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 63-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On November 10, 2024, at 11:18 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the PRP, at 11:08 p.m., November 9, 2024, PRP officers arrested the Complainant for domestic assault and assault police at his residence near Sombrero Way and Mavis Road, Mississauga. During the arrest, the Complainant was grounded. He was taken to Credit Valley Hospital (CVH) and cleared without serious injury. While at his bail hearing the next morning, the hospital reported he had a fractured right hand.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/11/12 at 6:58 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/11/12 at 10:15 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on December 2, 2024.

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on November 26, 2024.

Subject Official

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

Witness Official

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on December 13, 2024.

Service Employee Witness

SEW Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The Scene

The events in question transpired outside in the vicinity of a residence near Sombrero Way and Mavis Road, Mississauga.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Communications Recordings

At 11:07 p.m., November 9, 2024, the CW called 911 to report the Complainant had hit her across the face. The CW indicated that they had rented a room at a residence near Sombrero Way and Mavis Road, and that she was safe because the owner of the house and another renter were there. The owner no longer wanted the Complainant in the residence around his children. The CW advised they both had been drinking. The Complainant was heard in the background to plead with the owner for another 24 hours, and with the CW to forgive him and cancel the police. The CW was adamant she wanted the Complainant out.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

At 11:21 p.m., November 9, 2024, WO #1, the SO and the SEW were down the street from the residence and in conversation with the CW. WO #1 yelled at somebody not to open the doors. The SO and the SEW made their way to a police vehicle parked in front of the residence. The Complainant walked towards the SO with both hands in his pockets. He was in bare feet. The SO advised the Complainant to go back to the police vehicle. The Complainant just stared at the SO. The Complainant, again told to back-up, ignored the SO. The Complainant removed his hands from the pockets, turned and walked away. The Complainant stated, “Wow,” and, “Brutal, my God,” and returned towards the police vehicle.

The SO identified a man standing near the police vehicle as the owner of the house. The Complainant was told to go back inside. He walked to a set of steps and made his way to the top followed by the SO. The SO asked the Complainant to talk to him, but the Complainant said he had been rude to him. It was noted that the homeowner did not want the Complainant back in the house. The Complainant chose not to cooperate, and he was directed to go back down the steps. The SO spoke with the homeowner and another tenant. When asked by the homeowner to leave on several occasions, the Complainant refused.

Meanwhile, WO #1 spoke with the CW. She mentioned previous domestic issues with the Complainant. WO #1 explained that they were mandated by the courts and should arrest.

At 11:24 p.m., the Complainant approached, and tried to speak and plead with the CW. After being told on two occasions by WO #1 to leave and stand by his partner, the Complainant turned and walked back towards the residence. WO #1 continued to speak with the CW.

The SO approached the Complainant and asked him to stand by the police vehicle. The SO placed his hands on the Complainant’s upper body and directed him towards the police vehicle. The Complainant turned towards the officer, stated, “Don’t touch me again,” and raised his left arm out towards the officer. The SO directed the Complainant’s outstretched arm in an upward direction from the SO’s upper body area. The SO stated, “Don’t put hands ever by my neck. Get your hands behind your back,” to which the Complainant replied, “No.” The Complainant was tripped to the ground.

The SO positioned himself on the Complainant’s left side with a knee on the Complainant’s lower back. The Complainant appeared to push up onto his knees with his unsecured left hand. The SO delivered a strike with his left hand to the Complainant’s face area, pinning the Complainant to the roadway. As the SO changed position to the left shoulder, WO #1 stood by the Complainant’s feet and told the Complainant to comply, or he would be “tazed”. The Complainant was told to put both hands behind his back as he continued to lift his upper body off the ground and questioned what the police officers were doing. WO #1 took control of the Complainant’s right arm/wrist and brought it behind the Complainant’s back. The SO pulled the left arm out and behind the Complainant’s back. A third officer was captured standing by the Complainant’s feet.

The SO explained that the Complainant had tried to grab his neck when asked to stay by the police vehicle. WO #1 replied that the Complainant squared off with him earlier. While handcuffing the left wrist, the Complainant pulled away and stated, “You fucking losers.” The SO attempted to finish the handcuffing as WO #1 kneed on the Complainant’s back and held his CEW against the Complainant’s back. Again, the Complainant was warned he would be “tazed”. The Complainant began to complain that he could not breathe.

At 11:26 p.m., the handcuffs were secured behind the Complainant’s back and WO #1 announced the arrest on his police radio. WO #1’s BWC captured blood on the roadway as the Complainant was brought to his feet. WO #1 requested a sergeant and an ambulance.

The Complainant was put against the trunk of a police cruiser. The SO and WO #1 began a search of the Complainant’s person. The SO told the Complainant he was under arrest and to relax on numerous occasions. The Complainant began a verbal barrage of name calling and threatened the officers. The Complainant moved about making the search difficult. The SO and WO #1 again took the Complainant to the ground and along the right rear quarter panel of the police vehicle. He was again told to stop resisting and to relax. The CW was nearby and told the Complainant to stop resisting. The Complainant complained he could not breathe. The search was completed.

At 11:30 p.m., the Complainant was brought to his feet and placed in the rear seat of the police vehicle. He was arrested for assault police and assault.

At 11:56 p.m., WO #2 opened the rear door of the police vehicle, introduced himself and told the Complainant an ambulance was called. The Complainant complained the handcuffs were tight and that he could not breathe. The Complainant’s handcuffs were adjusted and double-locked. WO #2 told the Complainant he was in custody and had no choice but to go to the hospital. The only other complaint made was the Complainant could not feel his finger.

At 12:47 a.m., the Complainant was taken to a different police vehicle to await the ambulance. He still complained that the handcuffs were too tight.

At 12:51 a.m., the Complainant was handcuffed to the front of his body. He became upset and spoke about his swollen right hand. The Complainant was transported to the hospital, arriving at 1:29 a.m. The Complainant stated he never assaulted anybody.

Between 9:09 a.m., and 9:33 a.m., an officer from the PRP Intimate Partner Violence Branch interviewed the Complainant. He advised that he did not recall the struggle and he did not think he was resisting. The Complainant spoke of putting his hands down, but the rest of what was said was inaudible. The Complainant did not recall going at or grabbing any police officer.

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

The Complainant sat in the SO’s police vehicle, and then a different one, to await the ambulance.

At 12:58 a.m., November 10, 2024, the paramedics arrived. When asked if hurt, the Complainant showed his right hand. When asked if it felt broken, he replied in the negative. He further advised he did not want to be assessed. When asked if he wanted to go to the hospital, the Complainant said no. He said he had been hurt many times but not from this, but clarified the swelling to his hand did happen because of this event.

At 1:07 a.m., WO #2 opened the door and told the Complainant he was in custody, and it was procedure to go to the hospital before going to the station. The Complainant was removed from the back seat.

At 1:40 a.m., the Complainant arrived at the CVH in police custody with a chief complaint of a head injury and nasal laceration. There were no other complaints of injury. The Complainant disclosed his medical history and was assessed by medical staff.

At 6:07 a.m., the Complainant was discharged from CVH.

At 10:15 a.m., a secondary review of the Complainant’s hand X-ray determined he did have a subtle minimally displaced fracture of the approximate third metacarpal shaft. Medical staff contacted the PRP to update them regarding the discovery.

At 11:20 a.m., November 29, 2024, the Complainant went to the Brantford Civic Hospital (BCH). His right hand was X-rayed and evaluated, which confirmed the Complainant had sustained a minimally displaced spiral diaphyseal fracture in the third metacarpal neck and shaft (right long finger).

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the PRP between November 10, 2024, and November 15, 2024:

• Occurrence Report
• Incident History
• Incident Details
• Directive - Incident Response
• Directive - Intimate Partner Incidents
• Directive - Criminal Investigations
• BWC footage
• ICC footage
• Communications recordings
• Notes - the SO, WO #1, WO #2, and the SEW

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following medical records between December 6, 2014, and December 13, 2024:

• The Complainant’s medical records from CVH
• The Complainant’s medical records from BCH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with a police and non-police eyewitness, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of November 9, 2024, the SO and WO #1 were dispatched to a residence near Sombrero Way and Mavis Road, Mississauga. The CW had called police to report she had been assaulted at the residence by the Complainant. The officers arrived in separate cruisers and parked them on the roadway outside the address. The automatic licence plate reader of one of the officers had flagged a vehicle further down the street as stolen, so the officers decided to first walk to the vehicle to see if anyone was inside. It was shortly thereafter that they were approached by the CW.

The CW had observed the cruisers outside on the road and stepped out to speak to the officers. The Complainant followed behind her and was told by the officers to maintain his distance as he would be spoken to separately.

The SO broke away from the conversation WO #1 was having with the CW to speak with the Complainant. The Complainant was not interested in providing his side of the story. Instead, as the SO was speaking with the owner of the residence, the Complainant again made his way down the street to where WO #1 was still speaking with the CW. WO #1 directed the Complainant to step away again. Following a short standoff, the Complainant began to walk away.

The SO approached the Complainant, asked him to stand by the rear of his cruiser, and then pushed him in that direction when the Complainant refused to do so. The Complainant turned to face the officer and raised his left hand towards the officer’s upper torso. The SO told the Complainant to not place his hand on his neck, and then tripped him to the ground in a prone position when he refused to put his hands behind the back. The Complainant briefly lifted his torso off the ground before the SO struck his head forcing him down and pinning him to the roadway. At about this time, WO #1 was arriving. The officers were able to wrestle control of the Complainant’s arms and handcuff them behind the back.

The Complainant was lifted to his feet and placed against the rear of the SO’s cruiser to be searched. He resisted that process, threatened to assault the officers, and was grounded again.

The Complainant was evaluated at hospital following his arrest and eventually diagnosed with a fractured right hand.

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.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest on November 9, 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.

On arrival at the scene, the officers heard directly from the CW about the assault. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the SO had grounds to detain the Complainant for investigation and to exercise a measure of control over his movements, particularly as the Complainant had repeatedly attempted to inject himself into the conversation the CW was having with WO #1. That is precisely what the officer did when he placed his hands on the Complainant to direct him towards the rear of his vehicle. When the Complainant reacted with physical force against the officer, the SO was entitled to arrest him for assault.

With respect to the force brought to bear against the Complainant, I am satisfied it was justified. The first takedown occurred immediately after the Complainant had laid hands on the officer and then refused to put his arms behind his back. The officer would have had cause to believe that the Complainant would continue to struggle, and he was within his rights in taking him down as doing so would place the officer in a position to better manage that resistance. The Complainant was able to quickly lift his torso off the ground, and the SO responded by forcefully pinning his head and upper body to the roadway. That too would appear a reasonable tactic if the officers were going to maintain control of the Complainant. The second takedown occurred as the Complainant threatened the officers and made it difficult for them to complete their search of his person. In fact, just before the grounding, there is evidence that the Complainant attempted to take hold of something, though what that was exactly is unclear. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the second takedown was unwarranted as it would assist in keeping the Complainant under control so that the search could be completed.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s hand was fractured during one or the other of the takedowns that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury is attributable to any unlawful conduct on the part of the SO. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.

Date: March 3, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit