SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OCI-533
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
Mandate of the SIU
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.
Information Restrictions
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.
Mandate Engaged
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 32-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU[1]
On December 13, 2024, at 11:04 a.m., the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency contacted the SIU with the following information.
On November 9, 2024, the Saugeen Shores Police Service (SSPS) attended a home in Port Elgin. They had received a call regarding a request for a wellness check of a male [now known to be the Complainant] in the residence, who had consumed a quantity of drugs and alcohol. The Complainant became non-compliant during attempts to apprehend him under the Mental Health Act. Four officers pinned the Complainant to the ground and eventually handcuffed him. He was transported to Brightshores Health System – Southampton Hospital. On December 27, 2024, he was diagnosed with a fractured finger.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2025/01/02 at 5:30 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/01/06 at 5:09 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
32-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on January 6, 2025.
Civilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed on January 23, 2025.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The witness officials were interviewed between January 22, 2025, and February 5, 2025.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired inside a residence in Port Elgin.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]
Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report
At 1:44 a.m., November 9, 2024, the police received a call from paramedics seeking assistance with respect to a call for service. Reportedly, the service call involved a male with suicidal ideations who had overdosed on medication and consumed alcohol. Young children were present at the address.
At 1:52 a.m., it was noted that the male – the Complainant – was laying on the floor.
At 2:17 a.m., it was noted that the Complainant was actively resisting.
At 2:26 a.m., it was noted that the Complainant had been apprehended.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the SSPS between January 3, 2025, and January 16, 2025:
- Computer-aided Dispatch Report
- General Occurrence Report
- Supplementary Reports
- Communications recordings
- List of involved officers and their notes
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between January 7, 2025, and February 10, 2025:
- Cell phone video recording captured by the Complainant
- Medical records from Brantford Radiology Group
- Medical records from Brightshores Health System
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the arresting officers, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.
In the early morning of November 9, 2024, SSPS officers and paramedics arrived at a residence in Port Elgin - the Complainant’s home. They had been contacted by Witness #1. Having spoken to the Complainant, Witness #1 was concerned about his well-being and asked that authorities check on him. Reportedly, the Complainant had consumed alcohol and a possible overdose of medication, and expressed suicidal ideation.
When no one answered the door, the officers and paramedics entered the residence and located the Complainant passed out in the kitchen. There were pills and beer cans scattered on the floor. The Complainant’s young children were upstairs. The Complainant was roused and sat on a chair. Paramedics assessed him and found his oxygen level low. Concerned with his ability to care for himself, one of the officers – WO #1 – decided to apprehend the Complainant under the Mental Health Act.
The Complainant objected to his arrest and resisted being handcuffed by clenching his arms against his chest. The officers took him to the ground and eventually wrestled control of his arms behind the back, after which he was secured in handcuffs.
The Complainant was taken to hospital. Weeks later, the Complainant returned to hospital and was diagnosed with a fracture at the neck of the fourth proximal phalanx.
Relevant Legislation
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 17, Mental Health Act - Action by Police Officer
17 Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,
(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;
(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or
(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,
and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,
(d) serious bodily harm to the person;
(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or
(f) serious physical impairment of the person,
and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician.
Analysis and Director's Decision
The Complainant was diagnosed with a serious injury weeks after his arrest by SSPS officers on November 9, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the arresting officers 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 officers were lawfully placed and in the execution of their duties when they decided to arrest the Complainant. Aware of the Complainant’s reported suicidal ideations and possible overdose, the officers’ entry into the home was authorized by the exigent circumstances that prevailed at the time. Those same factors, coupled with knowledge of the Complainant’s small children in the home and his mental health difficulties in the past, rendered the Complainant subject to apprehension under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.
I am further satisfied that WO #1, and the three other officers present at the time (WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4), used no more force than was reasonably necessary to take the Complainant into custody. When the Complainant resisted arrest by refusing to release his arms to be handcuffed, it made sense to ground him. On the floor, the officers could expect to better manage any continuing struggle by the Complainant. In fact, the Complainant did continue to resist, refusing to surrender his arms. The officers, in my view, responded with proportionate force, exerting countervailing force to wrestle control of his arms behind the back. No strikes of any kind were delivered.
In the result, while it might be that the Complainant’s fractured hand was incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was attributable to any unlawful conduct on the part of the arresting officers. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.
Date: April 10, 2025
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) Unless otherwise specified, the information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU's findings of fact following its investigation. [Back to text]
- 2) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]
Note:
The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.