Ontario's police watchdog has ruled there are no grounds on which to charge a St. Thomas police officer after a man suffered a fractured bone in his ear during an arrest.
Police were called the night of January 19, 2017, after a resident called 911 to report that a 19-year-old man had left home and was contemplating taking his own life. St. Thomas police officers spent several hours searching for the man but weren't able to find him.
Around 2am the next day, the man returned home and police were notified. Officers went to the home and tried to convince the man to go to hospital voluntarily to be assessed. The man refused and officers decided to take him into custody under the Mental Health Act. According to the Special Investigations Unit, there was a struggle and one of the officers and the man fell onto the man's bed. The investigation determined that the man reached for the officer's duty belt, which held his "use of force options."
Another officer then punched the man twice in the head in order to bring him under control and get him into handcuffs. The man was then handcuffed and taken to hospital. He was held in the psychiatric ward until later that day before being released with a possible concussion. The man returned to hospital several days later and was diagnosed with a fractured bone in his right ear.
In his final report, SIU Director Tony Loparco said the officers showed both "concern and patience" as they tried to convince the man to voluntarily speak to a mental health crisis worker. He also said the man clearly had no interest in doing so.
"Whether or not the complainant’s resistance and agitation with the police officers was due to their having interfered with his plans is a question that cannot be answered in the circumstances. It is clear, however, that the actions of the SO [subject officer] and WO [witness officer] #1 progressed from patience and negotiation, to a decision to apprehend, and finally, to physical force in order to subdue the complainant," Loparco's report said. "There is no question that had the complainant gone with the officers without a struggle, he would not have been injured. The actions of the police officers progressed in a measured and proportionate fashion to meet and overcome the resistance of the complainant, and the SO did not resort to delivering the two blows to the complainant until WO #1 was put at risk by the actions of the complainant."
Loparco said he is satisfied that the subject officer did not intend to injure the man and the actions by the officers fell within the limits prescribed by the criminal law. His full report can be read here.
