Sudbury police cleared in man’s death in Chelmsford in 2024

Police in Greater Sudbury are not criminally responsible for the January 2024 death of a man who had gone into psychosis after ingesting large amounts of cocaine.

The Special Investigations Unit said that the man had been shocked with a stun gun eight times while police were trying to arrest him, but it appeared to have no effect.

The official cause of death was “combined cocaine toxicity, forcible struggle with prone restraint and hypertensive heart disease,” according to the pathologist.

Prone restraint is a controversial technique sometimes used by police to gain control of someone who is violently resisting. It involves laying them on their stomach, restraining their legs and holding their arms straight along their backs.

High on cocaine

The incident began on the morning of Jan. 2 at a resident in the community Chelmsford in Greater Sudbury.

The man had spent about an hour that morning in a psychotic state, high on cocaine and yelling that someone was trying to kill him.

A neighbour contacted the woman who lived in the home, and she returned back to her residence to find the man, who had been her guest, “trashing the interior of the home.”

“She entered the house and found the complainant in the walk-in pantry on the main floor,” the SIU said.

“He was highly agitated, paranoid … believing people were after him and overturning the pantry shelves.”

He also had a knife. At some point he dropped the knife, the woman grabbed it, fled the residence and called police. By this time it was 10:40 a.m.

Punching walls, kicking out

Two officers arrived and found him lying on his back, punching walls and kicking out with his legs, striking one of the officers in the process.

Deciding they needed help, two more police arrived around 11 a.m.

“The officers developed a plan whereby they would enter the pantry to take hold of the complainant and secure him in handcuffs and hobbles,” the SIU said.

One officer approached the man, who was standing by this point, and took him down. He tried to gain control of his arms while another officer got on the man’s lower back.

“The complainant struggled against the officers’ efforts, refusing to release his arms, attempting to lift himself and flailing his legs,” the SIU said.

The stun gun was deployed eight times but had no effect. Police eventually placed his legs in hobbles and handcuffed his arms behind his back.

“The complainant was pulled fully out from the pantry onto the kitchen floor whereupon he became unresponsive,” the SIU said.

“The officers checked his respiration and believed he was breathing, albeit not easily. They checked for a pulse and found one.”

Paramedics arrived at 11:15 a.m. but the man was “vital signs absent” at that point and they were unable to revive him.

Pathology evidence concluded that the eight stun gun – or conducted energy weapon (CEW) – charges didn’t cause the death.

Stun gun deployed eight times

“Expert pathology evidence obtained by the SIU indicated they did not directly contribute to the complainant’s death,” the SIU said.

“The expert evidence further indicated that the “CEW could have placed additional stress on the heart indirectly, in the same manner as the struggle with police officers. But it is difficult to quantify the stress related to the CEW deployment.”

In his decision, SIU director Joseph Martino said the police response was “proportionate” at each stage of the incident.

• Download the CTV News app now
• Get local breaking news alerts

“While I accept that prone restraint played a role in the complainant’s death, and that the struggle with police and use of the CEW may or may not have contributed indirectly to the death, I am satisfied the evidence falls short of any reasonable suggestion that the officers’ conduct was unlawful,” Martino said.

“The officers had a difficult decision to make, and little time in which to make it ... I am satisfied that the officers’ decision-making was within the range of what was reasonable in the circumstances. The file is closed.”

Read the full decision here.