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 46-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 11, 2024, at 9:31 a.m., the Sault Ste. Marie Police Service (SSMPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On December 11, 2024, at 6:08 a.m., police officers with the SSMPS Emergency Service Unit (ESU), part of a joint forces operation [involving York Regional Police (YRP)], attended an apartment in downtown Sault Ste. Marie for the purposes of a warrant execution on the Complainant. The Complainant was a suspect in a homicide in the Toronto area. The Complainant opened the door to his unit as officers were entering, and was arrested at 6:10 a.m. As he was brought to his feet, it was revealed that he had suffered an injury to his mouth. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were requested to attend, and paramedics assessed the Complainant, who was reported to have had three teeth knocked out from his mouth during the interaction. The Complainant declined medical treatment or transport to hospital. He was turned over to a YRP investigator at 6:26 a.m., while a search of the unit was initiated. The Complainant was ultimately released unconditionally at 7:25 a.m. from the scene location.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/12/12 at 9:40 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/12/12 at 10:00 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

46-year-old male; not interviewed (declined)

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on December 17, 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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

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

WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on December 27, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the front entrance of an apartment in downtown Sault Ste. Marie.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

SSMPS - Communications Recordings

On December 11, 2024, the recording began with a series of routine radio checks between officers and the communications centre. Shortly after, dispatch arranged for EMS and Fire Services to stage nearby, ready to respond, as the ESU prepared to execute a warrant.

Once the area was confirmed as quiet, ESU moved in on foot. At 6:05 a.m., they approached the target address. Just over six minutes into the recording, the team breached the main front door. Seconds later, they announced that the apartment door had been opened and contact made.

At six minutes and 36 seconds into the recording, the ESU reported that they had one person in custody [the Complainant]. Less than 20 seconds later, a follow-up transmission stated that the individual was bleeding from the mouth, prompting a request for EMS to attend.

At seven minutes and 15 seconds, it was confirmed that no one else was inside.

At 11 minutes and 54 seconds, the ESU reported that the Complainant had been handed over to Officer #1.

At 13 minutes and 10 seconds, the team advised that the Complainant had been released, marking the conclusion of their operation, and they cleared the scene.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the SSMPS on December 12, 2024:

• Arrest Report
• Notes – Officer #2, Officer #1, WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5 and WO #6
• Will Says – Officer #2 and Officer #1
• Communications recordings
• In-car camera footage - tactical vehicle
• EMS records

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police witnesses, 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 morning of December 11, 2024, members of the SSMPS ESU, including the SO, convened outside a house in downtown Sault Ste. Marie. They were tasked with entering an apartment at the address ahead of a search team. A search warrant naming the tenant – the Complainant – had been issued in respect of a homicide investigation in York Region.

The team forced their way into the home and went upstairs to the apartment. As they prepared to forcibly enter the apartment, the door opened to reveal the Complainant. The SO, positioned near the front of the stack of officers, physically engaged the Complainant. The Complainant was forced to the ground and handcuffed by the officer.

The Complainant lost several teeth in the altercation. He was offered medical attention by the officers but declined.

Following the search of the apartment, the Complainant was unconditionally released at the scene.

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 SSMPS officers on December 11, 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.

Based on the search warrant reportedly identifying the Complainant as the target of a homicide investigation, I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights in seeking to arrest the Complainant when the door to the apartment opened.

I am also satisfied that the evidence falls short of any reasonable suggestion that the force used by the SO was excessive. The best evidence of how the Complainant’s arrest unfolded comes from WO #2, who was also near the front of the ESU stack outside the apartment. He says that the SO attempted to grab the Complainant when the door opened, but that the Complainant pulled away and retreated into the apartment. The SO followed him inside and wrapped his arms around the Complainant in a bear hug. The two struggled for a period before the SO grounded the Complainant, landing on top of him. With the Complainant in a prone position, the SO proceeded to handcuff him behind the back. The force used on this account of what happened, principally, a takedown, made sense given the potential presence of firearms in the apartment[3] and the associated need to take the Complainant into custody as soon as possible. There is a version of events proffered in the evidence in which the Complainant was immediately punched in the face by the SO on opening the door, losing several front teeth in the process. That account, however, must be discounted in some measure as it was not tested in the context of a question and answer interview process. On this record, there being no reason to believe that the evidence of undue force is any likelier to be closer to the truth that the police evidence, and some reason to doubt it, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the force used by the SO was unwarranted.

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

Date: April 10, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit