Sault Police Settle Lawsuit Over Violent 2016 Arrest

Police Union Abandons Separate Lawsuit Against Local Publisher

Two legal cases revolving around the Sault Ste. Marie Police Service’s (SSMPS) controversial arrest of Timothy Mitchell have quietly concluded.

In March of 2016, SSMPS officers attended Mitchell’s home after receiving a call from his son who reported that his father was intoxicated, breaking things, and acting in an erratic and threatening manner. Mitchell was bound by a recognizance that prevented him from consuming alcohol.

During his arrest, Mitchell was seriously injured, triggering the investigatory mandate of Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU). SSMPS officers said Mitchell was verbally belligerent and resisted arrest.

Constable Matthew Keating delivered a single strike to Mitchell’s abdomen to enact the arrest, according to the version of events accepted by the SIU and Ontario Court of Justice. After its investigation, the SIU concluded that Cst. Keating used reasonable force, a conclusion also arrived at by the Professional Standards section of the SSMPS. 

The strike broke Mitchell’s ribs and punctured his lungs, causing internal bleeding. Although Mitchell was assessed by Sault Area Hospital shortly after his arrest, his broken ribs were not properly diagnosed, and he was returned to the Algoma Treatment and Remand Centre.

While there, Mitchell’s medical situation deteriorated rapidly, and he was again brought to Sault Area Hospital. Subsequent medical tests that came two days later revealed the extent of his injuries.

He experienced septic shock, was in an induced coma for weeks, and received multiple surgeries. Mitchell survived but with a reduced quality of life and several long-lasting medical issues.  

In 2018, Mitchell’s criminal charges – including breach of recognizance and resisting arrest – were dismissed in the Ontario Court of Justice.

In his written decision, Justice John Condon said that Cst. Keating’s interaction with Mitchell involved the “excessive use of force” and the SSMPS breached Mitchell’s Charter rights. Evidence collected by the SSMPS was therefore inadmissible to preserve the integrity of the Court.

Mitchell and his family subsequently launched a lawsuit against SSMPS officers, seeking a combined total of $6.5 million in damages.

The SIU and SSMPS eventually re-examined their previous decisions, only to confirm them.

The Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) was asked by both the Chief of the SSMPS and Mitchell to investigate.

The OIPRD recommended three charges for Cst. Keating, including excessive force, discreditable conduct, and neglect of duty under the Police Services Act. The latter two charges stemmed from Cst. Keating’s demeaning treatment of Mitchell while in custody.

In 2020, the Hearing Officer stayed the charge of excessive force, and Cst. Keating pled guilty to the charges of discreditable conduct and neglect of duty.

According to the agreed statement of facts arising from the Police Services Actcharges, Cst. Keating “made remarks and gestures to Mr. Mitchell that were antagonizing, threatening, and insulting” and “failed to provide Mr. Mitchell with the Right to Counsel despite having multiple opportunities to do so.”

Cst. Keating was sentenced to a total forfeiture of 24 hours of pay (12 for each of the charges).

In 2021, the Police Association lost a bid to have the SSMPS reimburse it for legal costs incurred defending Cst. Keating. According to the arbitration decision, the lawyers that represented Keating incurred approximately $50,000.

Neither the SSMPS nor the Police Services Board responded to a request for comment.

The daughter of Mitchell, Amy-Lee Campbell, offered a brief statement, confirming that the family’s case has been concluded with a mutually agreed upon settlement.

Because “the terms of the settlement are confidential,” no further details are available. “I would like to take this opportunity to mention that no amount of money will ever compensate for the emotional, physical and long-term damage that this event has caused my family,” she says.

Local reporting on the arrest of Mitchell resulted in a separate lawsuit, one launched by Cst. Keating and 11 other SSMPS officers against a local news website.

In their statement of claim filed in June of 2016, the officers alleged that Northern Hoot articles written by Steffanie Petroni about Mitchell’s arrest were defamatory and libellous, and sought $1.5 million in damages.

The officers’ lawyer, Wayne Chorney, previously described the suit as “dormant” while he awaited further instructions from the Police Association. When asked recently, Chorney said he’s “no longer involved” and has “no knowledge of what happened.”

According to the Sault Ste. Marie Courthouse, the case was ‘administratively dismissed’ in early 2023.

The Founding Editor of Northern Hoot, Steffanie Petroni, says the two lawsuits revolving around Mitchell’s arrest highlight similar issues.

First, they highlight the potentially problematic relationship between local media and police.

After writing articles about Mitchell’s experience, she was told by other local media outlets that the latter had already known about the controversial arrest.

That led her to ask some critical questions about why the story hadn’t yet made headlines. She wonders whether close personal ties provide police with “protection from contentious matters” or if local media outlets are “just gutless.”

The experience also makes her wonder if there are other “matters of significance” going unreported.  

Second, Petroni says Northern Hoot reporting on the Mitchell arrest also highlights the fraught nature of public interest journalism.

On the one hand, her reporting was questioned as ‘cop hating’ for shedding a critical light on local policing. On the other hand, when reporting on the challenges of local policing, like the mental health of officers, her reporting was questioned as ‘cop loving.’

In hindsight, she regrets omitting the word ‘alleged’ in previous Northern Hoot articles about Mitchell’s arrest. Nonetheless, she describes the lawsuit that came as a result as “ludicrous.”

Petroni’s case attracted the attention of well-known defamation lawyer and expert, Peter Downard, who intended to defend her had the case proceeded.

She says the case “simply went away” when Downard became involved and she’ll “forever be grateful to him.”