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 33-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 3, 2025, at 7:46 a.m., the Sarnia Police Service (SPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On February 2, 2025, at 9:43 p.m., police officers attended a residence in the area of Wellington Street and Indian Road regarding a break and enter. When police officers arrived at the building, they located a man and woman on the third-floor. As they approached, the man fled on foot down a stairwell onto the second-floor. A police officer caught up to the man, grounding him and placing him under arrest. The man, now known to be the Complainant, complained of pain to his arm and was taken to Bluewater Health where he was diagnosed with a fractured right humerus. The Complainant was released unconditionally from the hospital with no charges.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/02/03 at 8:30 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/02/03 at 9:10 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on February 4, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between February 4, 2025, and February 5, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on February 7, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the second-floor hallway of a residence in the area of Wellington Street and Indian Road, Sarnia.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Communications Recordings & Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report

On February 2, 2025, at about 8:43 p.m., CW #1 called 911 requesting police attend an address as three persons were outside her apartment trying to unlock doors. CW #1’s neighbour had also previously noticed an unwanted man trying to enter her apartment. CW #1 believed the three were under the influence of drugs.

At about 9:35 p.m., WO #1 and the SO were dispatched to the residence, arriving at about 9:43 p.m. Police officers searched the building and, at about 9:51 p.m., the SO broadcast that a man was running from him.

At about 9:52 p.m., the dispatcher asked for the SO’s location, and he responded he was in front of a unit with a man in custody. A man’s voice, believed to be the Complainant, was heard in the background.

There were indecipherable transmissions, but WO #1 was heard asking for Emergency Medical Services to attend. The SO asked for a records check on the Complainant.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the SPS between February 3 and 18, 2025:

• Notes and witness statement of WO #1
• Notes and witness statement of WO #2
• Notes and witness statement of the SO
• Arrest Report
• General Occurrence Report
• Communications recordings
• CAD Report
• Sudden Death Report
• Policies on Arrest and Release of Prisoners, and Use of Force

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from Bluewater Health on March 5, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with the Complainant, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of February 2, 2025, the SO, in the company of WO #1, attended at an apartment building located in the area of Wellington Street and Indian Road, Sarnia. A resident had contacted police to report the presence of persons in the building attempting to break into apartments. The officers located and approached two persons in the stairwell. As soon as the SO announced he was a police officer, one of them ran away.

The person who fled was the Complainant. With the SO in pursuit, he entered onto the third-floor hallway, ran the length of the corridor and entered into another stairwell. The Complainant proceeded down the stairwell to the second-floor and exited. He had a run a distance in the hallway when he was tackled by the SO.

The Complainant was apprehended, but soon released unconditionally when it was learned he resided at the building.

The Complainant was subsequently seen at hospital and diagnosed with a fractured right 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.

ANALYSIS AND DIRECTOR’S DECISION

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his detention by a SPS officer on February 2, 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 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.

I am satisfied that the SO was engaged in the lawful execution of his duties through the series of events culminating in the takedown. Though it is doubtful the SO had grounds to arrest the Complainant at the time, he was arguably subject to investigative detention based on evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity: R v Mann, [2004] 3 SCR 59. That evidence included the 911 call to police about persons attempting to break into apartments, the Complainant found seemingly loitering in the stairwell with another person, and his immediate flight from police upon being approached by the SO.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s detention, namely, a takedown, was lawful. The Complainant’s determined flight from police meant that some form of physical interdiction would be necessary. It also suggested that the Complainant would resist when and if captured. A takedown made sense in the circumstances as it would immediately bring the flight to an end while positioning the officer to better manage any continuing resistance on the part of the Complainant.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s fractured shoulder was incurred when he was forcibly grounded by the SO, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the injury is attributable to any unlawful conduct on the part of the officer. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: May 22, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit