SIU Director’s Report - Case # 20-OCD-108
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
Mandate of the SIU
The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving police officers where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. The Unit’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.
Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation. If, after an investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the officer. Alternatively, in all cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director does not lay criminal charges but files a report with the Attorney General communicating the results of an investigation.
Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation. If, after an investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the officer. Alternatively, in all cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director does not lay criminal charges but files a report with the Attorney General communicating the results of an investigation.
Information Restrictions
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”)
Pursuant to section 14 of FIPPA (i.e., law enforcement), certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:- Confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by law enforcement agencies; and
- Information whose release could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.
- Subject Officer name(s);
- Witness Officer name(s);
- Civilian Witness name(s);
- Location information;
- Witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence; and
- Other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation.
Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (“PHIPA”)
Pursuant to PHIPA, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included. Other proceedings, processes, and investigations
Information may have also been excluded from this report because its release could undermine the integrity of other proceedings involving the same incident, such as criminal proceedings, coroner’s inquests, other public proceedings and/or other law enforcement investigations.Mandate Engaged
The Unit’s investigative jurisdiction is limited to those incidents where there is a serious injury (including sexual assault allegations) or death in cases involving the police.
“Serious injuries” shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. “Serious Injury” shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault. Where a prolonged delay is likely before the seriousness of the injury can be assessed, the Unit should be notified so that it can monitor the situation and decide on the extent of its involvement.
This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the death of a 60-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
“Serious injuries” shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. “Serious Injury” shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault. Where a prolonged delay is likely before the seriousness of the injury can be assessed, the Unit should be notified so that it can monitor the situation and decide on the extent of its involvement.
This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the death of a 60-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On May 20, 2020, at 3:27 p.m., the North Bay Police Service (NBPS) notified the SIU of the death of the Complainant, who resided in North Bay. The NBPS advised that a retired OPP officer had spoken with the Complainant earlier in the day at 9:10 a.m., and that the Complainant indicated having marital issues with his wife. The Complainant then mentioned that he was not long for this side of the ground.
The Complainant was known to have a large quantity of firearms.
The NBPS were called and responded to the scene arriving at 10:38 a.m. The Subject Officer (SO) was the officer in charge of the scene.
At 2:44 p.m., NBPS officers breached the door and found the Complainant on the couch with a handgun in his hand, deceased. The Complainant had suffered a single shot through his mouth and was obviously deceased.
NBPS had been to the residence on May 5, 7 and 9, 2020, on well-being and domestic calls.
The Team
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2 Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2
Complainant
DeceasedCivilian Witnesses
CW #1 Interviewed CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
Witness Officers
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
Subject Officers
SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right. Evidence
The Scene
The scene was contained inside a residence located in the area of Trout Lake Road and Feronia Road. The Complainant, who was deceased, was sitting in the middle of the couch in the living room. There was a large quantity of a dried red blood-like substance on the Complainant’s face below his nose down to his chin and onto his chest, as well as on the couch behind his head. Above his head on the north wall was a small indentation in the drywall. There appeared to be an exit hole in the top of his head. Both his arms and hands were down by his sides. His right hand was slightly on his right thigh. His right thumb was through the trigger guard of a Smith and Wesson M&P40 semi- automatic pistol. There was what appeared to be blood spatter on his right forearm.
A coffee table was directly in front of the Complainant. On the table was a pad of paper with a handwritten note. Also, on the table was a box of Hornady Critical Duty .40 calibre bullets. Four of the 20 cartridges were missing.
Materials obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the NBPS:- Event Chronology;
- NBPS-General Reports; and
- Notes of the WOs.
Materials obtained from Other Sources
In October 2020, the SIU received from a post-mortem report and a toxicology report from the Coroner’s Office related to the Complainant.Incident Narrative
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the SO and other officers who took part in the police operation, as well as a number of civilians who communicated with the Complainant in the days leading up to and including the date of his death.
On May 10, 2020, the Complainant expressed the intention to kill himself and, as a result, the police were called. The SO and a number of other officers were dispatched to the Complainant’s home at about 9:50 a.m. to check on his well-being. Because they had information that the Complainant was suicidal and the owner of multiple firearms, the officers adopted a very circumspect approach. They blocked traffic in the vicinity and set up a perimeter around the home. With those measures in place, the SO arranged to have the Complainant’s landline and cell phone called from the police station. The intention was to reach the Complainant to have him come out of the home and speak with the officers. When calls placed around 10:45 and 10:50 a.m. went unanswered, the SO directed that the keys to the home be retrieved from CW #1 to facilitate entry into the home. With the arrival of the keys, officers entered the garage and found no one inside.
At about 12:15 p.m., the SO received word that the Emergency Response Team (ERT) would be deployed to the residence. ERT officers began arriving at the scene around 1:00 p.m., allowing the SO and his officers to fall back to the outer perimeter.
Additional phone calls were made into the home, which also went unanswered. The same was true at about 2:10 p.m. when officers started yelling at the house to draw the Complainant’s attention.
ERT officers entered the home at about 2:45 p.m. and found the Complainant’s lifeless body seated on a couch in the living room. He was holding a Smith and Wesson .40 calibre semi-automatic pistol in his right hand.
The pathologist at autopsy attributed the Complainant’s death to an “intra-oral gunshot wound”.
On May 10, 2020, the Complainant expressed the intention to kill himself and, as a result, the police were called. The SO and a number of other officers were dispatched to the Complainant’s home at about 9:50 a.m. to check on his well-being. Because they had information that the Complainant was suicidal and the owner of multiple firearms, the officers adopted a very circumspect approach. They blocked traffic in the vicinity and set up a perimeter around the home. With those measures in place, the SO arranged to have the Complainant’s landline and cell phone called from the police station. The intention was to reach the Complainant to have him come out of the home and speak with the officers. When calls placed around 10:45 and 10:50 a.m. went unanswered, the SO directed that the keys to the home be retrieved from CW #1 to facilitate entry into the home. With the arrival of the keys, officers entered the garage and found no one inside.
At about 12:15 p.m., the SO received word that the Emergency Response Team (ERT) would be deployed to the residence. ERT officers began arriving at the scene around 1:00 p.m., allowing the SO and his officers to fall back to the outer perimeter.
Additional phone calls were made into the home, which also went unanswered. The same was true at about 2:10 p.m. when officers started yelling at the house to draw the Complainant’s attention.
ERT officers entered the home at about 2:45 p.m. and found the Complainant’s lifeless body seated on a couch in the living room. He was holding a Smith and Wesson .40 calibre semi-automatic pistol in his right hand.
Cause of Death
Relevant Legislation
Sections 219 and 220, Criminal Code -- Criminal negligence causing death
219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.
(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.
Analysis and Director's Decision
The Complainant died in his home as a result of a self-inflicted gunshot wound on May 10, 2020. As police officers had responded to the Complainant’s residence to check on his welfare that morning, and were possibly present around the house at the time the Complainant shot himself, the SIU conducted an investigation. The SO of the NBPS was identified as the subject officer for purposes of the SIU investigation. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s death.
The only offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 220 of the Criminal Code. The offence is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances.
There is no indication in the evidence of conduct on the part of the SO approaching the level of criminal negligence. Given the information at their disposal regarding the Complainant’s access to firearms and recent suicidal ideations, the SO and the officers under his command acted prudently by first securing the scene and establishing containment around the home before they attempted to make contact. Thereafter, I am unable to fault the officers for continuing to try to engage the Complainant at a distance via telephone. The decision to deploy the ERT some two hours after the initial officers had arrived at the scene would also appear a reasonable tactic. Though it took some time for the tactical officers to mobilize at the scene, the time lag was minimal and probably unavoidable given that entry into the home was becoming increasingly likely and the real risk of having to deal with firearms once inside. Once the Complainant’s body was discovered inside, prompt medical attention was secured even though it appeared that the Complainant was already dead.
It is unclear whether the SO or any of the officers who responded to the scene could have done anything to prevent the Complainant taking his life. That is to say, there is a distinct possibility that the Complainant had self-inflicted his lethal wound prior to the police being dispatched to, or arriving at, his home. Be that as it may, as I am unable to reasonably conclude that the police operation that unfolded in and around the Complainant’s home was conducted other than professionally and with due regard for the Complainant’s health and safety, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: January 25, 2021
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
The only offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 220 of the Criminal Code. The offence is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances.
There is no indication in the evidence of conduct on the part of the SO approaching the level of criminal negligence. Given the information at their disposal regarding the Complainant’s access to firearms and recent suicidal ideations, the SO and the officers under his command acted prudently by first securing the scene and establishing containment around the home before they attempted to make contact. Thereafter, I am unable to fault the officers for continuing to try to engage the Complainant at a distance via telephone. The decision to deploy the ERT some two hours after the initial officers had arrived at the scene would also appear a reasonable tactic. Though it took some time for the tactical officers to mobilize at the scene, the time lag was minimal and probably unavoidable given that entry into the home was becoming increasingly likely and the real risk of having to deal with firearms once inside. Once the Complainant’s body was discovered inside, prompt medical attention was secured even though it appeared that the Complainant was already dead.
It is unclear whether the SO or any of the officers who responded to the scene could have done anything to prevent the Complainant taking his life. That is to say, there is a distinct possibility that the Complainant had self-inflicted his lethal wound prior to the police being dispatched to, or arriving at, his home. Be that as it may, as I am unable to reasonably conclude that the police operation that unfolded in and around the Complainant’s home was conducted other than professionally and with due regard for the Complainant’s health and safety, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: January 25, 2021
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Note:
The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.