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: 

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 injury a 38-year-old man (the “Complainant’) suffered during an interaction with the police.

Notification of the SIU

On December 3, 2020, at 1:28 p.m., the Sault Ste. Marie Police Service (SSMPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant. The Complainant lived at an address in Sault Ste. Marie and had no phone.

According to SSMPS, that morning at 6:00 a.m., SSMPS police officers responded to a man walking a motorcycle on Wellington Street East. When police officers arrived, they found the Complainant sitting on the motorcycle. A CPIC (Canadian Police Information Centre) check revealed that the Complainant was wanted on an outstanding warrant for a domestic incident. The Complainant struggled during the arrest and was taken to the ground. He was also found in possession of ammunition, [fn]1[/fn] which he was prohibited from possessing. The Complainant was taken to the Sault Area Hospital and diagnosed with a collapsed lung.

The Scene

The scene was located on the south sidewalk of Wellington Street East just west of Pilgrim Street in Sault Ste. Marie.

The location was between a single dwelling located at 727 Wellington Street East and a commercial business located at 721 Wellington Street East. There was a paved asphalt driveway on the west side of 727 Wellington Street East and a long paved asphalt entrance into 700 Wellington Street East [fn]2[/fn] directly beside and to the west of the driveway.

Wellington Street East was a four lane roadway with two paved lanes for east and westbound vehicular traffic. There was a small raised curb, pavement strip, then a concrete sidewalk on each side of the roadway. There was a chain link fence just south of the sidewalk at 721 Wellington Street East.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

911 Call

A woman called in to the SSMPS communications section and reported two men pushing a motorcycle down Wellington Street East. She was pretty sure the motorcycle was stolen and both men were now in front of 619 Wellington Street East. They had a black-coloured dog with them and were heading the wrong way on the sidewalk against traffic towards East Street. They were having a hard time trying to keep the motorcycle upright and she described the motorcycle as black in colour.

The following scenario emerges on the weight of the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the Complainant, a couple of police officers who participated in the arrest, and a number of civilian eyewitnesses. At about 6:00 a.m. on December 3, 2020, the SO arrived in the area of Wellington Street East just west of Pilgrim Street. A 911 call had been received by police reporting two men pushing what was suspected of being a stolen motorcycle down Wellington Street East. The Complainant was one of the men.

The SO approached the Complainant, asked if the motorcycle was stolen and then ran his name against a police database. The search indicated that there was an outstanding warrant out for the Complainant’s arrest. The officer advised the Complainant he was under arrest and asked him to come off the motorcycle. The Complainant refused to do so, indicating he wanted to first drop the bike and his dog (attached by leash to the motorcycle) at his home before being arrested. The SO again informed the Complainant that he was under arrest and again directed that he dismount the motorcycle.

As this conversation was happening, WO #1 and WO #2 arrived to assist the SO. When the Complainant continued to insist that he would not get off the motorcycle, the SO and WO #1 forcefully pried his hands off the handlebars and brought him to the ground. The Complainant landed on his backside but quickly transitioned into a prone position, refusing to release his arms from under his torso. The officers wrestled control of his arms and brought them behind his back where they were handcuffed.

The Complainant was taken to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with fractured ribs and a collapsed lung.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code -- Protection of persons acting under authority

(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,

On December 3, 2020, the Complainant was arrested by SSMPS officers and subsequently diagnosed with serious injuries at hospital. Because there was some prospect that the Complainant’s injuries were incurred in the course of his arrest, the SIU was notified of the incident and opened a file. The SO was among the arresting officers and identified as a subject official for purposes of the SIU investigation. 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 injuries.

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 authorized or required to do by law. Given the existence of an outstanding warrant for the Complainant’s arrest, I am satisfied that the officers were within their rights in seeking to take him into custody.

Thereafter, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO and the other officers used more force than was reasonably necessary to effect their purpose. The Complainant had made it clear he was not about to surrender peacefully into custody and gripped onto the handlebars of the motorcycle tightly. In the circumstances, the officers acted reasonably in forcibly wresting his hands from the handlebars and bringing him to the ground. The takedown, which does not appear to have been overly forceful, would better position the officers to manage any further resistance by the Complainant. Indeed, the Complainant continued to struggle with the officers on the ground, flailing his limbs and, at one point, kicking WO #1 in the chest. The officers responded by pinning the Complainant on the ground, including with the use of their knees, and exploiting their greater numbers to overpower him and take control of his arms. At no point was the Complainant struck with a punch, knee or kick. On this record, I am satisfied that the force used by the officers was commensurate and proportional to the Complainant’s resistance, and fell within the range of what was reasonably necessary at the time.

There remains a distinct possibility in the evidence that the Complainant was injured prior to his altercation with the officers. A witness had seen him topple over his motorcycle, pick himself up and hold his midsection moments before the officers’ arrival. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO and his colleagues acted other than lawfully in their engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.



Date: March 15, 2021

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit