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 the SOs 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 the SOs 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 injuries of a 29-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On November 5, 2024, at 7:14 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the OPP, on November 5, 2024, at 2:30 p.m., Witness Official (WO) #2, the Subject Official (SO) and WO #1 arrested the Complainant at Highway 124 and Mountain View Road, South River. The Complainant resisted and a physical struggle ensued. Once at the OPP Almaguin Highlands Detachment, the Complainant complained of sore ribs. He was taken to the Huntsville District Memorial Hospital (HDMH) and diagnosed with two fractured ribs.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/11/06 at 7:39 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/11/06 at 9:45 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on November 6, 2024.

Subject Official

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

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on November 8, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on Mountain View Road, just west of Highway 124, South River.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage - Shell Gas Station – 314 Highway 124

The camera was located above the pumps, and faced in a southbound direction. It captured a black SUV [now known to be a Hyundai]. A man - the Complainant - exited the Hyundai. After about 25 seconds, the Complainant went off the screen. He returned two minutes later and started to fill his vehicle with gas.

Starting at about 4:14 minutes into the video, the Complainant stopped gassing up and got back into his car. The rear lights activated on his car before a sedan stopped in front, and off the driver’s side, of the Hyundai. WO #1 exited the front passenger door of the sedan. She wore an OPP vest, and she approached the driver’s door of the Hyundai and grabbed the door handle. WO #1 was followed by the SO, who exited the driver’s door of the sedan. He wore an OPP windbreaker with fluorescent yellow lining, an OPP police vest, and a ball cap.

At 4:52 minutes, WO #1 opened the driver’s door of the Hyundai. Both WO #1 and the SO partially reached into the Hyundai and appeared to have a conversation with the Complainant.

At 5:38 minutes, both WO #1 and the SO attempted to pull the Complainant out of the Hyundai. WO #1 was on the left side of the door, closer to the front of the Hyundai. The view of WO #1 was blocked by the SO’s body.

At 5:59 minutes, the brake lights on the vehicle came on.

At 6:30 minutes, the Hyundai drove forward at a high rate of speed, and WO #1 was thrown to the side. The Hyundai was seen to leave the gas station lot in a southbound direction. WO #1 and the SO got back into their sedan and activated their emergency lights. The video finished.

In-car Camera (ICC) Video Footage - Officer #1

The video started at 11:38 a.m., November 5, 2024, Officer #1 drove northbound on Highway 124 through Sundridge. The roads were wet, and Officer #1 had his emergency light activated.

At 11:42 a.m., Officer #1 turned left onto Mountain View Road. Approximately 30 metres west of Highway 124 on the north side of the road stood WO #1 and the SO. The police officers had their backs to Officer #1’s police vehicle. The Complainant stood in front of the police officers, with his hands handcuffed behind the back; he faced the back of a black Hyundai. To the left of the driver’s door of the Hyundai and facing the door was the SO and WO #1’s unmarked police vehicle. Across the front of the Hyundai was WO #2’s unmarked police vehicle. Officer #1 pulled off to the side, and a male police officer was heard to say that the Complainant should be strip searched.

At 11:47 a.m., Officer #1 started to leave the scene and drove west on Mountain View Road.

Custody Video

On November 5, 2024, starting at about 12:06 p.m., a police officer - Officer #1 - and a fully marked OPP pick-up truck were captured.

Starting at about 12:09 p.m., the Complainant was brought out of the pick-up truck, and he walked through a doorway into the booking area. A uniformed police officer did a pat-down search on the Complainant.

Starting at about 12:17 p.m., the Complainant was taken into a room off to the side, believed to be a search room.

At 12:25 p.m., the Complainant was placed in a cell. On two occasions, he was removed from the cell and placed in a room, believed to be a telephone room.

At 2:25 p.m., paramedics entered his cell and, at 2:35 p.m., he was removed from the cell and taken out of the building.

Communications Recordings

On November 5, 2024, at 11:38:30 a.m., WO #1 broadcast that they were southbound from a gas station. A vehicle had taken off from them and almost struck the police officers. A male voice asked if they were in pursuit.

Starting at about 11:39:47 a.m., the police officers broadcast that they had the vehicle stopped and one person was in custody.

Starting at about 11:41:31 a.m., WO #1 advised that the Complainant was under arrest for dangerous operation and resist arrest.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between November 5, 2024, and November 26, 2024:

• Custody video
• ICC video
• Shell video
• Communications recordings
• Arrest Report
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• List of Charges
• Occurrence History
• Notes - WO #1
• Notes - WO #2
• Policy - Use of Force
• Policy - Arrest
• Policy - Suspect Apprehension Pursuits

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between November 11, 2024, and November 15, 2024:

• Ambulance Call Report from Muskoka Paramedic Services
• The Complainant’s medical records from HDMH

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 or the release of his notes.

In the morning of November 5, 2024, the Complainant had just gassed his Hyundai and was seated in the vehicle at the Shell Gas Station, 314 Highway 124, when an unmarked police cruiser pulled up to him. A male and female officer – WO #1 and the SO – emerged from the cruiser and approached his driver’s door. The Complainant was advised he was under arrest for a drug offence. The Complainant refused to exit, and the officers attempted to pull him out. The Complainant started his vehicle and accelerated away southbound on Highway 124.

WO #1 and the SO returned to the cruiser and pursued the Hyundai. A couple of kilometres south, the Complainant turned west onto Mountain View Road and came to a stop. The officers pulled up again to the vehicle and exited. The Complainant exited the Hyundai and was held by the officers, who were now joined by WO #2. The parties went to the ground where, following a struggle, the Complainant was handcuffed and taken into custody.

The Complainant was taken to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with three fractured left ribs and a collapsed lung.

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 OPP officers on November 5, 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.

The evidence establishes that the Complainant actively resisted arrest at the gas station and then accelerated away for a couple of kilometres while knowing he was being pursued by police. On this record, the Complainant was arguably subject to arrest for the offence of flight from police under 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 an account in the evidence suggesting the Complainant was at the receiving end of excessive force during his arrest on Mountain View Road. On the other hand, the evidence proffered by the witness officials indicates that only reasonable force was used. This included a takedown when the Complainant refused to release his hands to be handcuffed, and knee strikes to the left and right sides by the SO and WO #2, respectively, when the Complainant continued to struggle on the ground. The takedown made sense as it would position the officers to better manage the Complainant’s resistance. As for the knee strikes, while it is likely the officers would have overcome the Complainant’s fight in time without resort to strikes, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officers acted precipitously in upping their force when they did to more quickly get a handle on the situation.

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

Date: February 26, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit