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 34-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 16, 2024, at 5:30 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) in the East Region contacted the SIU with the following information.

On December 15, 2024, in the evening, a 40-year-old man [later identified as the Complainant] was arrested for impaired operation of a motor vehicle by drugs. He was taken into custody and lodged in a cell at the Long Sault OPP Detachment, where he was kept overnight. In the morning of December 16, 2024, a police officer tried to wake the Complainant for a bail hearing, but he was unresponsive. The Complainant was administered two doses of naloxone, and taken to Cornwall Community Hospital (CCH). At the hospital, a Kinder Surprise egg with suspected drugs was found in the Complainant’s underwear. The Complainant was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit, and underwent medical tests and scans. There were concerns that the Complainant might have suffered brain damage due to drug ingestion.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/12/16 at 6:18 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/12/17 at 1:20 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on December 20, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #6 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between December 20, 2024, and January 9, 2025.

Service Employee Witnesses (SEW)

SEW #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SEW #2 Interviewed

The service employee witnesses were interviewed between January 9, 2025, and January 16, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the area of the cells at the Long Sault OPP Detachment.

Physical Evidence

On December 17, 2024, at 1:20 a.m., two SIU forensic investigators arrived at the Long Sault OPP Detachment. The detachment had a custody area located at the rear of the building, which had a sally port. Access to this area was controlled by a large garage-style door and a pedestrian door. There was a booking area, a fingerprint room, and a guard station. There were two cell areas. Each cell had a concrete bench along the wall and was equipped with a stainless-steel custody toilet. The entire custody area was monitored via cameras mounted on the ceiling. The guard station faced large metal doors. There were two monitors at the guard station that allowed viewing of the surveillance cameras by the guard on duty.

The metal door leading to the cell area was locked and sealed. The cell where the Complainant had been housed was locked. The cell contained white blankets on the bench and floor, a piece of foil on the floor next to the bench and a white paper cup on the fixed side of the bars at the front of the cell. An empty toilet paper roll was on the bars. There was a camera mounted on the ceiling, in the northwest corner, directly above the cell door, which faced downward.

The following items were located and collected from within the cell:

• White blanket from the top of the bench area
• White blanket, white smock, and white bench pad from the floor directly in front of bench
• Three pieces of foil and two small pieces of square plastic from the floor directly in front of bench
• White paper cup (empty) located on the bars at the front of the cell

All the collected items were photographed and placed into paper bags. The Complainant’s personal belonging were stored in a plastic bin that sat on the floor outside the cell.

The staff sergeant advised that WO #4 had collected an orange Kinder Surprise egg-style plastic container with an unknown substance.

Photographs were taken of the entire scene and a scan was taken.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – The SO

On December 16, 2024, starting at about 12:10 a.m., the SO advised dispatch that he had a vehicle stopped. The officer was captured exiting his police vehicle and walking to the driver’s door of a white sedan [now known to be a Chevrolet Malibu]. He asked the driver [now known to be the Complainant] how much he had to drink. The Complainant’s speech was slurred and very slow. The SO then asked how much weed he had smoked. The Complainant mumbled and did not respond to the SO’s questions. The SO went back to his police vehicle with the Complainant’s documents and checked him on the computer.

Starting at about 12:18 a.m., the SO had the Complainant step out of his car. The Complainant faced his car and put his hands behind his back. The SO told him he was under arrest for impaired operation of a vehicle, and handcuffed the Complainant with his hands behind the back. The SO walked the Complainant back to the rear passenger door of the police vehicle. The Complainant was very unsteady on his feet and slurred his speech. The SO performed a pat-down search of the Complainant and located a crack pipe in his right boot. The Complainant was placed in the rear of the police vehicle. The SO read the charge to the Complainant and his rights to counsel, and then repeated the process a second time.

Starting at about 12:28 a.m., the SO closed the rear door to the police vehicle. Two other uniformed police officers [now known to be WO #1 and WO #2] arrived on scene. A search was conducted of the Complainant’s Malibu by all three police officers.

Starting at about 12:31 a.m., the SO returned to his police vehicle, where he placed seized property on the rear closed trunk of the police vehicle.

BWC Footage - WO #1

Starting at about 12:24 a.m., December 16, 2024, WO #1 exited the front passenger door of his police vehicle and walked to the rear passenger door of a fully marked police vehicle [now known to be the SO’s vehicle]. A uniform police officer - the SO - stood beside the open door.

Starting at about 1:01 a.m., a police officer - WO #2 - opened the rear passenger door of the SO’s police vehicle. WO #1 picked up what appeared to be a handgun, later identified as a lighter.

Starting at about 1:03 a.m., WO #1 opened the rear door of the SO’s police vehicle and had the Complainant step outside to be searched. The SO conducted a pat-down search of the Complainant, who was then placed back in the police vehicle. The video ended at 1:07 a.m.

Custody / Cell Footage

On December 16, 2024, starting at about 1:26 a.m., the SO’s vehicle entered the sally port. Waiting in the sally port was a uniformed police officer - WO #3. The operator of the police vehicle - the SO - opened the rear passenger door and the Complainant exited. Also present was a passenger [now known to be an off-duty Ottawa Police Service (OPS) police officer, WO #6, who was a ride-along]. WO #3 escorted the Complainant through a door into the booking room where he was sat on a bench.

Starting at about 1:31 a.m., the SO removed the handcuffs from the Complainant. The Complainant’s outer jacket was removed by the SO, who went through the pockets. The Complainant removed his dark-coloured sweat top. The SO had the Complainant stand and face the opposite wall, with his hands on the wall. The SO went through the Complainant’s rear pockets. He conducted a pat-down search of the Complainant. The Complainant was sat down at 1:36 a.m., and he removed his socks.

Starting at about 1:37 a.m., the Complainant entered the cell hallway, accompanied by the SO, and was placed in a cell. The Complainant sat down on the cell bench as recorded.

Starting at about 2:05 a.m., the Complainant stood up and walked out of the cell. At 2:14 a.m., he re-entered the cell.

Starting at about 2:49 a.m., the Complainant was given blankets and laid on the bench, covering himself with the blankets.

Starting at about 3:37 a.m., the Complainant placed his head under the blankets.

Starting at about 6:19 a.m., the Complainant stood up and urinated in the toilet.

Starting at about 6:22 a.m., a blanket was poked through the cell door and the Complainant stood up and accepted the blanket. He laid down with the blankets on top of his body and head.

Starting at about 7:45 a.m., the Complainant moved around, including his legs, under the blanket. It was unclear what he was doing as he was covered by the blanket.

Starting at about 8:14 a.m., the Complainant turned over to face the wall, and moved his head over the covers. Movement could be seen under the blanket.

Starting at about 8:16 a.m., the Complainant turned to face away from the wall.

Starting at about 8:24 a.m., the Complainant moved onto his back, and he remained on his back with no movement until 9:34 a.m., when a uniformed police officer [now known to be WO #4] entered the cell with papers in his hands. WO #4 pulled the blankets from the Complainant and shook him, but got no response.

Starting at about 9:35 a.m., WO #4 exited the cell and, at 9:37 a.m., the officer re-entered with a uniformed sergeant.

Starting at about 9:38 a.m., both police officers left the cell. WO #4 re-entered the cell at 9:43 a.m. and, at 9:53 a.m., firefighters entered the cell and attended to the Complainant. The Complainant was placed on the floor on his back and, at 9:59 a.m., a paramedic entered the view.

At 10:07 a.m., the Complainant was removed from the cell.

Cell Hallway

Starting at about 6:19 a.m., December 16, 2024, the Complainant stood and urinated in the toilet.

Starting at about 6:21 a.m., the Complainant was given an additional blanket by a guard – SEW #2.

Starting at about 9:18 a.m., another male guard - SEW #1 - checked on the Complainant.

Communications Recordings

On December 16, 2024, at 12:04 a.m., a woman called the OPP and reported a driving complaint. A white Chevrolet Malibu was all over the road southbound on Bank Street and had hit a curb in South Dundas Township. The caller was an on-duty paramedic in an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) ambulance.

Starting at about 12:05 a.m., the caller reported that the Malibu had swerved over both lanes and was travelling at 30 km/h. The SO was dispatched and, at 12:06 a.m., WO #1 and WO #2 were dispatched.

Starting at about 12:09 a.m., the SO broadcast that the Malibu had just passed him on Bank Street at Glen Becker Road.

Starting at about 12:10 a.m., the SO broadcast that he had the vehicle stopped.

Starting at about 12:14 a.m., the SO advised all was in order and he requested a drug recognition police officer. He indicated that a stun gun was found under the front seat of the Malibu. Telephone calls were made by the OPP dispatcher to the Cornwall Police Service, the Ottawa Police Service and the Brockville Police Service, none of which were able to locate a drug recognition police officer.

Starting at about 1:07 a.m., the SO advised that he was transporting the arrested person, and WO #1 requested a tow.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between December 17, 2024, and January 6, 2025:

• BWC footage
• Custody footage
• Communications recordings
• In-car camera footage
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Report – WO #6 (OPS ride-along)
• Notes – WO #4, WO #3, WO #1, WO #2, WO #5 and WO #6
• Prisoner Log Report – SEW #1
• Notes – SEW #1
• General Report
• Policy – Arrest/Detention & Use of Force

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between December 20, 2024, and January 7, 2025:

• Ambulance call report from Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry EMS
• The Complainant’s medical records from CCH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police witnesses and video footage that captured the incident in part, 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.

The Complainant was arrested by the SO for impaired driving in the early morning of December 16, 2024. An on-duty paramedic had contacted police about a vehicle being operated erratically southbound on County Road 31. The SO pulled the vehicle over on County Road 31, a distance south of Glen Beker Road. The Complainant was removed from the vehicle, handcuffed without incident and searched by the SO. A crack pipe was located and seized. Additional officers arrived on scene and the Complainant was searched again, this time with negative results. A search of the Complainant’s vehicle revealed the presence of a stun gun.

The Complainant was transported to the detachment where quantities of suspected fentanyl and cocaine were removed from his person. At about 1:35 a.m., the Complainant was placed in a cell where it was intended he would be held until a bail hearing later that morning.

At about 9:35 a.m., WO #4 attended the cell to retrieve the Complainant in order to fingerprint him. The officer moved the Complainant’s legs and performed a sternum rub to wake him. The Complainant snored but was otherwise unresponsive. WO #4 notified the sergeant, and an ambulance was called. Naloxone was administered and the Complainant transported to hospital.

Later that afternoon, a nurse provided police a plastic Kinder Surprise egg that contained illicit substances, including suspected cocaine and fentanyl. Reportedly, the container had fallen out of the front of the Complainant’s underwear.

The Complainant received treatment at hospital for drug overdose. He was discharged on December 20, 2024.

Section 215, Criminal Code - Failure to Provide Necessaries

215 (1) Every one is under a legal duty

(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person

(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and

(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.

(2) Every person commits an offence who, being under a legal duty within the meaning of subsection (1), fails without lawful excuse to perform that duty, if

(b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant lapsed into medical distress while detained in cells at the Long Sault OPP Detachment on December 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 condition.

The offences that arise for consideration are failure to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to sections 215 and 221 of the Criminal Code, respectively. Both require something more than a simple want of care to give rise to liability. The former is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. The latter is premised on even more egregious conduct that demonstrates a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is not made out unless the neglect constitutes a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable standard of care. In the instant case, the question is whether there was any want of care on the part of the SO or any other police officer, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that endangered the Complainant’s life or played a role in his overdose. In my view, there was not.

The Complainant was properly in the custody of the OPP for impaired driving. The SO was aware of the reports of erratic driving, had personally seen the Complainant weaving in his lane before pulling him over, and would have appreciated the Complainant’s behaviour – including slurred speech – as signs of impairment.

With respect to the care afforded the Complainant while in police custody, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officers who dealt with him failed to comport themselves with the requisite level of care prescribed by the criminal law. The evidence indicates that the Complainant’s custodians suspected he was impaired by drug use, and ensured he was monitored regularly. Though some if not most of the checks that were performed were done by way of camera, the video was accompanied by audio that captured the Complainant snoring through much of his time in custody. As soon as the Complainant was discovered unresponsive in his cell, action was taken in a timely manner to summon medical attention.

The fact that the Complainant might well have accessed illicit substances on his person and ingested them while in cells is subject to legitimate scrutiny. Presumably, had a strip search been performed, the drugs (reportedly located in a container inside his underwear) might have been located and confiscated prior to the Complainant being lodged in the cell. Owing to their invasiveness, strip searches are to be reserved for exceptional cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe they are necessary in the circumstances of the case: R v Golden, [2001] 3 SCR 679. Arguably, this was one of those cases. The Complainant was arrested for operating a vehicle while impaired, and drugs had been located on his person. On the other hand, the Complainant had already been subjected to three pat-down searches in which drugs had already been found and collected. On this record, it does not appear that the prevailing circumstances were such as to demand a strip search.

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

Date: April 9, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit