SIU won’t investigate officers for use of naloxone: province

Police say change will allow them to help save OD victims without fear of watchdog probe

Police officers who fail to save a life by administering an opioid-antidote will no longer be automatically investigated by Ontario’s police watchdog, the province announced Tuesday.

Effective immediately, police services will not be required to call in the civilian Special Investigations Unit (SIU) when someone dies or is seriously injured after an officer administers naloxone, a drug that can be used to temporarily reverse the effects of an opioid overdose. As the opioid crisis grips the province, the legal requirement that police report naloxone-related deaths and injuries to the SIU — which probes deaths and injuries involving police and can lay criminal charges — has become a contentious issue. Facing an exponential number of emergency overdose calls, Ontario’s police services have moved in haste to equip front-line officers with naloxone, typically in the form of nasal spray. In response, earlier this year the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP) led a campaign for the SIU to “stand down” on its requirement that the unit be called in to probe naloxone-related deaths and injuries, saying it could make officers think twice about administering the drug if they knew a stressful probe will ensue.

The SIU director shot back, releasing a sternly worded refusal saying the law required police to notify the watchdog.

Tuesday’s changes to the Police Services Act effectively settle the debate. The new regulation states that the SIU will not have to be notified in cases where naloxone was administered and someone nonetheless died or was injured, “provided there was no other interaction that could have caused the death or serious injury,” according to a statement released by the province.

“It really was a fairness issue,” Sylvia Jones, the newly appointed minister of community safety and correctional services, told the Star. “We allow paramedics to administer, we allow firefighters to administer, we tell our front-line officers that they can, but then there’s the spectrum of, ‘but the SIU must be called.’

“All we are doing is making sure that they have the same access, to make sure that our people are safe,” she said.

In 2018, 12 investigations were launched into officer use of naloxone in Ontario.

Eleven have since been terminated, meaning no charges were ever laid because the SIU halted the probe after it became apparent police actions did not cause or contribute to the death.

The single outstanding probe — announced by the SIU within minutes of Tuesday’s regulatory change — concerns the actions of an OPP officer who administered both CPR and naloxone after an 87-year-old Clayton, Ont., woman went into medical distress at a Remembrance Day ceremony.

Monica Hudon, spokesperson for the SIU, said in an email that as the legislation is not retroactive, “we will continue to investigate the one remaining naloxone case that came to our attention on Nov. 11, 2018.”

She also noted that the eleven probes opened into officer naloxone use “were terminated on average in less than one month.”

Tuesday’s move was lauded by police organizations. Barrie Chief Kimberley Greenwood, now-president of the OACP, said the change will “allow our front-line personnel to continue to uphold their responsibility to save lives without the concern of being subjected to an SIU investigation.”

The OACP, alongside other police associations and services, had previously raised concerns about officers being subjected to undue stress — and the spectre of criminal charges — and said it could cause police to think twice about stepping in to administer naloxone while responding to an emergency call.

Toronto Police Services Board Chair Andy Pringle, too, said the changes will help the city “as we try to deal with the unprecedented challenges associated with opioid use.”

Others, however, have raised “slippery slope” concerns about creating an exception to when police contact the SIU about officer-involved deaths and injuries.

Former SIU director Howard Morton said that while he doesn’t like officers being subjected to the stress associated with an SIU investigation, it’s necessary that the SIU get involved to determine whether further investigation is required.

He said that little more than a “scant” inquiry would be necessary for the SIU to determine the officer was simply attempting to save a life and that no other police actions led to the death or injury.

“I’m leery about the slippery slope,” he said in an interview.

“I’m most leery about it being far too easy for the police service to simply say: ‘We don’t need to notify the SIU because naloxone was involved.’ I think that should be up to the SIU to determine.”

Naloxone can temporarily reverse the effects of an opioid overdose from such drugs as fentanyl, Percocet, heroin and morphine.

Opioid abuse has taken a huge toll, especially in Toronto, where more than 300 people died from an overdose in 2017 — representing one in four such deaths in the province.

This summer, Toronto police announced that officers who patrol the downtown area would carry the medication on their utility belts because of the ongoing crisis.

Ontario’s move this week brings the SIU in line with other similar agencies across Canada, including in British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec, where there is no expectation the watchdog would be called in for naloxone-related incidents. Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner said he is usually in favour of greater police oversight — but in this case, the government has made the right move.

“I think police oversight in something like a shooting is completely different than a police oversight issue when the police are acting to save someone’s life.”

Schreiner said he’s “a big supporter of harm-reduction approaches and also just making citizens and police officers feel comfortable that they can act to save someone’s life — and that if that action doesn’t result in the positive outcome we want, making sure that they’re protected.

“That way you don’t have people concerned about whether to take action in a crisis, because saving someone’s life should be the top priority.”