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 reportedly sustained by a 54-year-old woman during her apprehension by police on September 9th, 2017.

The investigation

Notification of the SIU

At approximately 9:00 p.m. on Saturday, September 9th, 2017, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s custody injury.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Complainant:

54-year-old female interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

Subject Officers

SO #1 Declined interview, as is the subject officer’s legal right. Written statement and notes received and reviewed.

Incident narrative

On Saturday, September 9th, 2017, at approximately 4:30 p.m., Northumberland Paramedics requested that the OPP attend a call with them in regards to treating the Complainant’s low blood sugar levels and her reported strange behaviour.

The OPP officers and paramedics arrived at the Complainant’s apartment to treat her. The Complainant became violent towards them and refused to be treated. She threw a television remote control at one of the police officers and held a pen in a fashion similar to holding a knife in a stabbing motion.

The police officers grabbed the Complainant and took her to the floor to gain control over her. She was then treated by the paramedics and subsequently transported to hospital.

Nature of Injury/Treatment

The Complainant was assessed at hospital and was diagnosed as having sustained a comminuted fracture with a predominantly oblique component through the proximal left humerus. It was also found that the Complainant’s bones were osteopenic, meaning that her Bone Mineral Density (BMD) was below normal levels with a greater chance of developing osteoporosis, a condition where bones are weak and fractures can occur.

Evidence

The Scene

The scene was located in the Complainant’s apartment in the Town of Picton.

Forensic Evidence

No submissions were made to the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

As the incident took place in a private residence, no video/audio recordings were available.

Communications Recordings

Communications Recordings & Event Chronology (ER) Report

The SIU received and reviewed the communications recordings relevant to this incident. The communications recordings depicted the following:

  • At 4:21:10 p.m. Northumberland Paramedics asked the OPP dispatcher for assistance with a patient [later identified as the Complainant] with a past violent history.
  • At 4:21:54 p.m. The SO was dispatched to the Complainant’s home
  • At 4:22:03 p.m. WO #1 was dispatched to assist the SO
  • At 4:33:46 p.m. WO #1 told the dispatcher that the Complainant had

been grounded as a result of her violent behaviour.

The communications recordings were consistent with the ER report.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

  • Police Transmissions Communications Recordings
  • Event Chronology
  • OPP Procedure: Service Response
  • Notes of WO #1 and the SO, and
  • OPP Smith Falls Audio Communications

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from other sources:

  • Medical records of the Complainant relating to this incident, and
  • EMS incident report

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

  1. as a private person
  2. as a peace officer or public officer
  3. in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or
  4. 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 25, Ontario Health Care Consent Act – Emergency Treatment without Consent

25 (1) For the purpose of this section and section 27, there is an emergency if the person for whom the treatment is proposed is apparently experiencing severe suffering or is at risk, if the treatment is not administered promptly, of sustaining serious bodily harm.

(2) Despite section 10, a treatment may be administered without consent to a person who is incapable with respect to the treatment, if, in the opinion of the health care practitioner proposing the treatment,

  1. there is an emergency
  2. the delay required to obtain a consent or refusal on the person’s behalf will prolong the suffering that the person is apparently experiencing or will put the person at risk of sustaining serious bodily harm

Analysis and director’s decision

On September 9th, 2017 at approximately 4:30 p.m., Northumberland Paramedics received a 911 call requesting assistance at an apartment in the Town of Picton. The caller, CW #1, requested that an ambulance attend for his roommate, the Complainant, who was diabetic and required medical attention as she tended to become disoriented, confused, and agitated when her blood sugar level dropped, which from her behaviour, he believed it had.

The Complainant was known to the paramedics from prior involvement as being possibly aggressive, as a result of which the dispatcher requested the attendance of the police to assist the paramedics. The SO and WO #1 from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Northumberland Detachment were then also dispatched.

Following her interaction with the police and paramedics, the Complainant was transported to hospital where she was assessed and it was discovered that she had sustained a slightly angulated comminuted fracture (a break or splinter of the bone into more than two fragments) of the left proximal humerus (the long bone in the upper arm near the shoulder joint).

During the course of this investigation, three civilian witnesses, including the Complainant and one paramedic, and one police witness were interviewed. The subject officer and one of the paramedics provided written statements. SIU investigators also had access to the paramedic and medical records of the Complainant, the police radio transmissions recording, and the notes of both police officers. There is no dispute as to the facts.

The Complainant is a diabetic and is susceptible to bone fractures as a result of suffering from osteoporosis. On September 9th, 2017, the Complainant was suffering from low blood sugar levels and became disoriented, confused and agitated; as a result, according to the Complainant, her recollection of events from that date was vague, her thinking was affected, and she did not know what she was doing. The Complainant’s roommate, CW #1, encouraged the Complainant to eat a chocolate bar in order to raise her blood sugar levels, but the Complainant refused. CW #1 called 911 for assistance and CW #2 and a second paramedic attended, causing the Complainant to become upset. Shortly thereafter, the SO and WO #1 also attended.

The Complainant yelled at everyone to leave her apartment and indicated that she did not wish to be treated or to attend hospital. CW #2 requested that he be allowed to take a blood sample from the Complainant to determine her blood sugar level. Both the paramedics and the police officers assured the Complainant that they were only there to help, and the SO, who apparently was familiar with the Complainant, called her by her first name to try and build a rapport with her. The Complainant then threw a television remote at the two police officers. WO #1 indicated that he believed that the remote struck the SO. CW #2 opined that the Complainant’s agitation was escalating towards aggression and he believed that she showed symptoms related to low blood sugar levels.

The Complainant then grabbed a pen and held it in her hand in what was described as a fashion similar to which one would hold a knife in a stabbing motion. CW #2 was of the view that in her present state of mind, the Complainant could harm herself or others with the pen.

WO #1 alerted everyone that the Complainant had the pen in her hand and both police officers repeatedly asked her to drop it, but she refused and continued to yell. CW #2 then took a step forward and grabbed the Complainant’s right hand and twisted it; as he did so, he heard a sound similar to that of bones cracking. CW #2 then took the pen away from the Complainant.

The SO and WO #1 then pulled the Complainant to the floor by the arms and grounded her; WO #1 described the grounding as guiding her to the floor while CW #2 described it as not being forceful. The Complainant advised that after she was pulled to the floor, the SO twisted her arm behind her back and placed a knee on her back, at which point the Complainant heard a crack and believed that her arm had been broken. The SO and WO #1 each indicated they heard three popping sounds as they pulled the Complainant towards the floor. All parties present heard the SO then comment that she had heard a sound similar to bones cracking and asked if the others had also heard the crack.

At the time of the incident, each of the SO and CW #2 indicated a belief that it was he, or she, who was the person who had been responsible for the injury to the Complainant.

CW #1 indicated in his statement that he believed that the Complainant may have been unintentionally injured when the SO took her to the floor; he also advised that he was aware that the Complainant was susceptible to fractures due to her osteoporosis.

CW #2 then checked the Complainant’s blood sugar level and administered a Glucagon injection; the Complainant calmed and was assisted to a stretcher and transported to hospital by ambulance. The Complainant indicated that she believed that both police officers were concerned about her well-being.

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are restricted in their use of force to that which is reasonably necessary in the execution of a lawful duty. Turning first to the lawfulness of the Complainant’s apprehension, it is clear from the statement of CW #2 that he was of the view that the Complainant was suffering from “her known and debilitating diabetic problem” and, as such, she “could not be rationally spoken with or directed”.

I infer from this statement that CW #2 was of the view that the Complainant was incapable of consenting to treatment, pursuant to s.25(2) of the Ontario Health Care Consent Act.

Furthermore, pursuant to Chapter 6 of the OPP police orders, section 6.1.2, once CW #2 approached the Complainant in order to disarm her of the pen that she held in her hand in a stabbing motion, it was incumbent upon the two police officers present to take action to assist and protect CW #2, and that it was necessary to subdue the Complainant in order to do so. As such, I accept that both police officers were acting in the course of their duties when they took hold of the Complainant and took her to the floor in order to subdue her and allow her to be administered to by the paramedics.

With respect to the amount of force used by officers in their attempts to subdue the Complainant, it appears clear on the evidence of both CW #1 and the Complainant, and as confirmed by her medical records, that the Complainant’s injuries were due, at least in part, to her medical condition. On this basis, despite the serious nature of the Complainant’s injury, I accept that the fact of the injury does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the Complainant was subjected to an excessive use of force, but that she was far more likely to receive such an injury with much less force than would a person who did not suffer from osteoporosis.

In these particular circumstances, where CW #2, a paramedic, physically confronted the Complainant in order to disarm her, and thereby put himself in harm’s way, I find that it was incumbent upon both police officers to intervene and assist CW #2 and to subdue the Complainant. In doing so, I further accept the evidence of CW #1, that the Complainant was unintentionally injured because she was susceptible to bone fractures due to her condition, and not due to any excessive use of force. I further find, on this record, that the actions of the police officers were no more than the minimal required in the circumstances to subdue the Complainant in order to get her the medical assistance which she required.

As such, although I find that the Complainant’s injury was caused by the police officers taking her to the floor and/or pulling her hands behind her back, I find that pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, the officers involved used no more force than was reasonably necessary in the execution of their lawful duties. In coming to this conclusion, I am mindful of the law as handed down by our higher courts that officers are not expected to measure the degree of their responsive force to a nicety (R. v. Baxter (1975) 27 C.C.C. (2d) 96 (Ont. C.A.)) nor should they be judged to a standard of perfection (R. v. Nasogaluak [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206).

I am therefore satisfied on reasonable grounds on this record that the actions exercised by both police officers fell within the limits prescribed by the criminal law and that there are no grounds for proceeding with charges in this case.

Date: June 4, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit