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 April 26, 2025, at 7:50 p.m., the Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 26, 2025, GSPS officers were dispatched to Southridge Mall for a theft call. At 12:13 p.m., the officers [now known to be Subject Official (SO) #2 and SO #1] arrived and were flagged by a store employee. Police were led to the Complainant inside the Elegant Apparel store. At 12:23 p.m., SO #2 and SO #1 attempted to arrest the Complainant. He resisted by pulling his arms away and was taken to the ground. While on the ground, SO #1 had the Complainant’s left arm behind his back. The Complainant refused to release his right arm. He told police his right arm was broken, and he could not put it behind his back. The Complainant rolled onto his back and his hands were handcuffed to the front of the body. The Complainant told officers that he had broken his right arm two weeks prior in a bicycle accident and had not obtained medical attention for the injury. Emergency Medical Services attended and transported the Complainant to hospital where he was diagnosed with a broken right arm.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/04/28 at 8:20 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/04/28 at 9:02 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on May 2, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on May 15, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired inside Elegant Apparel, Southridge Mall, 1933 Regent Street, Sudbury.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

On April 26, 2025, at 12:05 p.m., GSPS was contacted by an employee of Nickel City Surplus, a store in Southridge Mall. The employee reported that a male [the Complainant] had stolen merchandise from the store and, prior to exiting, had threatened to kill him.

At 12:15 p.m., the employee called the GSPS again to report that the Complainant had returned to the front of his store. He was threatening people and had again threatened to kill him. The Complainant had also said that he would stab anyone who came near him.[3]

At 12:23:23 p.m., it was noted that the Complainant was subject to outstanding warrants of committal.

At 12:23:58 p.m., it was reported that the Complainant was in custody.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from GSPS on May 2, 2025:

• Arrest Report
• Custody Report
• CAD Report
• Communications Recordings
• Notes – the WO
• Policies – Arrest / Use of Force

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The Complainant’s medical records were obtained from Health Sciences North on May 7, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and a police witness, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the early afternoon of April 26, 2025, GSPS officers were called to the Southridge Mall in Sudbury to deal with a theft call. An employee of a store in the mall had contacted police to report that a male – the Complainant – had stolen items and then threatened him with death. The Complainant was also said to have threatened to stab anyone who approached him.

SO #1 and SO #2 arrived at the mall and encountered the Complainant in Elegant Apparel, advising him he was under arrest. The officers unsuccessfully tried to handcuff the Complainant’s arms. The Complainant explained that he could not place his right arm behind the back because of a pre-existing injury and asked to be handcuffed to the front. SO #2 grounded the Complainant and there followed a struggle on the floor in which SO #1 attempted to pry his right arm behind the back. In that effort, the Complainant’s right arm fractured. The Complainant was subsequently rolled onto his back and handcuffed to the front.

The Complainant was taken to hospital where his injury was diagnosed and treated.

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 334, Criminal Code - Punishment for Theft

334 Except where otherwise provided by law, every one who commits theft

(a) if the property stolen is a testamentary instrument or the value of what is stolen is more than $5,000, is guilty of

(i) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years, or

(ii) an offence punishable on summary conviction; or

(b) if the value of what is stolen is not more than $5,000, is guilty

(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

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 during his arrest by GSPS officers on April 26, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1 and SO #2 subject officials. 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.

With information at their disposal that he had stolen merchandise and threatened persons with death, SO #1 and SO #2 had lawful grounds to seek the Complainant’s arrest for theft and uttering threats contrary to sections 334 and 264.1 of the Criminal Code, respectively.

I am also satisfied that neither subject official used more force than was reasonably necessary to take the Complainant into custody. It appears in hindsight that the officers mistook for resistance the Complainant’s inability to maneuver his right arm behind the back because of a pre-existing injury. Had they given him the benefit of the doubt, the officers might have heeded the Complainant’s accommodation request, namely, that he be handcuffed to the front instead of the back. That said, the officers had reason to believe that the Complainant was armed with a knife and could be violent. Time was of the essence and the officers can be forgiven for moving quickly to ensure that the Complainant was handcuffed in a fashion that made access to a possible weapon less likely, namely, behind the back. On this record, the takedown and the manual grappling made sense. Once it became clear that the Complainant had suffered an injury, the officers took the necessary steps to reposition the handcuffs and ensure he received care.

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

I note what appears to have been a late notification of the incident by the GSPS to the SIU in possible violation of section 16 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. There is evidence to indicate that the police service was aware of the Complainant’s fractured arm as early as 2:20 p.m., April 26, 2025, but the SIU was not notified until 7:50 p.m., some five-and-a-half hours later. Late notifications of this nature jeopardize the integrity of SIU investigations, detract from the SIU’s independence and credibility, and undermine the public’s confidence in policing and policing oversight. I will be raising this matter in my reporting letter to the chief of police. Further to the SIU’s legal obligation under section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, it will also be referred to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: August 21, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit