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 20-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 21, 2024, at 9:30 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the OPP, on December 13, 2024, officers were conducting a Reduced Impaired Driving Everywhere (RIDE) traffic stop campaign in Bath when they observed the Complainant attempting to flee. Officers followed and observed the Complainant’s vehicle strike a curb before pulling into a parking lot where he fled on foot. He was arrested without incident. On December 19, 2024, the Complainant attended the detachment for fingerprints on crutches. He alleged that he fractured his ankle during the arrest at some point. He further advised that he had bone cancer and had previously fractured the same ankle.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/12/21 at 11:53 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/12/23 at 11:00 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on December 23, 2024.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on February 10, 2025.

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

The witness officials were interviewed between February 5, 2025, and February 14, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired at the front of a building in Bath.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPP Body-worn Camera (BWC), In-car Camera (ICC) & Custody Footage

Starting at about 8:32:38 p.m., December 13, 2024, the SO was captured driving west on County Road 33/Main Street. No emergency equipment was operating on his vehicle.

Starting at about 8:32:55 p.m., the SO stopped momentarily at the intersection of Queen Street and Church Street, and activated his emergency lighting equipment.

Starting at about 8:35 p.m., the SO accelerated rapidly on Queen Street from Church Street. In the distance, red tail/brake lights were seen on a vehicle.

Starting at about 8:36:22 p.m., while traveling at a high rate of speed, with emergency lighting operating, the SO activated the siren.

Starting at about 8:36:42 p.m., an officer responded, and the SO advised "Yea, I need you down in Bath here, I got a vehicle that’s driving all over the road."

Starting at about 8:36:57 p.m., the SO advised dispatch the vehicle he was pursuing had just mounted the curb and continued driving. He provided the direction of travel.

Starting at about 8:37:15 p.m., as the SO entered a parking lot, he said, "Yeah, there he is. He’s running away." A figure was visible in the darkness, running out of frame.

Starting at about 8:37:31 p.m., the SO stopped his vehicle in the parking lot. He exited the vehicle and ran out of frame.

Starting at about 8:37:35 p.m., the SO confronted the Complainant and a female in the front of a building. The Complainant denied running from the police and said his brother ran into the woods. The Complainant appeared extremely nervous and agitated, and did not want to be physically held onto by the police. Two other officers arrived to assist the SO. The Complainant appeared to walk in measured steps, halting briefly then stepping forward as the officers directed him to the cruiser. The Complainant appeared to misstep as he was led to the cruiser and could conceivably have rolled his ankle at that time; however, there was no outcry of pain or utterance by the Complainant that would suggest an injury occurred.

Starting at about 8:56 p.m., the Complainant, while being escorted to WO #1’s vehicle, faltered in his step and uttered, “My ankle’s all fucked up. I’m still in recovery. I have bone cancer.” Once in the vehicle, WO #1 asked the Complainant what was wrong with his ankle, to which he replied, “It’s broken. I’ve been to the hospital every fuckin’ day. They don’t do nothing for me.”

Starting at about 9:27 p.m., the Complainant arrived at the Napanee OPP Detachment and was escorted into the booking area where he was asked a series of questions. The Complainant advised the booking officer of health issues, including that he was on medication for weak bones due to bone cancer. When asked if he was running from the officers that evening, the Complainant agreed and jokingly said he should not even be walking half the time.

Starting at about 10:00 p.m., the Complainant was brought into the Breath Room. He appeared to favour his left foot as he walked into the room and then sat in a chair. The Complainant was cooperative throughout the process. He advised he had a small crack in his left ankle, and that his ankle had been like that for some time due to bone cancer and, likely, too much activity. The Complainant also said he was involved in a motor vehicle rollover in October 2024.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between December 13, 2024, and January 13, 2025.

• Communications recordings
• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• A list of involved officers
• Custody footage
• BWC recording - WO #1
• BWC recording - WO #4
• BWC recording - Officer #1
• BWC recording - the SO
• ICC recording - Officer #1
• ICC recording - the SO
• Notes - WO #2
• Notes - WO #1
• Notes - WO #3
• Notes - WO #4

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from Lennox and Addington County General Hospital on January 5, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, 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 evening of December 13, 2024, the SO, in the company of WO #1, were manning a RIDE stop in the area of County Road 7 and Highway 33, Bath, when they observed a vehicle stop and reverse away from their location. The officers drove after the vehicle.

The Complainant was the driver of the vehicle. The CW was with him. They had arrived at an apartment building in Bath when they were approached in the front foyer by the SO.

The SO had pursued their vehicle to the address and confronted the Complainant about his failure to stop. The Complainant was given a breath test, registered a fail, and was arrested for impaired operation of a motor vehicle. Additional officers were at the scene by this time, and they assisted in handcuffing the Complainant behind the back.

The Complainant was escorted to a nearby cruiser for transport to the police detachment. He was not entirely cooperative, occasionally planting his feet to resist his forward movement. The Complainant appeared to take a misstep at one point, possibly rolling his left ankle in the process. After some difficulty, he was lodged in the rear seat of the cruiser and transported to the station.

On December 15, 2024, the Complainant attended hospital and was diagnosed with an undisplaced left lateral malleolar fracture.

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 diagnosed with a serious injury following his arrest by OPP officers in Bath on December 13, 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.

The SO had lawful grounds to take the Complainant into custody. He had attempted to evade a RIDE stop and failed a breath test.

With respect to any force brought to bear by the SO or the other officers, the evidence indicates there was very little, if any. It appears that officers might have applied some pressure to keep the Complainant moving forward en route to the police cruiser at the scene, but this was marginal at most and made necessary by the Complainant’s push-back as they walked. The same can basically be said in respect of the Complainant’s entry into the rear seat of the cruiser. While there is a version of events proffered in the evidence in which the SO is said to have stepped onto the Complainant’s left foot, applying his full body weight, as the officers tried to fit the Complainant into the cruiser, it would be unwise and unsafe to place much stock in that evidence. None of the other witnesses present at the time, including the four witness officers, made mention of this in their account of what occurred.

In remains unclear when exactly the Complainant sustained his fracture. There is evidence that the injury might have pre-existed his run-in with police on the day in question. Be that as it may, there are no reasonable grounds to conclude the injury was the result of any unlawful conduct on the part of the police. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: April 14, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit