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 death of a 46-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 2, 2024, at 12:18 p.m., the Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On January 2, 2024, at 10:48 a.m., the GSPS received a call involving intimate partner violence at an address in Chelmsford. A male [now known to be the Complainant] had attended his female partner’s residence and began to smash things. The female fled the residence and called 911. GSPS officers responded and located the Complainant. Officers attempted to arrest him for mischief and a struggle ensued. A conducted energy weapon (CEW) was deployed in the drive-stun mode but was ineffective. While being handcuffed, the Complainant went into medical distress and became vital signs absent (VSA). The Complainant was subsequently pronounced deceased by Emergency Medical Services (EMS).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/01/02 at 12:38 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/01/02 at 1:41 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

46-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between January 3, 2024, and January 12, 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

The witness officials were interviewed between January 3, 2024, and January 12, 2024.

Investigative Delay

The Report of Postmortem Examination was received from the Coroner’s Office on September 6, 2024.

The Panel Review Document of the Complex Case Expert Committee was received from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service on March 1, 2025.

An expert opinion was received from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service on March 10, 2025.

An expert opinion was received from the Ontario Provincial Police on January 22, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a small room on the main floor of a home located in Chelmsford, Greater Sudbury.

SIU forensic investigators attended the scene on January 2, 2024, at 6:57 p.m. The scene was examined and photographed, and a scale drawing created.

Forensic Evidence

Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) Toxicology Report

The CFS report revealed a cocaine level in the sample of femoral blood that has been associated with fatalities.

Deployment Data – The SO’s CEW

The data indicated that the weapon was deployed in and around the time of the events in question on eight occasions, each time in drive-stun mode.

The deployments occurred at 11:06:09 a.m.[2] for a duration of 3.577 seconds, 11:06:59 a.m. for a duration of 0.907 seconds, 11:07 a.m. for a duration of 2.591 seconds, 11:07:08 a.m. for a duration of 2.147 seconds, 11:07:40 a.m. for a duration of 1.382 seconds, 11:08:52 a.m. for a duration of 1.796 seconds, 11:08:54 a.m. for a duration of 1.043 seconds, and 11:09:10 a.m. for a duration of 1.426 seconds.[3]

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[4]

GSPS Communications Recordings

On January 2, 2024, at 10:38 a.m., a call was placed to 911 by a neighbour regarding what was reported to be a “domestic” at an address [now know to be CW #2’s residence].

At 10:38 a.m., a second call was placed to 911 by another person, CW #2, reporting a man [now known to be the Complainant] inside her residence “trashing” the place and in possession of a knife. CW #2 stated she had grabbed the knife from him and run outside. CW #2 indicated she had seen blood on the floor but no injuries. The Complainant claimed people were trying to murder him.

At 10:40 a.m., GSPS requested that ambulance attend and stage near the residence in case the Complainant was injured.

At 11:12 a.m., WO #3 advised, “One in custody,” over the police radio, and requested EMS to attend right away. Two further radio transmissions were made requesting that EMS expedite their arrival.

At 11:15 a.m., EMS was entering the home.

At 11:20 a.m., WO #1 advised that the Complainant was VSA and, at 11:26 a.m., stated the Complainant was still VSA and cardiopulmonary resuscitation was being performed.

At 11:56 a.m., a paramedic described lifesaving measures with a physician over the phone. The physician pronounced the Complainant deceased.

At 11:58 a.m., WO #1 advised over the police radio that the Complainant had been pronounced deceased.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the GSPS between January 3, 2024, and January 5, 2024:

• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• Call-signs for involved police officers
• General, Supplementary, and Homicide/Sudden Death Reports
• Names, contact information and statements of all civilian witnesses
• CEW deployment data
• GSPS record of previous involvements with the Complainant
• Notes - WO #1, WO #3, WO #2 and WO #4

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between January 9, 2024, and March 10, 2025:

• Greater Sudbury Paramedic Service records – the Complainant
• The Report of Postmortem Examination from the Coroner’s Office
• The Panel Review Document of the Complex Case Expert Committee from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service
• An expert opinion from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service
• An expert opinion regarding CEW data from the Ontario Provincial Police

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police officers who took part in the Complainant’s arrest and civilian witnesses, 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.

In the morning of January 2, 2024, GSPS officers were dispatched to a home in Chelmsford, Greater Sudbury. The police had received 911 calls from a resident of the home (CW #2) and a neighbour reporting a disturbance involving the Complainant. The Complainant, a guest at the house, was reportedly trashing the interior of the home, had claimed people were trying to kill him, and was in possession of a knife. The time was about 10:40 a.m.

For the preceding hour or longer, the Complainant, high on cocaine, had been in an agitated and psychotic state inside the house. He was screaming and yelling, and damaging items in the home. The commotion had caught the attention of neighbours, who reported the disturbance to CW #2, at work at the time. CW #2 had arrived home to investigate what was happening. She entered the house and found the Complainant in the walk-in pantry on the main-floor. He was highly agitated, paranoid - believing people were after him - and overturning the pantry shelves. CW #2 picked up a knife lying on the pantry floor, fled the home and contacted police.

WO #1 and WO #2 were the first officers to arrive at about 10:50 a.m. They entered the home and found the Complainant lying on his back in the pantry. The Complainant punched at the walls and kicked out with his legs. He shouted incoherently but was understood to say that someone was trying to kill him. The officers attempted to calm him to no avail. At one point, the Complainant kicked WO #2 in the shin. Believing the Complainant was suffering a drug overdose, WO #1 concluded the Complainant needed to be apprehended in order to provide him medical care. He decided to call on the assistance of additional officers before moving in to effect an arrest.

The SO and WO #4 were next on scene, shortly after 11:00 a.m., followed by WO #3. The officers developed a plan whereby they would enter the pantry to take hold of the Complainant and secure him in handcuffs and hobbles. The SO was the first into the pantry. The officer approached the Complainant (standing at the time) from behind and forced him to the floor front-first. He then straddled the Complainant near the shoulders and attempted to wrestle control of his arms. WO #1 took up a position over the Complainant’s lower back. The Complainant struggled against the officers’ efforts, refusing to release his arms, attempting to lift himself, and flailing his legs. At WO #1’s direction, the SO discharged his CEW in drive stun mode into the Complainant’s back on multiple occasions. The Complainant continued to struggle. In time, the Complainant’s feet were secured in hobbles, after which the officers were able to wrestle control of his arms and handcuff them behind the back.

The Complainant was pulled fully out from the pantry onto the kitchen floor whereupon he became unresponsive. The officers checked his respiration and believed he was breathing, albeit not easily. They checked for a pulse and found one. When a sternum rub failed to illicit a response from the Complainant, it became apparent that he was in medical crisis. A rush was placed on the ambulance and the Complainant put into the recovery position on the living room floor.

Paramedics arrived on scene at about 11:15 a.m. and found the Complainant vital signs absent. The Complainant was rolled onto his back and lifesaving protocols were initiated.

The Complainant was pronounced deceased at the scene at 11:56 a.m.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to ‘combined cocaine toxicity, forcible struggle with prone restraint and hypertensive heart disease’. Following a review of the case by the Complex Case Expert Committee of the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service, the cause of death was amended to read: “Prone Restraint in the setting of Cocaine Toxicity and Hypertensive Heart Disease”.

With respect to the possible role on the CEW discharges (as many as eight drive-stuns), expert pathology evidence obtained by the SIU indicated they did not directly contribute to the Complainant’s death. The expert evidence further indicated that the “CEW could have placed additional stress on the heart indirectly, in the same manner as the struggle with police officers. But it is difficult to quantify the stress related to the CEW deployment”.

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.

Section 430, Criminal Code - Mischief

430(1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully

(a) destroys or damages property;

(b) renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective;

(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or

(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.

The Complainant passed away shortly after his arrest by GSPS officers on January 2, 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 death.

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 and the other officers were lawfully placed through the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s death. The Complainant had destroyed property and was subject to arrest for mischief under section 430 of the Criminal Code. Beyond that, WO #1, the senior officer on scene for much of the engagement, had cause to want to arrest the Complainant as soon as possible. In furtherance of the officer’s overriding duty to preserve and protect life, WO #1 quickly discerned that the Complainant, whom he feared was suffering the effects of drug overdose, required medical attention. The sooner they apprehended the Complainant, the sooner he could be treated.

I am also satisfied that the officers’ interventions constituted a proportionate response to the exigencies at hand. The Complainant’s resistance was significant. It took four officers to overcome his resistance and secure him in restraints. In the course of that struggle, most if not all of which consisted of the officers attempting to wrestle control of the Complainant’s limbs, the SO discharged his CEW on multiple occasions in drive-stun mode. It made sense to deploy the CEW in the close-quarters in which the officers found themselves. Had it worked as designed, the pain inflicted by the weapon would have temporarily subdued the Complainant, allowing for his apprehension sooner rather than later. Regrettably, it is apparent that the initial discharges did not have that effect, and the struggle would continue through the series of deployments (whether they actually made impact with the Complainant or not).

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. While I accept that prone restraint played a role in the Complainant’s death, and that the struggle with police and use of the CEW may or may not have contributed indirectly to the death, I am satisfied the evidence falls short of any reasonable suggestion that the officers’ conduct was unlawful. The officers had a difficult decision to make, and little time in which to make it, after WO #1 discerned that the Complainant was in crisis and required medical intervention right away. They could decide to wait to see how the Complainant’s condition might develop, but that course of action and the delay it entailed carried risk. Or they could decide on a more proactive posture, hopeful that a prompt arrest would result in a better outcome. In view of these competing considerations, I am satisfied that the officers’ decision-making was within the range of what was reasonable in the circumstances. The file is closed.

Date: April 1, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit