SIU Director’s Report - Case # 20-PCI-139
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 injuries a 36-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.
“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 injuries a 36-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On June 16, 2020, at 8:23 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) reported the following.On June 16, 2020 at 5:21 p.m., the Wellington County OPP received a call about a suicidal male at an address in Guelph, Ontario. When officers attended the residence, the male - the Complainant - was not there. The OPP then began to track the Complainant’s cell phone using tower pings. At approximately 6:08 p.m., the Complainant was located in his vehicle on Side Road 30 in Kincardine. The officers attempted to engage the Complainant in conversation but he was not cooperating. He had doused himself in gasoline and was standing next to his car. OPP had the Tiverton Fire Department on scene and Bruce County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) on standby, and had requested a negotiator to attend the scene.
When discussions broke down, the Complainant got back into his car which had all door handles, interior and exterior, removed, and was observed to light himself on fire. All first responders descended onto the vehicle and smashed the glass and put out the fire. EMS transported the Complainant to South Bruce Grey Health Centre. There he was diagnosed with 3rd degree burns to 80% of his body. As a result of his injuries, the Complainant was transported by Ornge air ambulance to the Burn / Trauma Unit at Hamilton General Hospital.
The Team
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3 Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
SIU investigators interviewed civilian and police witnesses and canvassed for additional witnesses. The SIU Forensic Investigator made a digital photographic record of the scene.
An investigator with the Office of the Fire Marshal and Emergency Management (OFMEM) attended the scene. The OFMEM completed its report and made the report available to the SIU.
Complainant:
36-year-old male interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewedCivilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 Not interviewed (Next-of-kin)CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed
CW #6 Interviewed
CW #7 Interviewed
CW #8 Interviewed
CW #9 Interviewed
Witness Officer (WO)
WO Interviewed, notes received and reviewed Subject Officer (SO)
SO Declined interview, as is the subject officer’s legal right. Notes received and reviewed.Evidence
The Scene
The scene was situated along a hydro right-of-way approximately 0.2 kilometres east of Side Road 30. The maintenance road through the right-of-way was approximately 0.8 kilometres south of Bruce County Road 20. Just off the maintenance road was a small laneway with the Complainant’s vehicle, a grey Toyota Sienna van. This vehicle was orientated north facing onto the maintenance road and had been destroyed by fire. The interior of the vehicle was completely gutted and had been sprayed with a dry chemical powder commonly used by fire extinguishers. A distinct odour of gasoline was present inside the vehicle.The exterior door handles of the rear sliding doors on both sides of the vehicle had been removed and the interior handles of these doors had also been tampered with. The rear interior of the van behind the front seats was missing one of the bench seats that are usually mounted directly behind. A second bench seat at the far-rear of the vehicle was present. This created a wide area between the front seats and the rear seat.
Within the charred remains of the interior in the rear seat area was a pair of prescription glasses that were damaged, and a cigarette lighter that did not appear to be damaged. There was also evidence of alcohol consumption as many beer bottles were found throughout the interior of the vehicle. Except for the windshield, all other side windows and the rear hatch window had been smashed out.
Underneath the passenger sliding door of the vehicle was another pile of empty beer bottles. There were personal items near the bottles, including a small beverage cooler that was tipped over with unopened bottles of beer strewn about and a large gasoline container that felt to be full. This gasoline container was capped and closed. Within this area was also evidence of EMS intervention, specifically a ‘Sterilized Burn Kit’.
On the driver’s side of the vehicle approximately nine metres away from it in tall grass was another large gasoline container and a smaller unlabeled container. The gasoline container had been configured to pour out fuel as the spout was extended and uncapped. Both containers felt empty and both were covered with the same dry chemical powder present inside the vehicle.
Figure 1 – The Complainant’s vehicle after the fire
Figure 2 – Gasoline container with spout attached
Forensic Evidence
OFMEM Report
The OFMEM Fire Investigation Report dated December 8, 2020, was provided to the SIU. The fire was classified as incendiary.Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence
The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence, but was not able to locate any.Police Communications Recordings
The first 911 call was on June 16, 2020, at 5:19 p.m., from a mental health agency help line. The caller was relaying information from her colleague, CW #5, who was on another line with the Complainant. It was relayed to the 911 call-taker that the Complainant was calling from Eramosa Township in Wellington County [now known to have been a ruse used by the Complainant to delay the attendance of emergency services and police who located the Complainant and his van near Glammis Ontario in Bruce County] saying he had doused his van’s interior with gasoline, that he was inside his van ready to light it, and that no one should approach him as he intended to blow it up.The second 911 call was on June 16, 2020, at 5:28 p.m., from OPP Dispatch in London to the Guelph Fire Department (GFD) expressing a belief that the call involved the Complainant’s residence and his vehicle in rural Guelph. The dispatcher relayed the substance of the first 911 call and undertook to relay developments as they occurred.
The third 911 call was on June 16, 2020, at 5:35 p.m., and originated from the GFD seeking permission to cancel its involvement and the involvement of EMS in relation to the Complainant’s residence in Eramosa Township.
The fourth 911 call was on June 16, 2020, at 6:09 p.m., and originated from the Kincardine Fire Department (KFD) calling the OPP reporting that OPP officers were on scene with the Complainant near Kincardine and the KFD was requesting an OPP incident number for the response to the scene.
The fifth 911 call was on June 16, 2020, at 6:28 p.m., and originated from the Waterloo Regional Police Service (WRPS) calling the OPP regarding OPP Wellington Detachment’s request to watch for a suicidal man [now known to be the Complainant] and reporting that WRPS officers had attended an address OPP Wellington Detachment provided for the Complainant but did not find the Complainant’s vehicle at the address.
The sixth 911 call was on June 16, 2020, at 6:29 p.m., and originated from the WRPS completing their information that started in the fifth call, which was disconnected before it was finished.
The first two of five Provincial Communications Centre (PCC) radio audio recordings and detachment radio and telephone communications were specific to dispatching OPP officers to the Complainant’s possible residence in Wellington County, organizing an authorized ‘ping’ on the Complainant’s cellular telephone, organizing police and fire department personnel in Wellington and Bruce Counties, and organizing road closures when the Complainant and his vehicle had been located on the service road for the hydro right-of-way.
The third PCC radio audio recording that commenced at 5:40 p.m., and ended 32 minutes and 25 seconds later, included reports over the radio at about 17 minutes and 40 seconds that the SO “is doing all the talking here” but did not include the words spoken by the SO and the Complainant. The SO, who could see and was speaking with the Complainant, was heard asking that if fire and ambulance approach their position from the main road, to have them refrain from using their sirens. This was done to try to keep the Complainant calm. A spike belt was deployed to prevent the Complainant from driving away. The SO was heard relaying that the Complainant was worried that police would take him to jail and was saying he was going to kill himself anyway by lighting himself and his vehicle on fire. He said the Complainant was asking police to back up because he did not want to hurt anyone else.
At 23 minutes and 15 seconds into the audio recording, the SO reported that the Complainant had entered the van and closed the door, and that the door handles appeared to have been broken off thus preventing further door entry. The SO then relayed that the Complainant had ignited the van’s interior and that he was trying to open the door to get to the Complainant. An officer (believed to be the WO) expressed concern for the sudden entry of air should the door be opened, as the ‘blowback’ with the wind blowing in the area would be rough, and noted that if any oxygen got in - “It’s going to go up”. Paramedics had moved up toward the van and were ready to assist. The WO was then heard forcefully telling the SO to back up and let the fire department “deal with this”, out his concern that there could be an explosion. The remainder of the two radio audio recordings were updates on fire personnel efforts to get access to the interior of the van to suppress the fire and aid in the rescue of the Complainant.
Materials obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the OPP:- Notes - SO;
- Notes - WO;
- Associated Occurrences;
- Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Details;
- Communications audio recordings;
- List of civilian witnesses;
- List of officers and their involvement;
- OPP Event - Wellington Detachment Report;
- OPP Event - South Bruce Detachment Report;
- OPP Event - Supplementary Reports;
- OPP Property Report;
- OPP Wellington CAD Details; and
- Photographs of the scene.
Materials obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from non-police sources:- Cellular telephone ‘screen-shots’ of text messages between the Complainant and his estranged spouse;
- EMS Ambulance Call Report;
- KFD Report and Witness Statements;
- Medical records pertaining to the Complainant relevant to the incident; and
- Notes written by the Complainant.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question are clear on the evidence gathered by the SIU and may be summarized in short order. In the late afternoon on June 16, 2020, a 911 call came into the OPP from a help line. A counsellor with the line was said to be on the phone with the Complainant, who was threatening suicide. Reportedly, the Complainant was indicating that he had doused his van with gasoline and that he was inside the van ready to set it on fire. Officers were dispatched to locate the Complainant.
The Complainant was suicidal at the time. He purchased containers of gasoline and drove to a remote wooded area on a maintenance road about 200 metres off of Side Road 30, near the intersection of Side Road 30 and Bruce County Road 20, Kincardine. At the location, he emptied gasoline into the interior of his vehicle, contacted the help line and exchanged a few text messages with his estranged partner.
The SO was the first officer to arrive at the scene at about 6:10 p.m. He parked his cruiser on the maintenance road well back of the van, exited and called out to the Complainant, who was outside his vehicle at the time. The officer attempted to engage the Complainant in conversation. As the SO began to approach the van on foot, the Complainant warned him not to get any closer as he did not want him injured when the van went up in flames. The SO assured the Complainant that he was there to help. He implored the Complainant to refrain from doing anything to harm himself and reminded him of his children, who needed a father. When the Complainant told him that he did not trust the police because of negative experiences he had had with officers, the SO apologized to him if police had mistreated him in the past.
At about 6:39 p.m., the Complainant entered his van, closed the sliding passenger door and, using a cigarette lighter, proceeded to ignite the gasoline in the vehicle. Fire immediately engulfed the interior of the van. Firefighters, who had been standing by on Side Road 30 in the area of the maintenance road, made their way to the van and, with the help of the officers, were able to extinguish the flames and locate the Complainant in the vehicle. The time was about 6:45 p.m.
The Complainant was removed from the van, placed in an ambulance and rushed to hospital. He has undergone multiple procedures to treat burn-related injuries.
The Complainant was suicidal at the time. He purchased containers of gasoline and drove to a remote wooded area on a maintenance road about 200 metres off of Side Road 30, near the intersection of Side Road 30 and Bruce County Road 20, Kincardine. At the location, he emptied gasoline into the interior of his vehicle, contacted the help line and exchanged a few text messages with his estranged partner.
The SO was the first officer to arrive at the scene at about 6:10 p.m. He parked his cruiser on the maintenance road well back of the van, exited and called out to the Complainant, who was outside his vehicle at the time. The officer attempted to engage the Complainant in conversation. As the SO began to approach the van on foot, the Complainant warned him not to get any closer as he did not want him injured when the van went up in flames. The SO assured the Complainant that he was there to help. He implored the Complainant to refrain from doing anything to harm himself and reminded him of his children, who needed a father. When the Complainant told him that he did not trust the police because of negative experiences he had had with officers, the SO apologized to him if police had mistreated him in the past.
At about 6:39 p.m., the Complainant entered his van, closed the sliding passenger door and, using a cigarette lighter, proceeded to ignite the gasoline in the vehicle. Fire immediately engulfed the interior of the van. Firefighters, who had been standing by on Side Road 30 in the area of the maintenance road, made their way to the van and, with the help of the officers, were able to extinguish the flames and locate the Complainant in the vehicle. The time was about 6:45 p.m.
The Complainant was removed from the van, placed in an ambulance and rushed to hospital. He has undergone multiple procedures to treat burn-related injuries.
Relevant Legislation
Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code -- Criminal negligence causing bodily harm
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.
Analysis and Director's Decision
On June 16, 2020, the Complainant suffered serious burn injuries in the presence of two OPP officers. One of the officers, the SO, 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 injuries.
The only offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. Liability for 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 observed in the circumstances. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was any want of care in the manner in which the SO interacted with the Complainant which caused or contributed to the Complainant’s injuries and was sufficiently derelict to attract criminal sanction. In my view, the answer is clearly in the negative.
The SO was engaged in the execution of his duties, namely, his foremost duty to protect and preserve life, when he responded to the scene of a person threatening suicide and attempted to prevent him from harming himself. Though the Complainant had provided misleading information to the help line regarding his location, which was then passed on to the police, the SO was on the scene within half-an-hour of being dispatched thanks to the OPP ascertaining the whereabouts of the Complainant’s cell phone.
Once at the scene, I am satisfied that the SO did what he could to thwart the Complainant’s designs on hurting himself. In reassuring tones, the officer explained that he was there to help the Complainant. He did not push the situation and stayed well back of the van at the Complainant’s request. As negotiations were ongoing with the Complainant, the SO asked that firefighters and paramedics making their way to the area did so without their sirens blaring so as not to provoke the Complainant. Regrettably, the Complainant could not be deterred. Some 30 minutes after the SO had arrived, he set his van ablaze with himself in it. Even then, the SO and his partner, also present for most of the negotiation, rushed to the burning vehicle to render assistance. They considered forcing their way into the van but were composed enough to realize that a free flow of air into the vehicle might do more to feed the fire. They refrained from doing so, wisely in my view, and instead waited for the firefighters to arrive. Within minutes of the firefighters’ arrival, the blaze was put out and the Complainant removed from the vehicle.
On the aforementioned-record, it is plain that the SO acted within the limits of the law throughout his interaction with the Complainant. In fact, the overall police operation, and the SO’s part within it, are probably responsible for ensuring that the Complainant did not die that day. Accordingly, there being no basis to proceed with criminal charges in this case, the file is closed.
Date: February 16, 2021
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
The only offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. Liability for 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 observed in the circumstances. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was any want of care in the manner in which the SO interacted with the Complainant which caused or contributed to the Complainant’s injuries and was sufficiently derelict to attract criminal sanction. In my view, the answer is clearly in the negative.
The SO was engaged in the execution of his duties, namely, his foremost duty to protect and preserve life, when he responded to the scene of a person threatening suicide and attempted to prevent him from harming himself. Though the Complainant had provided misleading information to the help line regarding his location, which was then passed on to the police, the SO was on the scene within half-an-hour of being dispatched thanks to the OPP ascertaining the whereabouts of the Complainant’s cell phone.
Once at the scene, I am satisfied that the SO did what he could to thwart the Complainant’s designs on hurting himself. In reassuring tones, the officer explained that he was there to help the Complainant. He did not push the situation and stayed well back of the van at the Complainant’s request. As negotiations were ongoing with the Complainant, the SO asked that firefighters and paramedics making their way to the area did so without their sirens blaring so as not to provoke the Complainant. Regrettably, the Complainant could not be deterred. Some 30 minutes after the SO had arrived, he set his van ablaze with himself in it. Even then, the SO and his partner, also present for most of the negotiation, rushed to the burning vehicle to render assistance. They considered forcing their way into the van but were composed enough to realize that a free flow of air into the vehicle might do more to feed the fire. They refrained from doing so, wisely in my view, and instead waited for the firefighters to arrive. Within minutes of the firefighters’ arrival, the blaze was put out and the Complainant removed from the vehicle.
On the aforementioned-record, it is plain that the SO acted within the limits of the law throughout his interaction with the Complainant. In fact, the overall police operation, and the SO’s part within it, are probably responsible for ensuring that the Complainant did not die that day. Accordingly, there being no basis to proceed with criminal charges in this case, the file is closed.
Date: February 16, 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.