Use of force justified during St. Catharines arrest in 2017, SIU says

Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit has cleared a Niagara Regional Police officer in his arrest of an intoxicated St. Catharines man, concluding use of force was justified and any injuries the complainant received were most likely caused by his own actions.

The incident occurred shortly before 1 a.m., Sept. 7, 2017, outside a downtown nightclub. According to the report, the complainant and his friends left the Fluid Room on James Street and headed to L3 near St. Paul Street.

There was an altercation between the complainant and a bouncer, during which one of the complainant’s friends held him back, resulting in them both falling to the ground.

The altercation drew the attention of police, and an officer arrested the complainant, who, according to witnesses, violently resisted. He was put into a cruiser and driven home, where he was unconditionally released to his father.

Sometime later, the complainant alleged the officer had pushed his face into the cruiser, causing an injury to his right eye. At the hospital, he was diagnosed as having suffered a “comminuted blowout fracture of the roof of the right bony orbit (right eye socket) with a trap door configuration.”

However, in his report, SIU director Tony Loparco said he found it most likely the complainant was injured when he began to violently thrash about at the police cruiser, causing the police to take him to the ground. Loparco said while officers tried to control the complainant, it was his own thrashing that ultimately caused his head to strike the pavement.

Loparco noted neither of the two civilian witnesses described anything like the complainant’s claim of police banging his head on the cruiser.

Loparco said he found no grounds for laying charges against the officer.

“I find on the reliable evidence before me that there is no evidence that any excessive use of force was resorted to by any police officer in apprehending and arresting the complainant, and that the force used was both reasonable and proportionate given the complainant’s aggressive resistance to the arrest,” he said.