Security guards in Ontario are sometimes required to use force in the performance of their duties. This carries significant safety, and legal risks. These risks are very real, and can be life-changing. The 2020 death of Stephanie Warriner following an interaction with hospital security highlights this reality. Not only did someone tragically lose their life, two security guards faced criminal charges. Five security guards and a hospital network also faced a civil lawsuit worth millions; filed by a family who had lost trust in a system that was supposed to protect their loved one.
This post examines this case and explores the lessons that can be taken from this tragic incident. You will see how the law judges the use of force. You will also learn how tools like the Ontario Public-Police Interactions Training Aid, and Use of Force Model guide and protect you in decision-making. You will also learn how criminal and civil law risks differ. Finally, you will see why good training can save careers, as well as lives.
Keep yourself safe by updating your Use of Force Training here.
The Incident
Stephanie Warriner was a patient at Toronto General Hospital. She suffered from serious breathing issues, due to COPD. She also lived with mental health challenges. In May 2020 she left her room at TGH to find some food. Hospital security approached her and attempted to return her to her room, resulting in a physical struggle. She was restrained on the floor in a prone position, with the guards using their weight to control her, despite Warriner saying that she could not breathe. She went into cardiac arrest and died 12 days later.
This outcome set off two parallel legal processes. The first was criminal. The second was civil.
Keep your First Aid and CPR Certification up to date – join our classes here.
The Criminal Case
Two security guards were charged with manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death. The court examined all of the evidence including video, the actions of the two guards, what they knew at the time, medical evidence, and training standards.
Ultimately, the judge quashed the case. It was determined that the evidence failed to meet the legal threshold to support the charges. This case helps us to understand how courts may look at a guard’s decisions and actions.
For a manslaughter charge, the Crown must show that an unlawful act creates a foreseeable risk of non-trivial harm. In this case, the court found no admissible evidence that the guard’s actions met that threshold in that moment.
For criminal negligence, the Crown must show a marked and substantial departure from what a reasonable person would do. Again, the court found no evidence that the guard’s actions met this threshold in that moment.
When examining the incident, the court focused on what was reasonably foreseeable to the guards at that time. They did not focus on hindsight, or expert opinions formed after the fact. This is an important factor for all security professionals to consider. Courts judge your decisions based on what information you perceived, or was available to you in the moment of action.
Even though the charges were eventually quashed, these guards endured years of stress, uncertainty, and the court of public opinion. This alone is a major consequence.
The Civil Lawsuit
Independent from the criminal case, Stephanie Warriner’s family filed a $16 million lawsuit against the University Health Network, and five security guards.
While criminal cases must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, civil cases use a much lower threshold. The question is whether the defendants were negligent on a balance of probabilities. In other words, it’s more likely they were than weren’t. Civil justice doesn’t focus on whether a law has been broken. It looks at harm, duty of care, breaches and damages. The standard is whether the guard’s actions were reasonable and safe.
This difference matters…big time. Even if a security guard avoids criminal charges, or conviction, they can still face civil liability. The plaintiff needs only show that the defendant’s conduct fell below a reasonable standard of care.
Good training protects security guards by teaching them how to meet the expected standard of care.
The Role of Training
While the statutory training requirements for security guards in Ontario are minimal, there are many solid training programs available. The best training incorporates tools like the Public-Police Interactions Training Aid and Use of Force Model, Legal Authorities, Communication and De-Escalation and Safety Principles. It is through the applied learning of this knowledge that guards can protect themselves from criminal and civil liability.
Complete our Conflict De-Escalation Training Course here.
Key points include:
- Using communication and tactical positioning early and effectively.
- Assessing and responding appropriately to the subject’s changing behavior.
- Keep focused on the overall objective, as well as safety and control.
- Treat the use of force as an option of last resort, and know how to select the appropriate level.
Good training teaches security guards effective communication, use of force theory, physical skills, recognizing medical and mental health issues, and positional asphyxia risks.
Although the training required to be licenced as a security guard in Ontario is minimal, the courts expect those working in the industry to perform at a high level of competence, and will apply harsh penalties when standards aren’t met.
Positional Asphyxia: Risks and Responsibilities
As a result of being held face-down by security, Warriner suffered a cardiac arrest. She died 12 days later. In this case COPD was a contributing factor.
Security guards, particularly whose role includes physical control, must understand the risks linked to prone restraint. The risk exists at all times, but underlying health issues can exacerbate it. When people become violent, it is safer to manage them in a prone position. However, care must be taken to do it in a way that minimizes the risks. This includes avoiding any pressure that restricts breathing, and getting them into a seated position as quickly as possible. Guards must communicate and monitor their subject at all times.
Even when people are being violent, there is a duty of care to protect them from undue risk of harm. This is true in both criminal and civil justice. It often comes down to what was reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances. In this case, whether the guards used appropriate techniques when managing Stephanie’s behavior was the central issue.
Criminal vs. Civil Risk
A guard may face criminal charges if their actions are in violation of the Criminal Code of Canada, or other federal statutes. Criminal behaviour is considered a violation against society as a whole, and charges are brought forward by public entities such as police and crown prosecutors. Penalties for criminal convictions can include fines, prison time, or both. In order to be convicted of a criminal offence, the crown must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Civil lawsuits are much broader in scope. They are brought against an individual or corporation by another individual or corporation. They are used to determine whether the accused is legally responsible for the harm caused to the plaintiff filing the lawsuit. The alleged harm can be physical, mental, or financial. Penalties for civil convictions are typically monetary in nature, but can also include declarations of ownership, or injunctions outlining what the defendant can and cannot do. Liability is decided on a balance of probabilities. In other words, it must be more likely that the defendant is liable than is not.
How the Courts View Use of Force
The courts expect security guards to make lawful and appropriate use of force decisions. Some of the factors they consider include:
- The subject’s behaviour.
- What response options were available to you.
- What training the guard has received, and whether it was applied.
- Whether communication was used before, during and after any application of force.
- Whether the guard’s actions aligned with the risks.
- Whether the guard reassessed and adjusted to changes in the situation as it evolved.
- Whether the guard’s decisions to escalate or de-escalate were appropriate to the circumstances at that point in time.
Tools like the Public-Police Interactions Training Aid and Ontario Use of Force Model are designed to help security guards effectively assess the situation and choose responses that are necessary, risk effective and appropriate to the situation. They also assist with articulation, note-taking and incident report writing post incident.
Criminal Liability: How to Protect Yourself
Under Section 26 of the Criminal Code, you become criminally liable when you use force that is excessive or unreasonable. If you have no legal authority, or use more force than was necessary, you can face criminal charges such as assault, manslaughter, and criminal negligence.
You can protect yourself by:
- Using the least force needed.
- Stopping once control has been gained, or the threat has been mitigated.
- Avoiding potentially dangerous subject positions, such as prone, unless absolutely necessary.
- Using safe and effective techniques.
- Actively monitoring the subject’s condition.
- Articulating yourself clearly.
Even when criminal charges do not lead to a conviction, the process is long, expensive and stressful. It affects your job, mental health, and finances.
Civil Liability: How to Protect Yourself
The court looks at whether your conduct caused harm. It looks at whether you breached your duty of care. It looks at whether you effectively mitigated risks. It looks at whether you used a dangerous tactic, when a safer option was available to you. It also considers your training, and whether it was followed.
Civil liability spreads to your employer too. It is common for the security guard’s employer to be named in the lawsuit, along with the guard(s) whose conduct is being questioned.
Applied knowledge and skills developed through good training programs mitigate both criminal and civil liability risks, through strong communication, decision-making, and documentation.
Conclusion
This case shows just how much is at stake every time a security guard puts their hands on someone. These security guards did not intend to take someone’s life that day. Their goal was to return Stephanie Warriner safely to her room. Tragically, the outcome was the complete opposite. The result was a loss of life, along with criminal charges and a civil lawsuit for the guards.
The best way to protect yourself from liability is through good training. Training provides you with the tools, knowledge and skills to properly assess the situation, consider the subject’s behaviour, and select the most appropriate response option that is safe, legal and defensible. Training also teaches you how to properly articulate your decisions through good documentation.
Security is a high-risk profession. Every encounter has the potential to escalate out of control. Are you prepared? Not sure? Call SGC today and protect yourself.
References
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. (2000, November). A National Use of Force Framework. https://www.cacp.ca/_Library/resources/National_Use_of_Force_Framework.pdf
Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46. Government of Canada.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/
Criminal Law Notebook. (2020, January). Beyond a reasonable doubt. CriminalNotebook.ca. https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Beyond_a_Reasonable_Doubt
Criminal Law Notebook. (2017, January). Standard of proof. CriminalNotebook.ca. https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Standard_of_Proof
Falconers LLP. (2023, January 17). Family of Stephanie Warriner brings lawsuit against University Health Network. https://falconers.ca/family-of-stephanie-warriner-brings-lawsuit-against-university-health-network/
R v Hutley; R v Rojas-Silva, 2022 ONSC 6540 (CanLII). Ontario Superior Court of Justice. https://falconers.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/2022onsc6540.pdf
Toronto Police Service. (2024, January 9). Ontario Public-Police Interactions Training Aid Framework Document. https://www.tps.ca/media/procedures/da5ce613-1d0c-43a2-96ab-227560a8fedd.pdf