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 54-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 24, 2024, at 11:50 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the OPP, the Complainant was arrested by Picton Detachment OPP officers for domestic assault and breaching conditions of a release order, and held at the detachment for a bail hearing. At some point, the Complainant was out of the cells for Weekend and Statutory Holiday court, after which he was returned to cells. Once in the cells, he fell backward and hit his head, either on purpose or because of a medical condition. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called and transported him to Belleville General Hospital where he was admitted.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/03/24 at 12:44 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/03/24 at 4:09 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 27, 2024.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on October 28, 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

The witness officials were interviewed between October 4, 2024, and October 28, 2024.

Service Employee Witness (SEW)

SEW Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The service employee witness was interviewed on October 4, 2024.

Investigative Delay

Delay was incurred when this file, initially submitted to the Director’s Office for resolution by way of a closure memo and finding of “no serious injury”, was returned for full investigation.

Delay was also incurred because of workload pressures in the Director’s Office.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in a cell at the OPP Prince Edward County Detachment - Picton.

Physical Evidence

There was a pool of blood at the doorway of the cell, which measured over 30 cm in diameter. There was medical waste on the floor near the pool of blood. There was a package on the floor near the pool of blood that contained some plastic material with a zipper. The area where the Complainant would have slept had a white blanket on top and another blanket bunched up near the pillow with a small bloodstain on top that measured approximately 5 mm in diameter. There was McDonald’s food packaging on top of the sink unit.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Custody Footage

The video footage began at 3:47:31 p.m., March 23, 2024, in the sally port. The garage door opened, and an OPP SUV entered. A man - the Complainant - exited the rear driver side of the cruiser and was taken inside the detachment. His hands were cuffed behind his back. The Complainant was escorted to the booking area by a female officer.

Starting at about 3:49:54 p.m., the female officer removed the handcuffs. The Complainant sat on a bench while the female officer and a male officer appeared to speak with him. His personal items were removed.

Starting at about 3:57:14 p.m., the Complainant got up off the bench. He walked over to the booking desk where the two officers were and appeared to sign some paperwork. The two officers escorted him out of the booking area.

Starting at about 3:57:36 p.m., the Complainant entered the cell. He took a sheet from the bench and covered himself as he laid down.

Starting at about 4:04:38 p.m., the female officer returned to the cell. The Complainant did not move. She left the area about 20 seconds later.

Starting at about 4:13:43 p.m., the Complainant pulled the sheet over his head. At one point, he got up off the bench and appeared to use the toilet before going back to lie down on the bench.

Starting at about 4:23:03 p.m., a woman in plain clothes wearing a blue shirt approached the cell. She and the Complainant appeared to speak for about 90 seconds before she left.

Starting at about 4:39:07 p.m., the female officer approached the cell. The Complainant was lying on the bench and pulled the sheet down from over his head as they appeared to converse.

Starting at about 4:40:19 p.m., the female officer left the area.

Starting at about 4:49:14 p.m., the Complainant got up off the bench. He walked over to and stood at the cell door. The woman in the blue shirt approached the cell door and they appeared to have a conversation.

Starting at about 4:50:08 p.m., the woman walked away. The Complainant returned to the bench and sat down.

Starting at about 4:51:31 p.m., the female officer returned to the cells. The Complainant remained seated while they appeared to converse.

Starting at about 4:53:51 p.m., the female officer walked away. The Complainant remained seated on the bench and then laid down, covering himself with the sheet.

Starting at about 4:57:25 p.m., the female officer returned to the cells. She unlocked the cell door and opened it. The Complainant got up off the bench and walked out of the cell. He was escorted to a room out of camera view. The female officer and a male officer waited near the booking desk.

Starting at about 5:01:01 p.m., the Complainant exited the room. The male officer escorted him back to the cell. The Complainant entered and went back to the bench.

Starting at about 5:02:36 p.m., the male officer left the cell area.

Starting at about 5:03:21 p.m., the male officer and woman in the blue shirt returned to the cells. The woman carried what appeared to be a blue rectangular mat. The male officer entered the cell and helped the Complainant lay the mat on the bench. The Complainant laid on the mat.

Starting at about 5:04:10 p.m., the male officer and the woman left the cell area.

The rest of the footage captured the Complainant in the cell alone. He spent much of his time lying down on the bench but would frequently sit up, get up and walk over to the sink or pace around. The woman in the blue shirt and officers attended the cells several times, and the Complainant would sit up or get up and walk over to the cell door. At times, he appeared to be sleeping. He did not appear to be injured or in any medical distress during this time.

On March 24, 2024, at 8:04:33 a.m., a female officer attended the cells. She opened the cell and the Complainant walked out. He followed her down the hall to the previously mentioned room not on camera.

Starting at about 8:10:38 a.m., the Complainant exited the room and was escorted back to the cell by the same officer.

Starting at about 8:11:00 a.m., the police officer locked the cell door and left the cell area. The Complainant went over to the sink in the cell and appeared to take a drink in a cup.

Starting at about 8:11:20 a.m., the Complainant suddenly fell backward onto the ground next to the cell door and began shaking. He appeared to be having a seizure. He rolled onto his left side and back as his body continued to shake.

Starting at about 8:11:37 a.m., two male police officers attended the cell area. One of the officers opened the door of the cell and entered. Both officers attended to the Complainant.

Starting at about 8:26:32 a.m., EMS entered the sally port.

At 8:27:51 a.m., EMS entered the cell area. The male police officers were still attending to the Complainant, who appeared to be sitting up.

Starting at about 8:30:02 a.m., one of the paramedics entered the cell. The officer inside the cell moved aside. He appeared to have been holding something to the back of the Complainant’s head, which seemed to have quite a bit of blood on it. EMS attended to the Complainant before he was helped to his feet by police officers.

Starting at about 8:31:58 a.m., the two police officers led the Complainant out of the cell to a stretcher where paramedics continued to attend to him.

Starting at about 8:39:57 a.m., the Complainant was taken out to a waiting ambulance.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between March 28, 2024, and October 25, 2024:

• Arrest Report
• Custody footage
• Notes - the SEW
• Notes - WO #5
• Notes - WO #1
• Notes - WO #2
• Notes - WO #3
• Notes - WO #4
• Involved Officers List
• Prisoner Report (with medical information form)
• Policy - Arrest/Detention
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Reports

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from Quinte Health on April 4, 2024.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police custodians involved in the Complainant’s care, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was her legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of her notes.

In the afternoon of March 23, 2024, the Complainant was arrested by WO #1 for breaching a no-contact order. The officer transported the Complainant to the OPP Picton Detachment and lodged him in a cell. Asked whether he needed any medication while in custody, the Complainant said no. He did caution WO #1 that he might experience withdrawal symptoms from alcohol abuse.

Through the rest of the day and into the night, the Complainant was regularly checked by police staff. He presented as coherent and appeared well, if anxious. His anxiety escalated to the point he thought he was having a seizure or heart attack. He asked about his medications at home, and requested to go to hospital. The SO called home to inquire about the medications but was unable to reach the Complainant’s family. The SO denied his request to attend hospital.

At about 8:10 a.m., March 24, 2024, shortly after his return to cells following a call to his lawyer, the Complainant fell backward, struck his head on the wall, and began shaking. WO #2 and WO #4 entered the cell and provided first-aid. Paramedics attended at about 8:30 a.m.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a seizure owing to alcohol withdrawal.

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 was seriously injured while in custody at the OPP Picton Detachment on March 24, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming the officer with overall responsibility for the care of prisoners – 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 injury.

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, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that endangered the Complainant’s life or played a role in his seizure. In my view, there was not.

There are no questions raised in the evidence regarding the lawfulness of the Complainant’s arrest. By all accounts, he appears to have been properly taken into custody for violating a no-contact order.

With respect to the level of care the Complainant received by his custodians, including the SO, I am unable to reasonably conclude on the evidence that it fell short of the requirements of the criminal law. The Complainant was regularly checked while in cells. Though anxious and unsettled, he appeared physically well for the most part. There was some reason to believe that the Complainant was intoxicated by alcohol and had recently suffered a brain injury, but neither condition presented as an acute medical crisis. When the Complainant asked to go to hospital, the SO sought advice from a more senior officer – WO #3. He counselled that hospital attendance was not required as the Complainant was neither injured nor in pain. The SO had also attempted to contact a family member of the Complainant’s about his medications, but had not been able to reach them. As soon as the Complainant lapsed into acute medical crisis, the evidence indicates that his custodians acted with dispatch to render care and call for an ambulance.

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

Date: April 11, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit