28 May 2012



Executive Director, Ottawa Police Services Board



Chief of Police, Ottawa Police Service









That the Ottawa Police Services Board receive this report for information.




In December 2011, Ottawa Police officers responded to a disturbance involving three individuals in a rooming house.  As officers were escorting one of the individuals off the premises the third individual threw a large object in the direction of the officers.  The object narrowly missed the officers and officers pursued this individual to affect an arrest.


The individual resisted the arrest and then began showing signs of medical distress. Paramedics were contacted and the individual was transported to hospital. 


The individual was diagnosed with a non displaced fracture to a rib.


The Special Investigations Unit was contacted and invoked its mandate.




Special Investigation Unit Investigation


On 19 April 2012, the Director of the Special Investigations Unit advised Chief Bordeleau that its investigation was now complete and that no further action would be taken. S.I.U. Director Ian Scott stated in his correspondence:


“Pursuant to s. 11(4) of Regulation 267/10 under the Police Services Act, I advise you that my report regarding the Custody Injury of (an individual) that occurred in December, 2011, has been sent to the Attorney General.


The investigation by this Unit has been completed, the file has been closed and no further action is contemplated.  The subject officer provided his notes and submitted to a voluntary interview. He said he witnessed (the individual) throwing (an item) down the stairs at him. Both agree that (the individual) ran back into his room and attempted to close it. And both agree that the subject officer forced the door open and grounded (the individual). While (the individual) is of the view that excessive force was used against him by both officers, and the subject officer said he only used the force necessary to handcuff him, it is likely that the subject officer was responsible for fracturing (the individual) rib when he used a knee strike in his lower rib area.


It is not in dispute that the (item) went down the stairs shortly after the subject officer’s descent.  In my view, then, (the subject officer) had a reasonable, although perhaps mistaken, belief that (the individual) had assaulted him. This belief gave him the lawful authority to arrest (the individual) for an alleged assault. He also then had the authority to enter (the individual’s) room due to the “hot pursuit” doctrine: Macooh (1993),115C.C.C, (3d) 129 (SCC), and use reasonable force to effect his arrest. While it is likely that the subject officer is responsible for fracturing (the individual’s) rib during the course of the arrest, given the complainant’s level of resistance, it is unclear to me that the force used was excessive. Accordingly, I cannot form the grounds that (the subject officer) committed a criminal offence in these circumstances.


I thank you for the cooperation of all members of your police service in the conduct of this investigation.


Due to the provisions of the Police Service Act and the Regulations, I am unable to provide you with a copy of my report to the Attorney General.  If, however, you wish to discuss any aspect of this matter, I invite you to call William Curtis, this Unit’s Executive Officer, or me.


Yours Sincerely,


Ian Scott



Professional Standards Section Investigation


Pursuant to section 11 of Regulation 267/10 of the Police Services Act, an investigation was conducted by the Professional Standards Section to determine if the policies of, or services provided by, the Ottawa Police Service were adhered to at the time of this incident, and to determine if the conduct of the police officers was appropriate.


The results are as follows:


Conduct: The allegation of misconduct was investigated pursuant to the Police Services Act. Legislative provisions for Police Officers in Ontario authorize the use of the force that is necessary to execute their duties.  Officers are accountable for any force that is used beyond what is necessary in the execution of their duties. 


This investigation confirmed that the subject officer used force to affect the arrest of a suspect for assault with a weapon who was combative as he resisted arrest.  There is no evidence that the force used to complete the arrest was excessive or unreasonable given the resistance of the accused.  No misconduct was identified.


Police officers re-qualify annually in their ‘use of force’ training to refresh decision making skills in live scenarios and practical skills with issued weapons.  It was confirmed that the subject officer had successfully re-qualified in use of force as per legislative requirements.


Policies: As per the requirements of the Ontario Police Services Act and its regulations, every Police Service shall have policies that provide direction for the delivery of policing services.  In this matter a number of policies were reviewed including Use of Force, Arrest and Care and Control of Prisoners.  The subject officer had the paramedics attend to provide medical assistance once the arrest was made.  The accused was treated and transferred to the police vehicle where he continued to be aggressive and kicked out the window of the police cruiser.  The accused was transported to hospital for treatment.  A review of the matter and all legislative and policy requirements related to this incident confirmed that all policies were adhered to.


Service: The Police Services Act confirms the mandate of the Police to attend to calls for service including disturbance calls.  In this matter the police were called to an altercation between three men, including the accused and a report of damage to property.  The Ottawa Police Service responded to this call as per the mandate of the police service.  No service issues were identified.




No further action to be taken on this matter




(original signed by)


Charles Bordeleau

Chief of Police