Ontario's Special Investigations Unit (SIU) has found no reasonable grounds to convict two Barrie Police officers in connection with the fractured nose suffered by a man when he was in custody on August 19.
At 11:35 a.m. that day the 25-year-old complainant in the case was arrested without incident for assault at Georgian Mall and eventually transported to Barrie Police headquarters for processing. While in the cruiser, the man reportedly complained that his handcuffs were too tight.
There, the man reportedly became aggressive while waiting for processing, and made another tightness complaint. Afterward, he promised that he would not fight, and the handcuffs were loosened.
Barrie's News Delivered To Your Inbox
By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: Central Ontario Broadcasting, 431 Huronia Rd, Barrie, Ontario, CA, https://www.cobroadcasting.com. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact
According to the director's report, just after 12 p.m., the complainant was escorted toward the cells with his handcuffs removed, but hesitated at the entrance before turning with a closed fist and glancing a strike off one officer. In response, the officer struck the man with a closed fist of their own.
The second officer attempted to subdue the complainant, but was unsuccessful. That prompted a third nearby officer to deploy their conducted energy weapon (CEW), which caused the man to tense up, lean toward the wall, and fall to the floor. The prongs, fired at close-range, hit the man's stomach and thigh.
Blood was seen coming from the man's nose, and there was a mark on the top of his head. One witness said he might have hit his head on the way down.
He was brought to Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre where he was diagnosed with a broken nose. He declined treatment and was returned to custody at the station for a bail hearing.
In the investigation, six witnesses were interviewed, but both officers declined, as is their right.
Among the materials the SIU also reviewed surveillance video from the body-worn cameras, custody footage, and other communications recordings.
In the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties if it was reasonably necessary to execute an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.
"Engaged as they were in a violent clash with the Complainant, the officers were within their rights in responding with sharp force to immediately subdue and re-establish custody over their detainee," SIU director Joseph Martino wrote in his decision. "No further strikes or CEW use occurred after the Complainant was on the floor.
"In arriving at this conclusion, I am mindful that the law does not require officers in the heat of a physical engagement to measure their responsive force with precision; what is required is a reasonable response, not an exacting one."
