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 36-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 3, 2025, at 4:15 p.m.,[2] the Nishnawbe-Aski Police Service (NAPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On December 28, 2024, the Witness Official (WO) and the Subject Official (SO) responded to a call for service involving weapons in the NAPS Northwest Region. In the course of a subsequent struggle at the scene, a conducted energy weapon (CEW) was deployed, and the Complainant was arrested. A Band Security Officer and a Band Council member were also involved in the incident. The Complainant was transported to a nursing station as he had a CEW probe in his neck. While en route to the hospital, he removed the probe himself. The Complainant was assessed at the nursing station and released shortly thereafter. He was held in custody overnight and remanded to the Kenora District Jail on December 29, 2024. At no time did the Complainant complain of any pain or mention any issue with his collarbone. On February 3, 2025, the Complainant called his mother and reported that he had an X-ray taken, which revealed a broken collarbone. The Complainant said the injury was sustained during his arrest on December 28, 2024.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/02/06 at 10:12 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/02/09 at 9:23 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on February 9, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on February 12, 2025.

Subject Official

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

Witness Official

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials was interviewed on March 6, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on a road located in a First Nations community in the NAPS Northwest Region.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data - The WO

At 2:50:56 p.m.,[3] December 28, 2024, the trigger was pulled, and the Bay 1 cartridge was deployed with an electrical discharge of 4.9 seconds. Eight seconds later, at 2:51:04 p.m., the trigger was pulled again, and the Bay 2 cartridge was deployed with an electrical discharge of 4.9 seconds.

CEW Deployment Data - The SO

At 2:50:18 p.m., December 28, 2024, the trigger was pulled, and the Bay 1 cartridge was deployed with an electrical discharge of 4.9 seconds. Seven seconds later, at 2:50:25 p.m., the trigger was pulled again, and the Bay 2 cartridge was deployed with an electrical discharge of 5 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[4]

Video Footage - Store

The video captured the front door of a store. There was movement outside the door, and the door opened. The Complainant stood in the doorway. He had a knife in his right hand. His index finger was on top of the blade. The knife had a black handle and a pointed silver blade. The Complainant held the door open with his left foot and looked inside the store. The Complainant subsequently left the store and appeared to jog to the right of the door.

NAPS Communications Recordings

At 2:29:58 p.m., the WO reported that he had received a telephone call from CW #1, reporting that he had seen the Complainant walking around with an edged weapon. The Complainant was a known methamphetamine user and addict. He indicated he was looking for the Complainant.

The SO subsequently broadcast that they had the Complainant in custody, and that a CEW had been deployed successfully.

The dispatcher was asked to call the nursing station as the officers were transporting the Complainant there.

NAPS Cell Video Footage

The footage did not contain audio. The footage did not reveal any sign of injury to the Complainant. Throughout the footage, the Complainant was using both arms without any apparent indication of pain or injury.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the NAPS between February 14, 2025, and March 6, 2025:

• Names, contact information and statements of all civilian witnesses
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• General / Supplementary / Arrest Reports
• Communications recordings
• Booking and Lodging Reports
• Booking and cell video footage
• CEW deployment data – the WO and the SO
• Notes – the WO
• Notes – the SO

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between February 12, 2025, and February 25, 2025:

• Video footage from a store
• The Complainant’s medical records from Lake of the Woods District Hospital

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the early afternoon of December 28, 2024, while responding to reports of a male brandishing a knife in public, the SO and the WO located and confronted the male – the Complainant – in a First Nations community in the NAPS Northwest Region. The officers directed the Complainant to drop the knife. The Complainant responded with profanity and ran away. The officers searched for the Complainant and eventually located him again. The Complainant was told to drop the knife and refused. Each officer deployed his CEW twice. The Complainant locked-up and fell to the ground. The officers, with the assistance of Band Council officers present on scene, handcuffed the Complainant and took him into custody.

Some weeks after his arrest, while an inmate at the Kenora Correctional Facility, the Complainant was diagnosed with a fracture of the right clavicle.

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 88 (1), Criminal Code - Possession of Weapon for Dangerous Purpose

88 (1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.

The Complainant was diagnosed with a serious injury that was possibly incurred in the course of his arrest in a First Nations community in the NAPS Northwest Region by NAPS officers on December 28, 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 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.

I am satisfied that the Complainant’s behaviour in public with a knife rendered him subject to arrest for possessing a dangerous weapon contrary to section 88 of the Criminal Code.

I am also satisfied that the NAPS officers used lawful force in arresting the Complainant. The Complainant had been brandishing a knife and steadfastly refusing to drop it. He was a clear danger to public safety and it was imperative that he be taken into custody as soon as possible. A direct, hands-on physical engagement was not a realistic option as that risked serious injury and even death given the presence of the knife. On the other hand, the use of the CEW made sense as it had the capacity to temporarily immobilize the Complainant from a distance, allowing the officers a safe window within which to approach and handcuff the Complainant without the necessary infliction of serious injury. In effect, that is essentially what occurred.

It remains unclear whether the Complainant’s broken clavicle was incurred when he fell because of the CEW deployments. The medical evidence suggests the injury might have post-dated his arrest by NAPS. Be that as it may, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the injury was the result of any unlawful conduct on the part of the NAPS officers. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: May 23, 2025

Electronically approved by:

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit