The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) has found no fault on the part of a Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) officer following an arrest in Garson last fall, during which a 37-year-old man sustained a broken nose.
In a report released on Friday, Joseph Martino, director of the SIU, concluded that the officer involved did not commit any criminal offence, citing the high-risk nature of the incident as a key factor in his decision.
“On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the (officer) committed a criminal offence in connection with the complainant’s arrest and injury,” Martino stated.
“By the time the officers entered the apartment, they had information indicating the complainant was behaving strangely, had a history of mental health issues, had damaged property, and was possibly injured due to the presence of blood. On this record, I am satisfied there were exigent circumstances justifying the officers’ entry into the apartment to apprehend the complainant under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.”
The incident occurred in the early hours of October 13, 2023, when GSPS officers responded to a call regarding a disturbance at a residence near Falconbridge Road and Margaret Street in Garson.
According to Martino’s report, the call was made at 12:33 a.m. after the 37-year-old man reportedly caused damage to his apartment, pulled the building’s fire alarm, and damaged the windows of his partner’s vehicle. Officers arrived at the scene at 12:49 a.m. and encountered the complainant.
Approximately five minutes later, one of the officers deployed a conducted energy weapon (CEW), causing the man to fall forward and fracture his nasal bone. He was subsequently apprehended under the Mental Health Act and transported to Health Sciences North for treatment.
Upon arrival, officers observed drops of blood leading to the apartment and on the door handle. After knocking on the door, the man partially opened it before attempting to close it. The officers prevented the door from closing and entered the apartment.
Inside, the situation escalated further. The man reportedly yelled at the officers, swept items off a shelf, and grabbed a metal chair. The officer who discharged the CEW instructed his colleague to step back before firing the weapon, immobilizing the man and causing him to fall face-first onto the floor, resulting in the broken nose.
The SIU investigation included interviews with the complainant on October 17, 2023, a review of his medical records, and statements from a civilian witness and a witness officer.
The civilian witness, who had called 911, described the man’s behaviour as uncharacteristically erratic and concerning. The witness noted that the man had set off the building’s fire alarm, torn a railing from a wall, and appeared unaware of his surroundings. The witness expressed concern that the man might harm himself or others and confirmed that he had a history of mental health issues but was not armed.
At 12:53 a.m., officers informed dispatchers that they had deployed a CEW and taken the man into custody. An ambulance was requested shortly afterward due to the man’s facial injuries, and officers escorted the ambulance to Health Sciences North.
Martino determined that the use of the CEW was justified under the circumstances. He stated that the officers had attempted to de-escalate the situation by speaking to the man and explaining their intent to help, but his agitation and hostility continued to escalate.
The witness officer corroborated that the CEW was deployed only after the man grabbed the chair, which posed a potential threat. Martino acknowledged that while one witness reported the man was not holding anything at the time, the subject officer’s decision to use the CEW was reasonable given the man’s level of hostility and the risk of physical confrontation.
“Given the complainant’s level of hostility, the officers could reasonably expect he would physically resist them were they to take hold of him to effect an arrest,” Martino wrote.
“They could risk a physical altercation with the complainant that might itself result in injury, or they could attempt to temporarily immobilize him from a distance ahead of a hands-on engagement. The latter, in my view, would appear a reasonable option.”
Martino concluded that there was no basis for criminal charges against the officer, and the case has been closed.
The SIU’s full report on the incident can be found here.
The SIU is an independent government agency that investigates the conduct of police officers, special constables and peace officers that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault and/or the discharge of a firearm at a person.
