Decision looming in Sarnia cop’s SIU assault causing bodily harm trial

A judge said he’ll return Wednesday with his decision in the trial of a suspended Sarnia police officer charged by Ontario’s police watchdog with assault causing bodily harm in a 2022 arrest.

Article content

Article content

Recommended Videos

Article content

Const. Sean Van Vlymen, 48, was charged in July 2023 by the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) following a months-long probe into a trespassing call at what was then known as St. Paul’s United Church on Devine Street on Oct. 23, 2022. A 35-year-old Sarnia man, identified through court records as Scott MacPherson, suffered a serious injury while being arrested that Sunday morning, the SIU said.

Van Vlymen pleaded not guilty Tuesday to the charge at the start of a two-day trial. Before any witnesses were called, Justice Jon-Jo Douglas heard a brief statement of agreed facts both sides were ready to admit without any proof.

MacPherson, now 37, was taken to Bluewater Health on Oct. 23, 2022 around 5 pm with a four-centimeter laceration near his right eye, which required eight stitches. He also suffered a facial fracture to the area next to his nose and under his teeth and eye, the statement said.

Article content

About 10 hours earlier, several officers, including Van Vlymen, were dispatched to a call about a suspicious person near the church, which is now known as the Bluewater Church Devine Campus. Four of those officers testified Tuesday: constables Calvin Hughson, Philip Veale and Scott Oosterhof, and Van Vlymen.

MacPherson was unavailable to testify at the trial, despite police’s best efforts to locate him, but the Crown was ready to proceed without him, Toronto-based prosecutor Nicolas De Montigny told Douglas.

Veale, called first, said he ran in front of Van Vlymen, who had his stun gun out, and up to a deck at the back of the church where MacPherson was hiding. After getting a handcuff on one of his wrists, he saw MacPherson lift his head and turn to the right.

Article content

That’s when he saw, through his peripheral vision, Van Vlymen’s foot came down in a pushing or stomping motion somewhere on MacPherson’s body higher than his shoulder blade. His head hit the deck, Veale said.

He said he saw a small amount of fresh blood that ran into MacPherson’s eyebrow, but it wasn’t significant. MacPherson made a comment he had a tooth knocked out, but they couldn’t find it, and he previously had lost several teeth due to drug use, Veale said.

MacPherson later was released unconditionally with no charges, he said.

Hughson, who was called next, declared he got there around the same time as Veale. Shortly after arriving he saw Van Vlymen stomp twice on MacPherson’s head and he held his foot there for a couple of seconds following the second strike. He later added it wasn’t a kicking motion, but best described like stomping on a bug on a sidewalk.

Article content

Hughson also testified he grabbed Van Vlymen’s arm and pulled him off of MacPherson after seeing blood.

During cross-examination, defense lawyer Ken Marley pointed out Hughson didn’t make any notes about his physical interaction with Van Vlymen, about which he was disciplined internally. Marley suggested that part of the incident never happened and called it an overstatement, but Hughson said that was incorrect.

During re-examination with the Crown, Hughson said he made a mistake by not putting that part in his notes as he was an inexperienced officer at the time.

Oosterhof, who wasn’t at the scene for very long, said he saw a gash on MacPherson’s forehead and offered to take him to the hospital, but he refused.

Article content

Following a lunch break, Marley told his client decided to testify in his defense. After taking the stand, Van Vlymen denied stomping on MacPherson’s head.

Instead he said he only applied bodyweight pressure with his foot on MacPherson’s back to stop him from lifting his head and upper body off the deck so Veale could get the second handcuff on. Van Vlymen also said in his nearly 14 years of experience when someone makes a lifting motion like that they’re likely going to punch, kick, spit or bite.

MacPherson was not compliant with Van Vlymen while he was first on scene, even with his stun gun pulled out, he testified.

During cross-examination, Van Vlymen disagreed with De Montigny’s suggestion he put his foot on MacPherson’s head twice. He also denied Hughson was physical with him at any point during the incident.

Article content

After the four officers’ testimonies, De Montigny argued in front of the judge Van Vlymen’s use of force was not necessary, reasonable or proportionate based on an objective test. Marley countered it was a reflexive action and also pointed out there was no accounting for MacPherson’s whereabouts for more than 10 hours before he went to hospital. He argued without medical evidence the judge can’t find beyond a reasonable doubt the incident on the porch caused the injury.

Douglas said he’ll return Wednesday with his decision.

Van Vlymen, who has been suspended since 2023, is still facing two other sets of outstanding charges ugly in September including uttering threats and 12 counts of possession of an unauthorized firearm, police said at the time. Those cases return to court in July.

[email protected]

@ObserverTerry

Article content