THUNDER BAY – The province’s Special Investigations Unit found no reasonable grounds to believe a Thunder Bay Police Service officer committed a criminal offence after a 30-year-old man was seriously injured while fleeing police.
The man was being arrested for suspected impaired driving on the morning of June 10, 2023, at a residence near River Street and High Street North when he decided to flee on foot.
An officer chased the man and his flashlight struck the man’s head when the officer brought him to the ground.
The man received an injury to his head and was transported to the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, where he received four sutures and was diagnosed with a small skull fracture. The man was then released from hospital and returned to police custody.
At 9:04 a.m. on the same day, the Thunder Bay Police Service notified the SIU of the man’s injury. The man alleged that the officer intentionally hit him with the flashlight.
The SIU reviewed body camera footage, “but it was choppy given the movement,” the report said.
Joseph Martino, the SIU's director, wasn’t satisfied the evidence demonstrating that this was an intentional act would warrant being put to the test in court, he said in the report.
Three SIU investigators worked on this case. The police officer declined being interviewed and to provide notes, as is their right. An affidavit was provided.
The SIU report said the investigation was delayed due to a number of factors, including “issues related to case complexity, workload pressures, and the receipt of a written statement and photograph from the subject official in April 2024."
Section 25(1) of the Criminal Code says 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 report said.
It’s apparent the man was being detained when he decided to flee what he believed was his impending arrest.
“In R. v. Mann, [2004] 3 SCR 59, the Supreme Court of Canada made clear that investigative detentions are not permissible unless the police are vested with reasonable grounds to suspect that the detainee is implicated in a crime,” Martino's report said.
“In the instant case, I am satisfied the complainant was being lawfully detained for impaired operation of a motor vehicle: his companion – the civilian witness – had told police that the complainant had been drinking, the complainant was unsteady on his feet, and both parties had arrived at the scene in a SUV.”
When the man fled from police, the officers were within their rights in re-establishing his detention, Martino’s report said.
“The subject official did so with a resort to force that I am unable to reasonably conclude was unjustified.
“The takedown, per se, was a legitimate tactic. The complainant was running away from the officer attempting to escape, and the officer was entitled to bring his flight to an end by forcing him down.”
The impact of the officer's flashlight with the man’s head is less easily reconciled with reasonable force, the report said.
“Arguably, its intentional use to strike the complainant’s head would amount to an assault. And that is what is alleged happened to the complainant. The subject official, however, denies he intentionally struck the complainant in the head with the flashlight.
“According to the officer, when he caught the complainant and grabbed his waistband, the complainant turned, raised an arm, and lunged towards him.
“Concerned that the complainant might be in possession of a weapon – a not unreasonable concern given the presence of a knife that the officers had located in the SUV before the complainant’s arrest – the subject official lifted his right arm to block and repel the complainant’s forward movement," the report said.
While the officer agreed the flashlight he was holding made contact with the complainant’s head, he said it was inadvertent.
