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 45-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On November 13, 2024, at 11:30 p.m., the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the HRPS, on November 12, 2024, at 1:20 p.m., HRPS officers initiated a suspect apprehension pursuit, near Highway 401 and James Snow Parkway in Milton, of a stolen 26-foot U-Haul moving truck. At about 2:00 p.m., a tire deflation device was deployed, and the U-Haul truck was stopped at Highway 7 and Wellington Road 29 in Guelph. Two male occupants fled but were arrested after a short foot chase. The third occupant fled on foot and carjacked a vehicle. She was arrested after crashing a short distance away. When officers checked the rear of the stolen U-Haul, they discovered a stolen Ford Taurus. Half out of the vehicle was the Complainant. A short struggle ensued, and a conducted energy weapon (CEW) was deployed prior to his arrest. All four arrested persons were taken to the Guelph General Hospital (GGH). The only individual with injuries was the Complainant, who after X-rays was determined to have sustained a fractured rib. It was unclear if the injury was aged or the result of the interaction.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/11/13 at 11:42 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/11/13 at 4:45 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on November 13, 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 December 11, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired inside the back of a U-Haul moving truck stopped on Highway 7, near the intersection of Wellington County Road 29, Guelph.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment data – The SO

At 2:12:34 p.m.,[2] November 12, 2024, the trigger was pulled and the cartridge in Bay 1 was deployed. At 2:12:35 p.m., the trigger was pulled a second time.

At 2:12:36 p.m., the trigger was pulled and the cartridge in Bay 2 was deployed. The trigger was then pulled three more times, the last time at 2:13:06 p.m.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Communications Recordings

A woman called 911 on November 12, 2024, at 1:19 p.m., reporting she had located her stolen U-Haul truck. It was observed on Highway 25 past Highway 401 with three occupants.

At 1:46 p.m., police had successfully used a tire deflation device on the stolen U-Haul as it travelled northbound on Guelph Line and Highway 1 at Conservation Road.

At 2:01 p.m., the U-Haul was stopped on Highway 7 and Wellington County Road 29. Two men were taken into custody. A woman fled and carjacked a grey Nissan.

At 2:08 p.m., the woman was in custody. She revealed that the Complainant occupied the rear of the U-Haul and was under the effects of fentanyl.

At 2:10 p.m., the Complainant was located in the U-Haul, and communication was initiated for him to exit the vehicle.

At 2:14 p.m., the Complainant was taken into custody.

At 2:16 p.m., Emergency Medical Services was requested for the Complainant who had “bumped his head in the back of the truck and was bleeding”.

At 2:52 p.m., the Complainant was transported to GGH.

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

Starting at about 2:03 p.m., November 12, 2024, the police vehicle with the ICC arrived on scene. Five police vehicles had a U-Haul truck boxed-in at the intersection of Highway 7 and Wellington Road 29. The driver door of the U-Haul truck was open, the engine compartment was smoking and the rolling back door of the U-Haul truck was completely closed.

Starting at about 2:07 p.m., a Tactical Rescue Unit (TRU) pick-up truck drove through the scene heading west on Highway 7 with lights and siren activated.

Starting at about 2:08 p.m., a man’s voice reported over the police radio (inside the police vehicle) that someone was in the back of the U-Haul truck. The back door of the U-Haul truck was rolled up.

Starting at about 2:09 p.m., police officers shouted police commands into the back of the U-Haul truck. The back of the U-Haul truck was in total darkness. A uniformed police officer climbed into the back compartment of the U- Haul truck on the driver’s side shouting commands not to move. A dispatcher reported over the police radio that the name of the person in the back of the U-Haul truck was the Complainant.

Starting at about 2:11 p.m., police continued shouting police commands into the back of the truck. The TRU pick-up vehicle returned to the scene and four TRU police officers exited the vehicle. They were met by a uniformed police officer and subsequently walked to the back of the U-Haul truck. WO #3 in the lead walked to the back of the U-Haul truck. WO #2, carrying a carbine, was the last TRU police officer to approach the U-Haul truck. An unknown man’s voice shouted for the Complainant to get his hands up. WO #3 returned to the TRU truck, retrieved a ballistic shield, and returned to the U-Haul truck. WO #1 returned to the TRU truck, retrieved an ARWEN, and brought it back to the U-Haul truck. WO #3 entered the back of the U-Haul with the ballistic shield.

Starting at about 2:13 p.m., two silhouettes inside the U-Haul truck appeared to be dealing with the Complainant positioned on the floor. He was facing out, his legs extended in front of him, and it appeared his hands were handcuffed behind him.

Starting at about 2:21 p.m., two paramedics walked up to the Complainant seated on the floor of the U-Haul truck bed. A stretcher was rolled up to the back of the U- Haul truck by one of the paramedics, and the Complainant was loaded onto the stretcher and rolled out of camera view by paramedics.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the HRPS between October 29, 2024, and December 11, 2024:

• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• ICC footage
• General Occurrence Report
• CEW deployment data
• Photographs
• HRPS Policy Directive - Use of Force
• HRPS Policy Directive - Vehicle Pursuits
• HRPS Policy Directive - Arrest and Release of Persons
• Notes –

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from GGH on December 10, 2024.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police eyewitnesses, 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 afternoon of November 12, 2024, HRPS officers surrounded a U-Haul truck in the area of Highway 7 and Wellington County Road 29, Guelph. Officers had pursued the reportedly stolen truck and deployed a tire deflation device to assist in bringing it to a stop. Two male occupants in the truck’s cab were promptly taken into custody. A third occupant had managed to briefly escape before she too would be arrested. On opening the rollup door at the truck’s rear, a stolen Ford Taurus was discovered facing forward. In the driver’s seat was the Complainant. He was being ordered out of the Taurus by officers yelling into the truck’s rear when a team of TRU officers arrived.

The SO arrived at the scene in the company of three other TRU members – WO #3, WO #1 and WO #2. Led by the SO, they entered the cargo compartment of the U-Haul and physically engaged the Complainant in very tight quarters. The SO discharged his CEW and WO #3 punched the Complainant several times to the head before he was handcuffed and removed from the truck.

At hospital following his arrest, the Complainant was diagnosed with a concussion and fractured left rib.

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 by HRPS officers on November 12, 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 Complainant was in the driver’s seat of a stolen vehicle that was loaded in the rear of a U-Haul moving truck, itself reported stolen. In the circumstances, he was subject to arrest for theft.

With respect to the force brought to bear by the police in the Complainant’s arrest, there is insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude it was excessive. There is some evidence that the Complainant complied with requests to climb out of the Taurus, and had pulled himself half out of the vehicle through the driver’s door window when he was tasered and fell to the floor of the U-Haul. The Complainant picked himself up and, according to this account, was again felled by a CEW discharge, after which he was repeatedly kicked and punched in the face and ribs before being handcuffed. On the other hand, in evidence suggesting that only necessary force was used, the officers interviewed by the SIU say that the Complainant had to be forcibly removed from the Taurus, the CEW discharges (by the SO) were ineffective, and the Complainant, in a prone position on the floor of the truck, refused to release his arms to be handcuffed, doing so only after WO #3 punched him in the head. As there is no reason to believe one version of events is likelier to be closer to the truth than the other, there are no reasonable and probable grounds to conclude that the force used by the officers was unwarranted.

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

Date: March 3, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit