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 53-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 24, 2025, at 7:35 p.m., the Kingston Police (KP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the KP, on January 24, 2025, at 4:17 p.m., a KP officer and a Mobile Crisis Rapid Response Team (MCRRT) member responded to an address in the area of King Street West and Country Club Drive, Kingston. Civilian Witness (CW) #1 had called police to report that the Complainant was in crisis. Witness Official (WO) #1 and MCRRT CW #2 attempted to develop a rapport with the Complainant; however, when he became physically violent, they placed him in his bedroom and closed the door. Additional officers arrived, and it was determined that the Complainant would be apprehended for his safety and that of CW #1. When officers opened the bedroom door, the Complainant attempted to force his way past them. The officers grounded the Complainant and placed him in handcuffs. After complaining of shoulder pain, Emergency Medical Services attended and transported the Complainant to the Kingston General Hospital (KGH) where he was diagnosed with a partially dislocated shoulder and fracture.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/01/25 at 9:10 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/01/25 at 9:46 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on January 26, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between January 26, 2025, and March 4, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject officials were interviewed on March 21, 2025.

Witness Officials

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

The witness officials were interviewed between February 25, 2025, and March 28, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around an apartment in the area of King Street West and Country Club Drive, Kingston.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

KP Communication Recordings

On January 24, 2025, CW #1 called the KP communications centre and advised he lived at an address in the area of King Street West and Country Club Drive with the Complainant. The Complainant believed that neighbours were spying on him, and that he could hear them through the walls calling him names. The Complainant was described as violent and upset, and with possible mental health issues. They had had a disagreement resulting in the Complainant smashing the telephone. CW #1, in the lobby at the time, requested police attendance.

WO #3 subsequently broadcast over the radio that the Complainant had the door locked and that he had told police officers they could enter.

WO #2 reported that the Complainant was in custody.

A police officer broadcast that the Complainant had tried to run away, was combative, and fell injuring his shoulder.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from KP between January 24, 2025, and May 8, 2025:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Civilian Witness List
• General Occurrence Report
• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Policies: Mental Health Act & Use of Force
• Notes - SO #1, SO #2, WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from KGH on February 12, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the two subject officials, in addition to other police and non-police eyewitnesses, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the afternoon of January 24, 2025, a KP MCRRT, consisting of WO #1 and mental health professional, CW #2, was dispatched to an apartment in the area of King Street West and Country Club Drive, Kingston. A resident of the unit, CW #1, had called police to report that the Complainant was in mental health distress and needed help. The officers arrived on scene and entered the apartment with CW #1. The Complainant reacted with belligerence. He uttered profanity and approached them in a threatening fashion with a beer bottle in hand. WO #1, CW #2 and CW #1 left the apartment. When the Complainant subsequently refused to let them in again after some time had passed, WO #1 sought the assistance of the Emergency Response Unit (ERU).

A team of ERU officers, including SO #1 and SO #2, arrived on scene outside the apartment door. The Complainant allowed them to enter the apartment. Once through the door, the officers found the Complainant seated in a chair with his back to them. SO #1 and SO #2 approached the Complainant on either side and took hold of an arm, assisting him to his feet. Though initially compliant, the Complainant quickly became combative and attempted to break free of the officers’ hold. The officers took the Complainant to the floor and handcuffed him behind the back.

The Complainant was subsequently taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fracture of the left shoulder.

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 17, Mental Health Act - Action by Police Officer

17 Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by KP officers on January 24, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming two KP officers subject officials – SO #1 and SO #2. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official 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.

Given what they knew of his mental health at the time, including signs of delusions and paranoia, and his violent disposition towards CW #1 and the attending officers, I am satisfied that the Complainant was subject to apprehension under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.

It is also apparent that the subject officials used no more force than was necessary in arresting the Complainant. When the Complainant struggled against the officers’ efforts to take him into custody, they were entitled to resort to a measure of force to accomplish their task. A takedown made sense as it would position the officers to better manage any continuing resistance by the Complainant. The evidence further establishes that the grounding was not performed with undue force.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s fracture was incurred in the struggle that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury was the result of unwarranted force on the part of the subject officials. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: May 15, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit