SIU: No ‘reasonable grounds’ to charge officer who broke man’s nose during Burlington arrest

A Halton Regional Police officer who broke a man’s nose during an arrest in Burlington did not commit a criminal offence said the Special Investigations Unit (SIU).

The SIU investigation found no reasonable grounds to charge the officer in connection with the July 5, 2024, incident that left a 36-year-old man seriously injured after being arrested sitting on a bench at 12:37 a.m. in the area of Brant Street and Blairholm Avenue.

The man, who had a warrant for his arrest, was punched after police say he resisted arrest. After being taken to a Peel Regional Police station, he complained of an injury and was taken to Credit Valley Hospital.

He was later diagnosed with a fractured nose and released at 10:45 a.m. the next morning.

SIU director Joseph Martin concluded that the force by the officer was legally justified as the man had “adopted an aggressive posture.”

Martino also found that he had intruded on the personal space of an officer and threatened to assault an officer.

“With respect to the force used by the (officer) in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, namely, a punch, I am satisfied it was legally justified,” said Martino. “The Complainant had adopted an aggressive posture, intruded into (the officer’s) personal space, and had threatened to assault her when the SO delivered a single punch.

“Considering the need to act quickly and decisively to deter an imminent assault, it would seem that a single punch to the face fell within the range of reasonable force in the circumstances.”

An officer with Peel police had contacted Halton police between 12:16 to 12:19 p.m. to notify them they were in Burlington regarding the complainant, who had just been released.

“The PRP subsequently realized he was wanted on a warrant, and requested the attendance of uniform police officers,” said the report into the investigation. “The call-taker confirmed that two uniformed police officers would be dispatched.”

When officers approached the complainant and told him he was under arrest, the Complainant stood from the bench and objected, and then asked to see the warrant.

He was then asked to place his hands behind his back and encouraged to cooperate.

“The Complainant raised his fists in the air, got into the officer’s personal space, and jerked forward. (An officer) pulled backward about the same time as the Complainant was punched in the face,” said the report.

The Complainant fell to the ground and was eventually handcuffed.

The investigation is now concluded.

“On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s arrest and injury,” said Martino.

“Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, 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.”