SIU clears West Grey police in incident involving father and son
The province’s Special Investigations Unit has cleared a West Grey police officer in relation to an incident that led to allegations of police brutality by the family involved.
Author of the article: Rob Gowan Published May 11, 2021 • Last updated May 11, 2021 • 5 minute read
The incident on June 6 of last year led to the hospitalization of a 68-year-old man after two males became combative with police who were investigating and making arrests at a domestic disturbance, according to a news release issued by West Grey Police on Friday.
Later in June 2020, about 50 people held a protest outside the police station in Durham, while legal action was initiated against the West Grey Police Services Board and two constables. The family of David Hillier, 68, “witnessed outrageous police brutality” at their home near Chesley, according to a news release issued at the time by Toronto-based firm Charney Law.
A notice of legal action filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was also supplied by the firm at that time. It identified David Hillier and his son Casey Hillier as the plaintiffs, while naming the West Grey Police Services Board and two of its constables as defendants.
The family’s claims have not been tested in court.
A statement issued by the SIU on Thursday said that director Joseph Martino “has determined there are no reasonable grounds to believe that an officer committed a criminal offence in connection with the man’s arrest and injuries.”
West Grey Police Chief Rob Martin said Monday that they are pleased that their members have been cleared by the SIU.
The SIU is an independent government agency that investigates the conduct of police that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.
Martin said he could not comment further with the Hilliers facing criminal charges for a trial to be held in the fall.
David Hillier, now 69, and Casey Hillier, 43, are both charged with assaulting a police officer, assault with intent to resist arrest and attempt to disarm an officer of his baton.
Davin Charney of Charney Law confirmed on Tuesday that the trial will begin on Nov. 30 in the Ontario Court of Justice in Walkerton.
He added that the Hilliers will proceed with a civil claim after the criminal proceedings have concluded.
The notice of legal action supplied last year said the incident occurred on Concession 14 NDR in West Grey in the early morning hours on June 6.
The notice detailed a claim by the plaintiffs that both men sustained injuries in the incident. David Hillier’s injuries included multiple broken ribs, a collapsed lung, a broken nose and widespread bruising. It claimed Casey Hillier sustained injuries, including bleeding from his head, as well as scrapes, welts and bruising.
The notice claimed both men were struck about 20 times, they were both tasered and Casey Hillier was also slammed against a police cruiser and put in a headlock.
None of the allegations have been proved in court.
The SIU director’s report, dated April 19, 2021, confirmed that West Grey police told the SIU that they responded to a domestic disturbance at a residence on the morning of June 6, 2020.
The occupants of the residence included the complainant, his wife, son and daughter.
According to the report, police said at one point the complainant became combative, and a conducted energy weapon was deployed to gain control of him. The son also became involved in the confrontation and officers used their batons, police told the SIU.
Both were arrested and shortly after the complainant complained of breathing difficulties. He was taken to hospital in Durham where he was diagnosed as possibly having suffered a collapsed lung and was later transported to a London-area hospital, the report said. He was eventually diagnosed with two rib fractures and a left-sided hemothorax, the report said. A hemothorax occurs when blood collects in the space between the chest wall and the lung.
For its investigation, the SIU interviewed six civilian witnesses and six witness officers, according to the report. There was one subject officer.
The evidence obtained by the SIU for its investigation included taser evidence, police communications recordings, notes and other information from police, and the complainant’s medical records. Both the complainant and the subject officer declined to provide a statement or be interviewed.
The incident scenario that emerged from the evidence collected – which included statements from an arresting officer and several civilians – included a timeline that began at 11:50 p.m. on June 5 when the call first came in and continued into the early morning of June 6.
According to the report, the evidence showed that the son of the complainant had become annoyed at the continued presence of the subject officer at the property.
He had banged on a cruiser, called him a “pig” and yelled other slurs at him, the report said.
At about 12:50 a.m., another officer directed the son and his father, who had joined him near the cruiser and was also yelling at the subject officer, to get away from the vehicle. The son pushed the other officer, prompting the subject officer to get out of the vehicle. The son was told he was under arrest, the report said.
There was a physical altercation between the officers and the two people in the course of which both officers used their batons and the subject officer discharged his CEW (conducted energy weapon) twice, the report said.
The officers radioed for the assistance of other officers in the area as the struggle unfolded. They were able to handcuff the complainant and his son as a number of Hanover Police Service and OPP officers began arriving at the scene shortly after 1 a.m., the report said.
In his analysis and decision, Martino said he had no reasonable grounds to believe the subject officer committed a criminal offence in connection with the complainant’s arrest and injuries.
He said there were conflicts in the evidence to determine the lawfulness of the complainant’s arrest.
One version of events says the complainant and his son were standing by the cruiser yelling at the subject officer through the closed driver’s door when the officer got out and slammed the son against the the side of the vehicle. It says the complainant came to his son’s aid and was met with a CEW discharge and baton strikes.
“On this version of events, a case can be made that the Complainant had a right to intervene to defend his son from an unlawful attack, and that the force used against him (the Complainant) was unlawful,” the report states.
“The evidence strongly, suggests, however, that this account of what occurred was materially incomplete.”
The version of events does not acknowledge any force that may have been used against the officers by either the complainant or his son, the report states.
“The evidence establishes, in my view, that the Complainant kicked the officers in the course of the fracas,” it states.
Martino also said in the report that there is insufficiently reliable evidence to reasonably believe that either officer used excessive force in the arrest of the complainant.
He said the officers’ resort to force occurred in what appears to have been a “strenuous struggle,” in which both sides “delivered and received blows.”
As a result, Martino said he was not satisfied on reasonable grounds that the officers acted in any way other than lawfully during the encounter and closed the file.