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 30-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On November 16, 2024, at 10:59 p.m., the Barrie Police Service (BPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the BPS, on November 16, 2024, just prior to 2:30 p.m., information was received that persons of interest involved in a stabbing were in a ride sharing vehicle near St. Vincent Street and Rose Street, Barrie. Police officers conducted a traffic stop, and three passengers fled on foot. The Complainant was located in a wooded area, where he was arrested after a struggle. The Complainant was transported to the holding facility. During the booking process, he was combative and assaulted a police officer. The Complainant complained of a facial injury from being kicked in the head during his arrest. He was taken to the Royal Victoria Regional Health (RVRH) and diagnosed with a fractured zygomatic bone.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/11/17 at 7:46 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/11/17 at 8:39 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on November 17, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on February 12, 2025.

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on December 1, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the front yard of a house in the area of Grove Street East and Bothwell Crescent, Barrie.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

BPS Communications Recordings

Telephone

On November 16, 2024, starting at 2:35 p.m., an unidentified caller from Rose Street telephoned BPS communications centre and advised that a man had run into a nearby ravine. The caller provided a description of the man.

Starting at 2:41 p.m., the man got into a silver Toyota.

Note: The call was received after the Complainant was arrested, and the man reported running may be unrelated to this incident or may have been one of the other fleeing occupants of the vehicle, including the man with the gun.

Radio Recordings

Starting at 2:24 p.m., November 16, 2024, police officers were dispatched to assist with a vehicle stop.

Starting at 2:26 p.m., a police officer reported the vehicle [now known to contain the Complainant as an occupant] was westbound on Rose Street.

Starting at 2:27 p.m., the SO was stopping the vehicle on Bothwell Crescent.

A man, with description provided, had a gun in his right hand.

A police officer advised a man was running westbound towards a park.

Starting at 2:29 p.m., a police officer advised that two men were running on Bothwell Crescent. East of Grove Street East and Bothwell Crescent, a man, believed to have a handgun, was running.

The Complainant was at a house in the area of Bothwell Crecent and Grove Street East.

The SO reported the Complainant was in custody.

BPS Body-Worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The SO

On November 16, 2024, starting at 2:27:39 p.m., the SO stopped his cruiser and ran up a residential driveway.

From 2:27:50 to 2:29:39 p.m., the SO searched residential yards.

Starting at 2:29:39 p.m., the SO unholstered and raised his firearm, and shouted, “Freeze. Show me your hands…(unintelligible). Stop. Get on the ground.” The Complainant ran across the road as the SO chased. He provided updates of his location, and shouted, “Get on the ground. Drop it.”

Starting at 2:30:15 p.m., the SO pointed towards a residence as the WO pulled up in his cruiser. The SO approached the front of the residence.

Starting at 2:30:19 p.m., the SO pointed to the front of the residence and said, “Right here in these bushes.” He approached the bush while saying, “Show me your hands. I’m going to shoot you. I will fucking shoot you.”

Starting at 2:30:32 p.m., the SO advanced towards the Complainant, whose head and right arm were visible.

Starting at 2:30:33 p.m., the SO handcuffed the Complainant.

BPS BWC Footage - The WO

Starting at 2:30:18 p.m., November 16, 2024, the WO stopped his cruiser on Grove Street East and ran towards a residence. The SO directed the WO to his location. The SO was approaching from the opposite direction with his firearm raised in front of him. The WO approached with his firearm raised and shouted, “Don’t move. Police, don’t move.”

Starting at 2:30:28 p.m., the WO walked towards a bush where the Complainant lay on the ground, partially concealed. The WO shouted, “Crawl out on your face right now.” The Complainant looked in the WO’s direction and began to crawl out, face down. Both hands were open with palms facing down. The SO was approaching from the Complainant’s left.

Starting at 2:30:31 p.m., the WO shouted, “On your face,” as the Complainant crawled with his right and left arms extended in front. The SO took two strides towards the Complainant and kicked him, his right foot striking the left side of the Complainant’ head.

Starting at 2:30:33 p.m., the WO shouted, “Get down,” as the SO followed through with his kick. The SO handcuffed the Complainant.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the BPS between November 19, 2024, to February 12, 2025:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Custody / Booking documents
• General / Supplementary / Arrest Reports
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• BWC footage – the SO and the WO
• Notes – the SO and the WO
• Procedure: Arrest / Investigative Detention

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from RVRH on December 4, 2024.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, the SO and a police eyewitness, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the afternoon of November 16, 2024, the SO stopped a vehicle travelling south on Davidson Street, from Rose Street, Barrie. He was acting at the behest of BPS criminal investigators, who had information that persons involved in an earlier stabbing were in the car. As soon as the car stopped, two males exited and fled from the passenger side of the vehicle. The SO lost sight of one of them, who crossed the street. The other fled southward holding a handgun. The SO pursued him a distance in his cruiser attempting to cut him off. The male collided with the front passenger side of the cruiser and continued his flight eastward onto the exterior grounds of homes in the area. The officer exited his cruiser and took up the chase.

The SO opened gates and scaled fences eastward across backyards. He made his way onto Jonathan Court and located a male fleeing towards Bothwell Crescent. Believing this was the male with the gun, the SO ran after him.

The male was the Complainant - one of the occupants of the vehicle who fled after being stopped by the SO. With the SO chasing him, the Complainant ran south on Bothwell Crescent and attempted to conceal himself in a large bush in the front yard of a home. Within seconds, he was confronted by the SO approaching from the northeast, and another officer – the WO – from the south.

Their guns drawn and pointed at the Complainant, lying underneath the bush, the SO ordered the Complainant to show his hands while the WO directed him to crawl out. The Complainant had started to crawl and was partially out of the bush when the SO ran towards him and kicked him in the left side of the head. The Complainant wrapped his arms around his head, and the SO dropped his weight onto the Complainant. The officer proceeded to handcuff him behind the back.

The Complainant was seen at hospital following his arrest and diagnosed with a fractured left zygoma.

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 88, Criminal Code - Possession of Weapon for Dangerous Purpose

88 (1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by BPS officers on November 16, 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.

When the SO observed a male fleeing from the vehicle he had stopped and carrying a firearm, he was entitled to take him into custody for possession of a dangerous weapon contrary to section 88 of the Criminal Code. The fact that it appears the Complainant was not the male the SO had actually observed with the gun does not detract from the lawfulness of the arrest as the mistake was a reasonable one. Two males had emerged from the same vehicle and had taken flight in the neighbourhood. In the fraught circumstances of the moment, one can understand why the SO might have been mistaken.

With respect to the force used by the SO, namely, a kick to the head, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was excessive. On the one hand, having been discovered in the bush, the Complainant was doing exactly what he had been ordered to do by the WO – crawl out from under the bush – when he was struck. From the perspective of the WO at least, as captured by his BWC, it was clear that the Complainant did not have a gun in either of his hands. On the other hand, the SO’s line of sight was obstructed by the bush. Thus, while the Complainant’s right hand and head were visible when the officer approached to deliver a kick, his left arm and hand were partially obscured. Beyond that, as the SO explained in his SIU interview, neither officer could be sure whether the firearm was still on the Complainant’s person (if not in either of his hands) or otherwise nearby and accessible to him. On this record, it would appear that the SO had reasonable cause to be concerned that a firearm might be brought into play by the Complainant. That being the case, the officer’s decision to overwhelm the Complainant with a forceful kick to the head would not appear disproportionate to the nature of the risk at hand. It is true that the SO was not alone, and that the WO, with a better vantage point, had his gun trained on the Complainant through the series of events. The SO, however, did not have the luxury of time. With only seconds to decide on a course of action in a highly charged atmosphere, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO’s intervention was precipitous. In arriving at this conclusion, I am mindful of the common law principle that an officer involved in volatile and dangerous circumstances is not expected to measure their responsive force to a nicety; what is required is a reasonable response, not an exacting one: R v Nasogaluak,[2010] 1 SCR 206; R v Baxter(1975), 27 CCC (2d) 96 (Ont. CA).

In the result, while I accept that the SO caused the Complainant’s fractured cheekbone, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury is attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the officer. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: March 7, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit