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 44-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 29, 2025, at 5:28 p.m., the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) received an online inquiry from the Complainant. The communiqué detailed an interaction that reportedly occurred on November 16, 2023, involving the Complainant and members of the “Parry Sound Police”. It was alleged that three officers had tasered the Complainant and beat him in the head, resulting in a skull fracture and his left eyeball being “knocked out”. Following several unsuccessful attempts by the SIU to reach the Complainant to assess the Unit’s jurisdiction in the matter, the office received his medical records from West Parry Sound Health Centre (WPSHC) on February 18, 2025. The records confirmed that the Complainant had been diagnosed with a fracture of the left medial orbital around the time of the reported incident.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/01/30 at 12:46 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/01/30 at 12:46 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

Interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on March 8, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2[2] Not interviewed; declined

The civilian witness was interviewed on March 28, 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 March 19, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a ‘Safe Room’ of the WPSHC Emergency Department, 6 Albert Street, Parry Sound.

Forensic Evidence

Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) Deployment Data – WO #2

At 1:53:48 a.m.,[3] November 5, 2023, the trigger was pulled, Cartridge 1 was deployed, and electricity was discharged for five seconds. At 1:53:58 a.m. The ARC[4] button was depressed for one second. At 1:54:00 a.m., the ARC button was depressed a second time for one second. At 1:54:03 a.m., the ARC button was depressed a third time for one second. At 1:54:12 a.m., the ARC button was depressed a fourth time for one second.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[5]

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage from WO #2’s Cruiser

WO #2 stopped his police vehicle on the left side of a two-lane highway in front of a gas station. He and the Complainant had a conversation, and WO #2 ran the Complainant’s name with the dispatcher. The Complainant had a caution flag for violence, was unlawfully at large on two warrants with the Medicine Hat Police Service and was subject to a firearms ban in relation to robbery, break and enter, and theft. WO #2 informed the dispatcher the Complainant had been apprehended under the Mental Health Act (MHA). WO #2 transported the Complainant to the WPSHC.

OPP Communications Recordings

On November 4, 2023, at 8:57:56 p.m., a man called 911 from the Magnetawan Esso gas station to report a man [now known to be the Complainant] harassing and threatening patrons. The Complainant had reportedly said he would shoot someone. The Complainant had a big rock and appeared intoxicated.

At 9:00:24 p.m., WO #2 informed the dispatcher he was available to attend the scene. WO #2 subsequently informed the dispatcher he had apprehended the Complainant under the MHA, and that they were en route to the WPSHC.

On November 5, 2023, at 1:28:56 a.m., CW #1 called 911 to report the Complainant had become unruly and dangerous. She requested assistance from the police. The Complainant was said to be in a safe room. He had reportedly ripped up a book, taken the mattress off the bed, and threatened to kill anyone who entered the room.

At 1:32:51 a.m., WO #2 reported he would re-attend the hospital.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between March 7, 2025, and March 25, 2025:

• Communications recordings
• ICC footage
• General Occurrence Report
• Arrest Report
• Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report
• CEW deployment data
• Use of Force recertification records - WO #2, Officer #1,[6] the SO, and WO #1, and
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2 and the SO

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between February 18, 2025, and April 1, 2025:

• Medical records provided by the Complainant
• The Complainant’s medical records from WPSHC, and
• Photos of safe room from WPSHC

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, and other 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 evening of November 4, 2023, the Complainant was arrested by WO #2 in the vicinity of the Magnetawan Esso gas station on Highway 69. Police had received information of a male – the Complainant – harassing and threatening patrons of the business. The officer arrived on scene shortly after 9:00 p.m., and quickly ascertained that the Complainant was of unsound mind. He spoke of apparent delusions, including an organization of doctors conspiring against him. Asked if he would agree to an apprehension under the MHA to attend hospital, the Complainant agreed. The officer transported the Complainant to the WPSHC, arriving at about 10:00 p.m., and leaving shortly after the triage process had concluded.

Placed in a ‘safe room’ to await medical evaluation, the Complainant’s mental state began to deteriorate. From inside the room, he obstructed the door window and surveillance camera lens with pages pulled from a book, and threatened to kill anyone who entered the room. Concerned for his safety, and the safety of staff, the hospital contacted police.

WO #2 returned to the hospital in the early morning of November 5, 2023. He was joined by fellow OPP officers – the SO and WO #1 – and an APS constable – CW #2. Speaking to the Complainant through the door, the officers tried to calm him. The Complainant was unreceptive. He remained highly belligerent and threatened the officers’ lives. With his back to the bed and his feet pressed against the door, the Complainant was able to prevent the officers from forcing their way in. After some 20 to 30 minutes, the officers decided to pry the door open with a Halligan bar.

With the Complainant still on the floor attempting to keep the door closed with his legs, WO #2 was able to insert his CEW through a small opening that had been created and discharge it. The probes struck the Complainant and he locked-up, unable to keep pressure on the door. Led by the SO, the officers entered the room and physically engaged the Complainant. Following a struggle on the ground, and hand strikes by the SO to the head, the Complainant was handcuffed.

The Complainant was sedated by hospital staff after his arrest. The handcuffs were removed, and he was restrained by hospital equipment in an adjacent safe room.

The Complainant was subsequently diagnosed with a fracture of the left orbital bone.

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 264.1, Criminal Code - Uttering Threats

264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat

(a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;

(b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or

(c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by OPP officers on November 5, 2023. As the Complainant was no longer in the custody of the OPP when the injury was diagnosed, the OPP was unaware of it and the incident was not reported to the SIU until the Complainant contacted the office on January 29, 2025. The SIU initiated an investigation, naming one of the arresting officers the subject official – the SO. 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.

The evidence establishes that the Complainant, while waiting in the safe room to be assessed by a physician, threatened hospital staff with harm. He was, in the circumstances, subject to arrest for ‘threatening’ contrary to section 264.1 of the Criminal Code.

With respect to the force used by the officers in arresting the Complainant, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was more than was necessary to effect their purpose. At issue are the hand strikes to the head delivered by the SO. There is some evidence suggesting that these were excessive as the Complainant had already been tasered and there were multiple officers dealing with him at the time. On the other hand, the SO, in his notes, and WO #2 and WO #1, in their SIU interviews, indicate that the Complainant’s neuromuscular incapacitation was momentary – enough to force open the door but of no further consequence once the officers were in the room. In their rendition of events, the Complainant vigorously resisted arrest, lashing out at the officers with his arms and legs. On this rendition of events, the delivery of what were described as two punches to subdue a violent individual would not appear excessive. As there is no reason to believe that the more incriminating evidence is any likelier to be closer to the truth than the officers’, and some reason to doubt it given the Complainant’s belligerent behaviour in the time preceding his arrest, I am satisfied there is insufficient evidence to reasonably establish that the force at issue was unwarranted and unlawful.

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

Date: May 29, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit