Mandate of the SIU

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving police officers where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. The Unit’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation. If, after an investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the officer. Alternatively, in all cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director does not lay criminal charges but files a report with the Attorney General communicating the results of an investigation.

Information restrictions

Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act (“FIPPA”)

Pursuant to section 14 of FIPPA (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 whose release 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 of FIPPA (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this document. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

  • subject officer name(s)
  • witness officer name(s)
  • civilian witness name(s)
  • 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 (“PHIPA”)

Pursuant to PHIPA, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may have also 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

The Unit’s investigative jurisdiction is limited to those incidents where there is a serious injury (including sexual assault allegations) or death in cases involving the police.

“Serious injuries” shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. “Serious Injury” shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault. Where a prolonged delay is likely before the seriousness of the injury can be assessed, the Unit should be notified so that it can monitor the situation and decide on the extent of its involvement.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injury sustained by a 27-year-old man in Sioux Lookout during his arrest on November 30, 2016.

The investigation

Notification of the SIU

On November 30, 2016, at 8:35 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of the custody injury to the Complainant.

The OPP reported that on November 30, 2016, at 1:00 p.m., police officers from the Sioux Lookout Detachment responded to a local shelter in regards to the Complainant. The Complainant was observed walking on Third Avenue. Investigation revealed the Complainant was on court ordered conditions to abstain from alcohol. Since the Complainant was intoxicated he was arrested for breaching this condition and taken to the police station and lodged. The Complainant complained of a sore shoulder and was taken to a hospital to be examined. The Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured clavicle.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

SIU Forensic Investigators responded to the scene and identified and preserved evidence. They documented the relevant scenes associated with the incident by way of notes and photography.

Complainant

27-year-old male interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

Police employee witnesses

PEW #1 Interviewed

PEW #2 Interviewed

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

WO #5 Interviewed

Additionally, the notes from 5 other, non-designated officers were received and reviewed.

Subject officers

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

Evidence

Video/audio/photographic evidence

Summary of closed circuit television (CCTV) from shelter

CCTV from the local shelter was reviewed and revealed the following:

  • At 1:47:20 p.m., the Complainant appeared in the yard of the shelter near the smoking door at the rear of the property
  • the front door camera shows a view of the front door, stairway and the front yard. There is a picnic table to the left of the stairway when walking from the shelter
  • the Complainant walked from the corner of the shelter into the front yard towards the front door. He was dressed in dark clothing and was not wearing a hat
  • he was carrying his coat in his right hand and appeared to be unsteady on his feet. He walked up the stairs towards the front door
  • the Complainant stood briefly at the front door then laid his coat on the landing near the top of the handicap ramp. He sat down with his legs outstretched towards the stairs
  • the Complainant did not speak or come into contact with anyone from the shelter
  • at 1:53:05 p.m., the front door of the shelter opened and CW #1 walked out onto the steps. CW #2 and CW #3 arrived on the front step. CW #1 spoke to the Complainant as CW #2 and CW #3 went inside the shelter
  • at 1:55:20 p.m., CW #2 exited the shelter and retrieved the stretcher. The Complainant stood up and was still speaking to CW #1. The Complainant was using his right hand to carry his jacket and appeared to have his left arm bent close to his body, and
  • at 1:58:07 p.m., the Complainant walked down the stairs with his left arm held against his chest area and walked towards Fair Street

Summary of OPP detachment video footage

CCTV video footage was provided of the Sally Port, Booking Room and Cell #7 of the Sioux Lookout detachment for November 30, 2016footnote 1 and revealed the following:

  • The Complainant exited the police cruiser. His hands were handcuffed behind his back. He walked towards the police station door without any assistance from the police officers. He entered the Booking Room. The SO, WO #1 and WO #2 are in the Booking Room with the Complainant. The handcuffs were removed by WO #2. The Complainant removed his coat and layers of sweaters to his T-shirt. When the Complainant removed his T-shirt he appeared to be favouring his left arm. The Complainant appeared unsteady on his feet and sat on the bench. The Complainant tried to put his T-shirt back on and was assisted by WO #2. The Complainant put his right hand up against the wall and was searched by the SO. The Complainant walked from the Booking Room holding his left clavicle area with his right hand
  • while in Cell 7, the Complainant favoured his left arm. The Complainant lay on the bed, then on the floor and it appeared that he was unable to get comfortable. The Complainant spoke to a guard

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the OPP:

  • computer aided dispatch
  • communications recordings
  • duty roster
  • general occurrence report
  • notes of WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and footnote 2
  • occurrence (prior involvements)
  • occurrence (the Complainant)
  • notes of 5 non-designated witness officers
  • OPP Cruiser Log On list
  • prisoner custody report
  • prisoner security check, and
  • cell and custody area CCTV

Incident narrative

During the afternoon of November 30, 2016, the Complainant was intoxicated, contrary to the conditions of a court order, and trying to enter a local shelter. 911 was called and the Complainant was located nearby. He had been observed by witnesses on the ground earlier, but was standing when the SO, WO #1 and WO #2 came on the scene.

The Complainant was arrested for breaching his court order and transported to the police station. While at the station, the Complainant complained of a sore left shoulder, and was transported to hospital. X-rays revealed that the Complainant had a comminuted fracture of the left clavicle. The Complainant alleges that he was assaulted by the officers during his arrest and handcuffing.

Relevant legislation

Section 145(3), Criminal Code - Failure to comply with condition of undertaking or recognizance

(3) Every person who is at large on an undertaking or recognizance given to or entered into before a justice or judge and is bound to comply with a condition of that undertaking or recognizance, and every person who is bound to comply with a direction under subsection 515(12) or 522(2.1) or an order under subsection 516(2), and who fails, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on them, to comply with the condition, direction or order is guilty of

  1. an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
  2. an offence punishable on summary conviction

Analysis and director’s decision

On November 30, 2016, at approximately 2:00 p.m., the SO and WO #2 responded to a 911 call from a local shelter regarding the removal of a party who was on the premises and was intoxicated. Upon police arrival, the gentleman, the Complainant, had left the shelter but was located by police officers on Third Avenue, in the town of Sioux Lookout. The Complainant was on court ordered conditions at the time not to consume alcohol, and, as he was clearly intoxicated, he was arrested for breaching his court order and transported to the police station. The actual arrest was carried out by the SO and WO #1, while WO #2 looked on. He was later transported to hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured left clavicle (collar bone).

The Complainant alleged that he was injured when police officers arrested him. There is no dispute that the Complainant was intoxicated on the evening of November 30, 2016. The Complainant acknowledged such, and other witnesses who observed the Complainant consistently described him to be highly, visibly or heavily intoxicated.

Despite the Complainant’s assertion that he had no injuries prior to his interaction with police, two civilian and one police witness all indicated that they had observed the Complainant with facial injuries prior to the call to police.

WO #1’s description of the arrest of the Complainant was consistent with the description provided by CW #1, that the Complainant’s interaction with the police officers was non-aggressive and the Complainant did not resist. WO #1 described the Complainant as being compliant and that there was a minimal amount of force used and no more than required to place the handcuffs on the Complainant. WO #1 also confirmed that the Complainant was never put to the ground, nor was he ever placed against the police cruiser to be handcuffed, and he described the arrest as one of the most non-resistive he had ever been involved in. WO #2 described the arrest as the Complainant independently putting his hands behind his back to be handcuffed, that the Complainant was cooperative, that no force was used and, at no time, were the Complainant’s hands forcefully pulled back.

During the course of the day and evening of November 30, 2016, the Complainant described his various injuries as having occurred by the following means:

  • He had aggravated his shoulder in the cells
  • he was thrown into the back of a police cruiser and heard a crack in his shoulder
  • the police officer pulled his hands behind his back while being handcuffed
  • his shoulder injury may have been from a fight he got into earlier in the day at the shelter, when he had been beaten up
  • he had banged his shoulder off the wall in the cell in an attempt to put his shoulder back in place
  • he did not know how the injury occurred or could not remember and that he had consumed a 26 oz. bottle of Silent Sam
  • his shoulder was good and that he did a good job of putting it back into place when he hit it on the cell wall
  • his shoulder injury was caused by police officers placing his arms behind his back
  • that a guard had told him his shoulder was out, so he smashed his shoulder against the wall in the cell and it went back into place, and
  • when specifically asked by WO #2 if police officers had caused his injury, he responded, “Yeah, well I don’t know”

CW #4 and WO #5 both observed the Complainant on November 30, 2016, at approximately 1:00 p.m., prior to his involvement with the police that led to his arrest. He was outside their home not far from the shelter and he had fallen onto the ground and was on his hands and knees. The CCTV footage from the shelter revealed the Complainant standing outside of the shelter at 1:55:20 p.m., and he appears to have his left arm bent close to his body; later, at 1:58:07 p.m., he is seen holding his left arm against his chest area.

On a preponderance of the evidence, I am unable to put any credence in the version of events as outlined by the Complainant, for the following reasons:

  • It appears that on the date in question he indicated to various persons at the hospital that he had consumed an entire 26 oz. bottle of vodka, in stark contrast to his assertion to investigators regarding the amount he consumed
  • contrary to his assertion to investigators that he had no injures prior to his interaction with police, a number of civilian and police witnesses had observed him to have facial injuries prior to his contact with police and he was heard numerous times telling people that he had been in a fight in which he had was beaten up
  • the evidence of CW #1 completely contradicts the Complainant’s version of how he was arrested and confirms the evidence of WO #1 and WO #2 that the Complainant was never thrown to the ground, nor was he pushed against the police cruiser, nor was he aggressively handcuffed. On the basis of the evidence of CW #1, there is no basis for finding that any force, much less excessive force, was used against the Complainant during his arrest and handcuffing and there is no basis, on her evidence, which could support a finding that the police officers arresting the Complainant had caused his injury; and finally
  • on the utterance of the Complainant, to numerous persons, that he had managed to put his shoulder, which he believed he had dislocated, back into place by smashing his shoulder against the cell wall, I find, first, that it is highly unlikely, had the Complainant already suffered a broken clavicle, that he could have endured the pain of smashing his shoulder into the cell wall, and secondly, that his description of smashing his shoulder into the cell wall is far more consistent with CW #5’s assessment as to how his clavicle was fractured than is his version that it occurred when police officers handcuffed him aggressively

On all of the evidence, and having discounted the evidence of the Complainant due to its having been completely contradicted by numerous other witnesses, there is an absolute absence of any evidence capable of supporting a conclusion that the Complainant’s injuries were caused at the hands of the police officers who arrested him. It is far more likely that the Complainant, due to his severe state of intoxication, simply does not recall how his clavicle was fractured or was unaware at the time of how the injury occurred, as evidenced by his numerous and inconsistent versions of how he was injured.

I further find that on the evidence on this record, it is far more likely that the Complainant either injured his clavicle when he fell, or he dislocated his shoulder when he fell and later broke his clavicle when he smashed his shoulder into the wall of the cell in an attempt to put his shoulder back into alignment. Whatever the mechanism of his injury, however, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that there was an excessive use of force by the police officers who arrested the Complainant, that the force used by police officers caused the injury to the Complainant or that there was any criminal wrongdoing by either the SO, WO #1 or WO #2. As such, there is no basis here for the laying of criminal charges.

Date: October 5, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit