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 injuries of a 62-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 6, 2025, sometime after 4:00 p.m., a motor vehicle accident occurred in Burlington. An impaired driver [now known to be the Complainant] struck a parked vehicle and attempted to flee the scene. An off-duty HRPS officer [now known to be the Subject Official (SO)] intervened. The Complainant resisted the SO, and a physical altercation ensued in which the Complainant went to the ground. At 4:28 p.m., the Complainant was arrested for impaired driving, taken to Central Lock-up at 30 Division, and subsequently transported to the hospital. At 9:33 p.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with two fractured ribs and a broken nose.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/01/07 at 7:19 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/01/07 at 4:25 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on January 15, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on January 23, 2025.

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

The witness officials were interviewed between January 9, 2025, and January 14, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in a parking lot in Burlington.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Doorbell Video Footage

A vehicle [now known to be operated by the Complainant] pulled into an available parking spot between two parked vehicles, its front passenger side visibly and audibly colliding with the front passenger side of a parked vehicle [now known to be owned by WO #4], which was reverse-parked.

HRPS Communications Recordings - Call 1

On January 6, 2025, starting at about 3:58 p.m., a self-identified off-duty Peel Regional Police (PRP) officer - WO #4 - called HRPS to report that a man - the Complainant - had struck her vehicle an hour before. The Complainant had pulled in, struck her vehicle, and then moved to another parking spot. WO #4 had attempted to confront him, and believed he was impaired because he shouted at her and had a vodka bottle in the front pocket of his pants. The Complainant said, “Fuck the cops, I’ll piss on your back.” The Complainant shouted and cursed audibly in the background of the call.

HRPS Communications Recordings – Call 2

On January 6, 2025, starting at about 4:05 p.m., WO #4 called 911 to update the original call and reported that the Complainant had attempted to leave the scene. The Complainant was bleeding and being held on the ground. Several voices shouted in the background.

HRPS Communications Recordings – Call 3

On January 6, 2025, starting at about 4:13 p.m., self-identified off-duty HRPS SO called 911 to report that an impaired individual - the Complainant - had tried to drive away from the scene. The SO attempted to stop him, and the Complainant assaulted him. The Complainant fought and bled.

HRPS Communications Recordings – Radio

On January 6, 2025, the dispatcher directed WO #2 and WO #3 to attend the scene for a collision between two vehicles involving a possibly impaired driver.

Starting at about 4:26 p.m., the Complainant was reportedly in custody.

Video Footage – Business

On January 6, 2025, starting at about 3:14 p.m., the Complainant was captured opening a can, taking a long drink from the can, and sitting down in a chair.

Starting at about 3:45:43 p.m., WO #4 opened the entrance door to the business. She interacted with the Complainant. WO #4 turned to show something [now known to be a cellular phone] to the Complainant, who leaned in towards her. The Complainant and WO #4 interacted.

Starting at about 4:22:05 p.m., a HRPS cruiser with emergency lights activated turned eastbound behind the parked vehicles at the rear of the plaza buildings. A police officer - WO #2 - exited the driver’s door of the police vehicle and walked northbound out of the left camera frame. WO #3 followed after WO #2.

Starting at about 4:23 p.m., the SO and WO #4 were captured at the southwest corner of the plaza buildings. WO #3 appeared briefly in the left camera frame as he conversed with the SO and WO #4. A fully marked HRPS police vehicle operated by WO #1 entered the left camera frame, turned eastbound, and parked behind WO #2 and WO #2’s parked police vehicle. WO #1 exited her police vehicle and joined the SO, WO #4 and WO #3.

Starting at about 4:27 p.m., WO #2 escorted the Complainant into the left camera frame from behind the southwest corner of the plaza building. The Complainant’s hands were behind his back. WO #2 stood next to the passenger side of WO #1’s police vehicle parked eastbound behind WO #2 and WO #3’s police vehicle.

HRPS Custody Footage

On January 6, 2025, starting at about 4:57 p.m., the Complainant arrived at the police station. WO #2 and WO #3 briefed the booking officer, noting that there had been an interaction between the Complainant and the two off-duty police officers from the HRPS and PRP that arrested him. The Complainant appeared unsteady on his feet and had blood around his eyes and nose. WO #1 was heard telling the booking officer that the Complainant had fought the two off-duty police officers. She mentioned he might have been trying to get back into his vehicle and leave. She said the Complainant complained about his right hand in the back of the police cruiser.

Starting at about 5:00 p.m., the booking officer called WO #2 over to the booking desk. He told WO #2 that the Complainant needed to be taken to the hospital once the booking process was completed. After he was searched, the Complainant was instructed to sit on the bench. He favoured his right hand, appeared confused and answered, “No,” when asked if he knew why he had been arrested. Police officers repeatedly told him to leave his hand and not to squeeze it. The Complainant denied he had driven while impaired. The booking officer tried to go through the standard questions, but the Complainant was not listening. His attention appeared to be focused on his right hand.

WO #1 said the Complainant did not listen to her in the police cruiser when she tried to advise of him of his rights to counsel. The booking officer asked the Complainant twice if he would like to speak to a lawyer, but he did not respond or even acknowledge being spoken to. The booking officer informed the Complainant he could speak to a lawyer there or at the hospital. The Complainant responded, “I don’t drink.” The Complainant was asked if he had any injuries in addition to what was visible to his face and hand. He appeared to say, “No,” and repeated several times that an officer had punched him. The booking officer told police officers they could take the Complainant to the hospital.

At 5:11:28 p.m., the Complainant was escorted out of the booking area by a cadet and a male officer.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records the HRPS and, where indicated, PRP between January 7, 2025, and January 28, 2025:

• Notes – the SO, WO #5, WO #2, WO #1 and WO #3
• Occurrence Details Report
• Policy - Use of Force
• Communications recordings
• In-car camera footage
• HRPS photos
• Call signs of involved officers
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Notice to Registrar & Notice of Application of Increased Penalty
• Detainee Custody Record
• Training Records – the SO
• Booking video
• Notes – WO #4 (PRP)
• Audio statement & transcript of statement - WO #4
• Door camera footage
• Motor Vehicle Accident Report
• Criminal History - the Complainant

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between January 7, 2025, and January 16, 2025:

• Video footage provided by the Complainant
• Doorbell camera footage from a civilian witness
• Photos of the Complainant’s injuries
• Halton Emergency Medical Services Ambulance Call Report
• The Complainant’s medical records from Joseph Brant Hospital

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, gives rise to the following scenario.

The SO was off-duty at his home when he received a call from another off-duty police officer. WO #4 of the PRP contacted him about damage done to her parked vehicle by another motorist – the Complainant. Having confronted the motorist, WO #4 sought advice from the SO and asked him to attend as she did not feel comfortable dealing with the Complainant alone. The SO advised WO #4 to call the HRPS and left his residence to meet with her.

The Complainant had struck WO #4’s vehicle attempting to pull into a parking space beside hers. He subsequently left and parked his vehicle in another spot, thereafter, entering a business. About an hour later, the Complainant was approached by WO #4 in the business. The officer, dressed in plain clothes, showed the Complainant video footage captured by her doorbell camera that depicted the collision. The Complainant offered to pay cash for the repairs. WO #4 would not accept the money, and insisted on the Complainant’s insurance information.

The SO, also in plain clothes, arrived at the parking lot and spoke to the Complainant. Over the course of their conversation, the officer came to believe that the Complainant was drunk and advised him he was under arrest for impaired operation of a motor vehicle. A physical altercation ensued between the two when the Complainant attempted to walk past the SO. The officer gained control of the Complainant and kept him in place pending the arrival of HRPS on-duty officers.

HRPS Marine Unit officers arrived on scene and handcuffed the Complainant. He was taken to the police station and then to hospital where he was diagnosed later that day with a broken nose and fractured right ribs. The following day, the Complainant attended hospital again and was diagnosed with a fractured left elbow as well.

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 a HRPS officer on January 6, 2025. 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.

I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights in seeking to arrest the Complainant for drunk driving. There was evidence that the Complainant smelled of alcohol, had just struck another vehicle with his vehicle, and had recently been seen with a bottle of alcohol in his possession.

With respect to the force used by the SO, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was unlawful. There is a version of events proffered in the evidence that the officer exercised excessive force. It is alleged that the officer first punched the Complainant in the head several times without provocation before tripping him to the ground, where he continued to be struck. At points, it is alleged, the officer slammed the Complainant’s face on the ground, breaking his nose, and stomped on his left elbow and right hand. The SO’s version of events is much different. The Complainant instigated the physical violence when, told he was under arrest, he attempted to punch the officer. The SO reacted by punching the Complainant in the face and then taking him to the ground. The Complainant resisted the officer’s efforts to control his arms, and was met with an additional couple of punches to the head and neck area. On this rendition of events, supported in material parts by the eyewitness evidence of WO #4, the force in question was reasonable. The takedown made sense as it would make any further resistance by the Complainant more difficult. The punches were also commensurate with the situation, delivered as they were to subdue a combative Complainant. In the circumstance, as there is no reason to believe that the more incriminating account is any likelier to be closer to the truth than that proffered by the off-duty officers, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the force in question transgressed the limits of justifiable force prescribed by the criminal law.

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

Date: May 6, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit