”.

Starting at about 10:28:48 a.m., the Complainant asked why WO #1 beat him up. WO #1 denied that he had done so. The Complainant said, “I did not resist. I told you I was cooperating, and I got on the ground.”

BPS BWC Footage - The SO

Starting at about 10:12:47 a.m., the SO arrived on scene. He ran to one of the rooms where WO #1 had the Complainant lying face down in the doorway, handcuffed behind the back. The Complainant’s face was lifted off the ground; no injuries were seen. CW #3 was heard yelling within the room.

Starting at about 10:12:53 a.m., the SO grabbed the Complainant by his forearms. The SO pulled the Complainant out of the doorway as WO #1 went into the room to deal with CW #3. The Complainant questioned why his head was stomped. He continued screaming as the SO attempted to control the Complainant’s legs and handcuff his ankles. Only one ankle was successfully cuffed. The Complainant screamed. The camera then went for some time pressed up against clothing during which images were indiscernible. When the camera regained some distance, it appeared the SO was by the Complainant’s upper back. Someone shouted, “Put your hands behind your back,” and the SO appeared to punch the right side of the Complainant’s face three to five times.

BPS BWC Footage - WO #2

At 10:13:41 a.m., WO #2 arrived. Blood was seen on the forehead of the Complainant while WO #2 put his knee on his upper body as he laid face down. WO #2 yelled in a loud voice at the Complainant to stop moving or he would be hit again. The SO completed handcuffing the Complainant’s ankles. WO #2 would locate a baggie of suspected drugs that was underneath the Complainant.

BPS BWC Footage - WO #3

WO #3 arrived inside the room, supplied his handcuffs, and assisted WO #1 in handcuffing CW #3.

Starting at about 10:14:17 a.m., the SO went to the doorway as WO #1 brought CW #3 away from the bed. WO #1 stated that she had tried to hide the dope, which CW #3 denied. The SO took CW #3 to the floor. Officer #1 and Officer #2 removed CW #3 from the room. The SO remained to search the room. WO #1 mentioned CW #3 had grabbed a white baggie and thrown it.

At 10:17 a.m., WO #3 removed the handcuffs from the Complainant’s ankles and the SO retrieved his handcuffs. Within a minute, the Complainant was placed in a chair by WO #2. He reported that his jaw, arms, legs, back, ribs, and his whole body hurt. Officer #3 watched over the Complainant and was later joined by Officer #4.

Starting at about 10:17 a.m., Officer #1 and Officer #2 located a bag of drugs on CW #3’s person during a search and before transport to the BPS station. CW #3 advised she had videotaped the Complainant not resisting on her cellular telephone.[3]

Starting at about 10:31 a.m., an ambulance arrived. The Complainant told a paramedic that he had hit his head on a medal support beam when he went to the ground, and that he could not open his mouth entirely.[4]

Video Footage – Booking

Starting at about 6:52 p.m., on November 3, 2024, Officer #5 and an unknown auxiliary member entered the sally port area with the Complainant.

Starting at about 6:56 p.m., the Complainant, handcuffed to the front, was taken into the booking area and seated on a bench. The booking sergeant asked routine booking questions, but the answers were indiscernible.

Starting at about 6:59 p.m., the Complainant was searched by the intake special constable. The search was completed, and the Complainant was placed in a holding cell.

BPS Communication Recordings

Between 7:23 a.m. and 8:30 a.m., on November 3, 2024, WO #1 had contact with CW #3 and a female at the hotel near Dunlop Street West and Highway 400. As a result of queries, the female was arrested for Breach of Undertaking and transported to the BPS.

Starting at about 10:10 a.m., WO #1 requested assistance at the hotel near Dunlop Street West and Highway 400. One minute later, he advised that the Complainant was in custody. The SO and WO #2 were sent to assist.

Starting at about 10:14 a.m., WO #1 reported that all was in order as the Complainant was heard screaming in the background. EMS was requested and, at 10:48 a.m., the Complainant was transported to the RVHCH.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the BPS between November 4, 2024, and November 12, 2024.

• Communications recordings;
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
• General / Supplementary / Arrest Reports;
• Custody footage;
• Cellphone footage;
• BWC footage;

• Photographs of the Complainant; and
• Notes - WO #1, WO #3 and WO #2.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between November 12, 2024, and November 15, 2024:

• Hotel video footage; and
• The Complainant’s medical records from RVRHC.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, 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 morning of November 3, 2024, WO #1 confronted the Complainant outside a room of a hotel near Dunlop Street West and Highway 400, Barrie. Briefed on an incident about an aborted police pursuit involving a vehicle registered to the Complainant, WO #1 had earlier located the vehicle in the hotel parking lot and had it towed away. The Complainant asked what he had done, and was told repeatedly to get on the ground. A struggle ensued in the area of the room’s open door as WO #1 took hold of the Complainant and took him to the ground. The officer secured the Complainant in handcuffs and called for back-up.

The SO was the next to arrive on scene. He and the Complainant wrestled with each other on the ground. The SO managed to get on top of the Complainant, prone on the ground, and deliver three to five punches to the right side of his face. At about this time, WO #3 and WO #2, also responding to WO #1’s call for help, arrived and assisted in controlling the Complainant. Handcuffs were applied to his ankles.

The Complainant was taken to hospital following his arrest and diagnosed with a broken nose.

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 320.17, Criminal Code - Flight from Peace Officer

320.17 Everyone commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel while being pursued by a peace officer and who fails, without reasonable excuse, to stop the motor vehicle or vessel as soon as is reasonable in the circumstances.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by BPS officer on November 3, 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 altercation by the hotel doorway, there is evidence to indicate that WO #1 had information about the Complainant failing to stop for a police officer. It would, therefore, appear that WO #1 and the other officers were within their rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody for contravening section 320.17 of the Criminal Code.

With respect to the force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was unwarranted. There is a version of events proffered in the evidence that the Complainant was repeatedly kicked and punched in the head, and stomped in the head, by the SO, though he offered no resistance other than trying to protect himself. As for the officers interviewed by the SIU, they say that the Complainant physically resisted arrest even after he was handcuffed. That evidence admits of three to five punches by the SO in a show of force that was significant but probably not excessive given the resistance the officers described. The video footage, incomplete and somewhat obscured, is itself equivocal. On this record, there is no reason to believe that one version of events is any likelier to be closer to the truth than the other, and I am unable to reasonably conclude that the Complainant was the subject of unjustified force.

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

Date: February 27, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit