Police in North Bay are not criminally responsible for the death of a suspect who overdosed while in custody in 2024, Ontario’s police watchdog has concluded.
The Special Investigations Unit said evidence shows that while the constable missed one check on the 42-year-old man, that didn’t rise to the level of negligence, especially since he had been in custody for some time and had shown no sign he was high or having trouble.
The man’s death took place Jan. 12, 2024, inside a holding cell at the North Bay Court of Justice. He was found unresponsive at 4:45 p.m. and efforts to revive him were unsuccessful.
He was already in custody when he was placed in the holding cell at 9:10 a.m. ahead of a bail hearing later in the day.
“The complainant was removed from his cell at about 11:28 a.m. for his hearing and returned shortly thereafter, at about 11:36 a.m.,” the SIU said in the incident narrative from its investigation.
At 4:11 p.m., video evidence showed he fell off the cell bench onto the toilet seat, where he remained until he was discovered by staff at 4:55 p.m. He was given CPR until paramedics arrived at 5:04 p.m. He was taken to hospital and declared dead at 5:50 p.m. The cause of death, according to the pathologist, was acute fentanyl and meth intoxication.
SIU director Joseph Martino said to file criminal charges, there would need to be evidence of “a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances.”
Requires egregious conduct
Charges of criminal negligence causing death would require “even more egregious conduct that demonstrates a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.”
In this case, the man was checked on regularly by special constables, either in person or through video monitors.
“Through most of his time in custody, he appeared well and gave no cause for concern,” Martino wrote.
“In light of the distinct possibility that he was able to ingest fentanyl and methamphetamine while a prisoner at the courthouse, the question arises how that might have been allowed to happen.”
While he was searched on two occasions that day, the man could have hidden the drugs in his underwear or a body cavity. However, strip searches and even more invasive body cavity searches are only allowed under certain circumstances.
“If there were no grounds to justify a strip search, then a body cavity search, which practice is even more constricted, would not have been available.”
— SIU director Joseph Martino
“I am unable to reasonably conclude on the evidence that any such necessity was in play,” Martino said.
“The complainant appeared well, had been subjected to two prior searches, and had arrived at the courthouse from another custodial facility. If there were no grounds to justify a strip search, then a body cavity search, which practice is even more constricted, would not have been available.”
While the man should have been checked on every 20 minutes, the fact that he went without a check for almost 50 minutes “should be subject to legitimate scrutiny,” he wrote.
But in context, Martino said the fact that one check was missed doesn’t make it a case of serious neglect.
“In the context of a detainee who seemed fine through most of his time in custody, it is unclear whether what was, in essence, a single missed check amounted to a marked lapse in care, much less a marked and substantial one,” he wrote.
“Moreover, the extent to which any such indiscretion can be visited upon the (subject officer), who was not personally responsible for prisoner checks and acted in a supervisory capacity, is tenuous at best.”
Read the full report here.
