THUNDER BAY - The Special Investigations Unit has found no grounds to charge Thunder Bay Police Service officers with a criminal offence after a man suffered a serious shoulder injury that required surgery following his arrest.
The SIU launched an investigation last June after being notified of the 45-year-old complainant’s injury sustained during his arrest earlier the same day.
The complainant, who was wanted on several warrants relating to drug trafficking and possessions of proceeds of crime, was spotted in the Cumberland Street South area by plainclothes officers with the Thunder Bay Police Service Break Enter and Armed Robbery (BEAR) unit.
The complainant fled from officers who pursued him between two buildings. While he was running up a walkway, one of the officers pushed the complainant from behind, causing him to fall onto the walkway and land on his shoulder.
A struggle ensued as four officers attempted to handcuff the complainant. During the struggle, the officers punched, kicked, and kneed the complainant before he was eventually handcuffed and transported back to the police service headquarters.
While at the police headquarters the complainant said he injured his shoulder when he was pushed and fell. A shift sergeant on duty looked at the injured shoulder and decided to transport the complainant to the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre.
An x-ray revealed the complainant suffered a dislocated shoulder. Surgery was required to insert metal plates and pins to repair the complainant’s shoulder.
SIU director, Joseph Martino, said in his report that based on the assessment of the evidence there are no reasonable grounds to lay criminal charges against the subject officers involved in the incident.
“There was a warrant in effect authorizing the Complainant’s arrest on charges of drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime,” Martino said in his report. “Accordingly, the BEAR officers were within their rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody.”
Martino added the use of force in this arrest, based on the evidence, falls short of being unlawful and 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.”
“The Complainant was known to carry firearms and to engage officers in police pursuits to evade apprehension,” Martino said. “In the circumstances, there was some urgency in ensuring that the Complainant be arrested as soon as possible. Forcing him to the ground would bring his flight to an end while positioning the officers to better deal with the threat of a weapon on the Complainant’s person.”
Martino acknowledged the complainant was on the receiving end of several punches, kicks, and knee strikes by the officers while on the ground, but this was done as he struggled against being placed in handcuffs.
“Once handcuffed, no further strikes were delivered. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officers acted with excess,” Martino said. “In arriving at this finding, I am mindful of the common law principle that officers embroiled in dynamic and physical engagements are not expected to measure their responsive force to a nicety; what is required is a reasonable response, not an exacting one.”
