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 39-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 23, 2024, at 9:40 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On Sunday, December 22, 2024, London Police Service (LPS) officers arrested the Complainant on the strength of Oxford County OPP warrants. The OPP were notified at 1:47 p.m. and OPP Officer #1 and Witness Official (WO) #3 met LPS officers, took custody of the Complainant and transported him to the Tillsonburg Detachment. The Complainant’s arrest, transport and stay in OPP cells overnight appeared to be without incident. On Monday, December 23, 2024, the Complainant attended video bail court from the detachment. He was remanded and being prepared for transport to a detention centre when WO #2 saw the Complainant in the cell. The Complainant was sitting upright, leaning over and not responding verbally. Paramedics were called. At some point, Narcan was administered, and the Complainant was taken to Tillsonburg General Hospital. At 9:09 p.m., the OPP was advised that the Complainant had been admitted to hospital.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/12/24 at 8:30 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/12/24 at 11:00 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on December 24, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Not interviewed; report reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #2 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

Service Employee Witnesses (SEW)

SEW #1 Not interviewed; report reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

SEW #2 Not interviewed; report reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

Investigative Delay

Delays in the investigation were attributable to resource pressures in the Director’s Office.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in a cell of the OPP Tillsonburg Detachment.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

LPS Custody Footage

The Complainant was captured arriving at a LPS custody facility starting at 2:06 p.m., December 22, 2024, in the custody of the SO. The Complainant was searched thoroughly by a LPS special constable prior to being taken into the booking area. The search included the removal of a pair of jeans that covered two further layers of clothing and the use of a metal detector. All property found on the Complainant’s person was placed in a clear plastic container.

Once in the booking area, the Complainant was asked a series of questions regarding his current condition, drug and alcohol use, and possession of any hidden items. The Complainant answered all questions put to him, noting that he had taken fentanyl around the time he was stopped by the SO. The Complainant appeared to be alert and steady on his feet and spoke clearly during the booking process.

Starting at 2:18 p.m., a LPS cadet conducting a search of the Complainant’s belongings came across a small baggie containing a white powdered substance.

The Complainant was subsequently placed in an interview room until the arrival of OPP officers at 2:38 p.m. The Complainant was seen to be arrested and searched by WO #3, who appeared to conduct a thorough search of the Complainant’s person, after which he was placed in the rear of a marked OPP vehicle for transport to Tillsonburg.

OPP Custody and In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

The footage did not include audio and was neither date nor time-stamped.

The Complainant was captured arriving at the Tillsonburg Detachment in the afternoon of December 22, 2024, and was again subjected to a frisk search by WO #3 before being placed in cells and provided a sleeping pad.

Once inside the cell, the Complainant was observed to be lying down on the bed and covering himself completely with a sleeping pad. There was movement under the pad.

On December 23, 2024, at approximately 1:50 p.m., the Complainant was removed from the cells and taken to a room equipped with a laptop computer, where he is known to have engaged in a video remand hearing. Once the hearing concluded, the Complainant was returned to his cell and covered himself with the sleeping pad before placing something in his mouth. Shortly after, the Complainant made an unusual arching movement and fell back onto the bed while looking up at the ceiling. He remained in this position for a short time before sitting back up at approximately 2:16 p.m.

The Complainant was removed from his cell at approximately 2:50 p.m. and walked on his own to the booking area.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the LPS and OPP between December 24, 2024, and December 31, 2024:

• List of involved LPS officers
• LPS Computer-assisted Dispatch Reports
• LPS detention records
• LPS policies – Arrest; Search and Seizure; and, Search of Persons in Custody
• LPS Occurrence Report
• LPS history – the Complainant
• LPS custody footage
• OPP Arrest Report
• OPP notes – WO #2 and WO #3
• OPP Occurrence Summaries
• OPP Prisoner Custody Report
• OPP ICC footage
• OPP custody footage
• Reports – SEW #1 and SEW #2

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from Tillsonburg District Memorial Hospital on January 9, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with the Complainant and video footage that largely captured his time in police custody, gives rise to the following scenario.

The SO arrested the Complainant in London on December 22, 2024, upon seeing him smoke a suspected illicit substance and discovering he was subject to an outstanding arrest warrant that had been secured by the OPP. The Complainant was transported to the LPS headquarters where he admitted to smoking fentanyl prior to his arrest but denied having any drugs on his person. OPP officers – WO #3 and Officer #1 – arrived in London to execute the OPP warrant, and escorted him back to the OPP Tillsonburg Detachment.

The Complainant again admitted to smoking fentanyl around the time of his arrest but denied being in possession of drugs at his booking in Tillsonburg. He was lodged in cells overnight and was temporarily removed the following day to another room to attend his bail hearing via video link. As he was remanded to the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre at his bail hearing, there is evidence the Complainant retrieved and consumed a quantity of fentanyl secreted in the area of his buttocks and subsequently fell ill in his cell.

WO #2 was preparing the Complainant for his transport to the detention centre when he noticed the Complainant’s condition deteriorating. Paramedics arrived on scene and took the Complainant to hospital where he was treated for drug overdose.

Section 215, Criminal Code - Failure to Provide Necessaries

215 (1) Every one is under a legal duty

(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person

(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and

(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.

(2) Every person commits an offence who, being under a legal duty within the meaning of subsection (1), fails without lawful excuse to perform that duty, if

(b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant lapsed into medical distress while in the custody of the OPP on December 23, 2024, following his arrest by a LPS officer. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming the SO of the LPS 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 medical event.

The offences that arise for consideration are failure to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to sections 215 and 221 of the Criminal Code, respectively. Both require something more than a simple want of care to give rise to liability. The former is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. The latter is premised on even more egregious conduct that demonstrates a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is not made out unless the neglect constitutes a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable standard of care. In the instant case, the question is whether there was any want of care on the part of the Complainant’s custodians, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that endangered the Complainant’s life or contributed to his overdose. In my view, there was not.

There were no questions raised in the investigation regarding the lawfulness of the Complainant’s arrest by the SO and his detention in cells.

With respect to the care the Complainant received while in police custody, I am satisfied that it did not fall beneath the requirements of the criminal law. The live issue in the liability analysis is how it was that the Complainant was able to ingest a quantity of fentanyl while in police cells. Turning first to the searches that were performed of his person, these numbered four in total and consisted of pat-down or frisk searches. The first was performed by the SO at the scene of the arrest; the last transpired at the OPP Tillsonburg Detachment prior to the Complainant’s placement in a cell. There is nothing to suggest that these searches were substandard. Indeed, one such search turned up a quantity of drugs in clothing worn by the Complainant. It is not surprising that the searches did not locate the fentanyl the Complainant consumed in the OPP cell as the drug was secreted in the area of his buttocks under his clothing. Conceivably, a strip search might have discovered the drugs, but it is not clear that such a search ought to have been conducted. In R. v. Golden, [2001] 3 SCR 679, the Supreme Court held that strip searches, given their inherently degrading nature, are only permissible where there are reasonable and probable grounds to conclude they are necessary to, for example, locate and preserve evidence. The Complainant, with a record of drug-related arrests, had been caught smoking fentanyl and with a quantity of drugs on his person. On the other hand, he had already been subjected to four pat-down or frisk searches, resulting in the confiscation of a quantity of drugs, and appeared well and coherent through most of his time in custody. On this record, I am unable to conclude that the Complainant’s custodians exercised their discretion unreasonably when they decided against a strip search. For the same reasons, I am not persuaded that the Complainant ought to have been subjected to the sort of continuous monitoring while in cells in Tillsonburg that would have been necessary to possibly detect his retrieval of the fentanyl and prevent his ingestion of the substance.

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

Date: October 2, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit