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 injuries of a 60-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 6, 2024, at 3:02 p.m., the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On December 6, 2024, the Complainant attended the Hamilton Central Police Station and reported to Witness Official (WO) #1 that he had been assaulted by HPS officers on November 13, 2024, when they attended his apartment and apprehended him on a Mental Health Act (MHA) Form 1.[2] He was taken to St. Joseph’s Healthcare (SJHC) and admitted. The Complainant presented medical records indicating that he had suffered two fractured ribs in the assault.

The HPS advised that there was a call to police on November 13, 2024, at 4:46 p.m., in connection with a MHA Form 1 at a residence in downtown Hamilton. Subject Official (SO) #2, WO #2, and SO #1 all responded. When told he was going to be apprehended on the Form 1, the Complainant, a bilateral amputee, became combative and took hold of a long stick. He then began to assault the three police officers until they wrestled him from his chair into a wheelchair to make him mobile. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called to assist in the transport. The Complainant was taken to SJHC and admitted on the Form 1.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/12/09 at 7:32 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/12/09 at 11:50 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on December 9, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between December 11, 2024, and December 19, 2024.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject officials were interviewed between January 17, 2025, and January 24, 2025.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on December 11, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around an apartment at an address in downtown Hamilton.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

HPS Communications Recordings

On November 12, 2024, at 11:55:16 a.m., HPS communications received a call about a Form 1 regarding the Complainant. It was reported that the Complainant suggested he might become violent if the police went to get him. The Complainant was in a wheelchair and was a fairly strong individual.

Video Footage from the Complainant’s Apartment

Clip 1

The Complainant was partially captured on the bottom left of the frame. SO #1 entered the apartment with WO #2 and SO #2 behind him. All three police officers were wearing police uniforms, and SO #1 had a white paper clipped to his vest. The Complainant was sitting in a stationary chair with his wheelchair next to him. He was watching his cellular phone. SO #1 asked the Complainant if they could talk The Complainant responded to the police officers, “Are you charging me with anything? Do you have a warrant? Then get the fuck out.” The Complainant continued to look at his phone. SO #1 informed the Complainant he had a Form 1.

Clip 2

The Complainant was still seated in a stationary chair. SO #2 was to the right of the Complainant. Behind SO #2 were SO #1 and WO #2. CW #3 was in the hallway. SO #2 informed the Complainant he would ensure his wheelchair was brought to the hospital with him. The Complainant inquired which hospital he would be taken to. When advised that he would be transported to SJHC, he replied he would not go to SJHC. The Complainant said if this ended in violence, it would end in violence, but he would not go to SJHC.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the HPS between December 9, 2024, and January 24, 2025:

• Video footage - Central Station HPS
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• WO #1’s notes
• WO #2’s notes & witness statement
• Form 1
• General Report
• Policies - Responding to Persons in Crisis and Use of Force
• Communications recordings
• The HPS Memorandum of Understanding - Mobile Crisis Rapid Response Team (MCRRT)
• Photos of wooden stick
• Training records
• Notes - SO #1 and SO #2

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained records from the following other sources between December 9, 2024, and December 19, 2024:

• Ambulance Call Report from EMS
• The Complainant’s medical records from SJHC
• Video clips from the Complainant’s apartment

The evidence collected by SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, SO #1, SO #2, and other police and civilian witnesses, as well as video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the afternoon of November 13, 2024, the HPS received a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act for the Complainant. SO #1 and WO #2 were assigned to apprehend the Complainant and take him to the hospital on the Form 1.

SO #1 and WO #2 attended the residence of the Complainant, knocked on the door and announced it was the HPS. A voice from the inside told them to come in. The Complainant was seated in a stationary chair. There was a manual wheelchair beside him. Once the Complainant saw they were police officers, he asked them to leave. WO #2 explained to the Complainant they were not able to leave, and that they had a Form 1 and were there to take him to the hospital. The Complainant was adamant that they leave as he would not be going anywhere.

The officers attempted to gain the Complainant’s cooperation in order to get him to the hospital in a peaceful manner. SO #1 spoke to the Complainant, showed him the Form 1 and explained that they had an obligation to act on the Form 1 and take him to the hospital. The Complainant remained hostile, verbally aggressive and refused to go to the hospital. WO #2 called the MCRRT.

SO #2 responded with mental health worker, CW #3. SO #2 began communicating with the Complainant. For about 40 minutes, SO #2 attempted to build rapport and trust with the Complainant to negotiate his compliance to willingly go to the hospital. When it was time for the Form 1 to be executed, SO #2 approached to gain control of his arm, and advised he was apprehending him on the strength of the Form 1. While SO #2 was trying to take control of him, the Complainant struck SO #2 in the groin area with a wooden stick. SO #2 delivered two distractionary knee strikes to the Complainant’s back area, and possibly a lunch to the torso, and ordered that he stop resisting. SO #1 leaned over the chair towards the Complainant to apprehend him. The Complainant grabbed onto the front of SO #1’s vest and pulled him off balance. SO #1 saw the Complainant near his gun, and struck the Complainant once in the right upper chest/shoulder area with a closed fist. The Complainant let go of his vest. SO #1, WO #2, and SO #2 lifted the Complainant from his stationary seat, carried him down the hallway of the unit to the apartment door where paramedics were stationed, and handcuffed him to their stretcher.

The Complainant was transported to the hospital and diagnosed with fractures of the right anterolateral 10^th and 11^th ribs.

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 HPS officers on November 13, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming SO #1 and SO #2 the subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that SO #1 or SO #2 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.

I am satisfied that the officers had grounds to apprehend the Complainant on the strength of the Form 1.

I am also satisfied that the force used in aid of the Complainant’s apprehension was legally justified. This came after approximately an hours’ long police effort to have him voluntarily comply and attend the hospital with the police, following which it had become clear that the Complainant was not going to willingly cooperate. The officers used no more force than was necessary to apprehend the Complainant. The force appears to have consisted in the main in the officers lifting the Complainant from his chair and carrying him to the stretcher. Two knee strikes and one or two punches, aimed at the Complainant’s back and upper chest, were delivered. These would not appear disproportionate in the context of the Complainant’s assault of SO #2 with the wooden stick and a genuine concern over his proximity to SO #1’s gun.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s broken ribs were incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that SO #2 and SO #1 comported themselves other than within the limits of the criminal law. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: April 4, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit