Director's Report Details

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.

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. 

Pursuant to section 21 of FIPPA (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this document. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• 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.

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 55-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU
 

On November 9, 2020 at 5:53 p.m., the Thunder Bay Police Service (TBPS) notified the SIU of the death of the Complainant.

The TBPS advised that on November 4, 2020, TBPS received a call for assistance at 949 Fort William Road. A security guard called to report a woman lying down behind a dumpster and a man helping her up. At 4:08 p.m., TBPS police officers arrived and dealt with the woman. It appeared to the police officers that the man, the Complainant, was passed out at one time. At 4:27 p.m., Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was requested. At 4:37 p.m., the police officers cancelled EMS. At 4:48 p.m., police officers transported the woman to an address on North Humberland. Police officers tried to call a detox centre for the Complainant. The police officers then decided to take the Complainant to his residence. At 4:44 p.m., the police officers arrived at the Complainant’s residence. At 4:53 p.m., the police officers called EMS due to the Complainant’s level of intoxication. The police officers’ involvement ended there.

At 5:01 p.m., EMS transported the Complainant to the Thunder Bay Regional Health Centre (TBRHC).

On November 9, 2020, at 1:00 p.m., the TBPS was notified that the Complainant had died on November 5, 2020. The autopsy was scheduled for November 10, 2020.

The Team
 

Number of SIU Investigators assigned:     2 

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned:     1

Complainant:

55-year-old male, deceased

Civilian Witnesses
 

CW #1     Interviewed 

CW #2     Interviewed

Witness Officers
 

WO #1     Interviewed

WO #2     Interviewed

WO #3     Interviewed

Subject Officers
 

SO     Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right

The Scene
 

The scene was at the back of the address at 959 Fort Williams Road in Thunder Bay. The address is a plaza containing an LCBO store and a Tbaytel store. In behind these stores was a grassy area leading to the Neebing McIntyre Floodway. It was on this grassy area the Complainant was found by TBPS police officers and escorted to the SO’s police cruiser.

From this location the Complainant was transported to his mother’s residence. At this location, the Complainant was placed in an ambulance and taken to TBRHC.

The forensic investigator did not attend either scene; therefore, no scene examination was done.

Forensic Evidence

Global Positioning System (GPS) / Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) data for the SO’s cruiser

The GPS / AVL data were captured on November 4, 2020.

At 4:33:56 p.m., the SO’s cruiser was at the LCBO store at Isabel Street off Fort William Road in Thunder Bay. At 4:34:11 p.m., the cruiser was westbound on Isabel Street.

At 4:43:09 p.m., the police cruiser was travelling south and arrived at the Complainant’s mother’s residence at 4:45:48 p.m.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence 
 

LCBO Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) Video

The CCTV video was recorded on November 4, 2020 and captured the following:

The sun’s glare made it difficult to discern detail. In addition, the distance from the camera to where people gathered was 30 to 40 metres away. Lastly, the platform for viewing the CCTV was fragile at best.

Of interest was imagery which remotely indicated the presence of first responders and, possibly, the Complainant.

Communications Recordings
 

The recordings, made on November 4, 2020 and not timestamped, captured the following:

The ambulance service called TBPS to report a woman down near a Starbucks at 949 Fort William Road in Thunder Bay. The ambulance service reported that security had called them reporting a woman was near a dumpster and a wall, and an unidentified man was nearby.

Police Cruiser #1 [known to be occupied by WO #1 and WO #2] was dispatched to the Starbucks at 949 Fort William Road. There was some confusion about the location.

Police Cruiser #1 was redirected to a building at the opposite end of the Tbaytel store located at 959 Fort William Road. The unidentified woman was thought to be near a red Dodge Truck [believed to be CW #1’s Chevrolet pickup truck].

Police Cruiser #1 found the woman and had communications check a name. Nothing resulted from the check except that it was learned she was of no fixed address.

Police Cruiser #1 requested the Complainant be checked through the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC). Police Cruiser #1 indicated the Complainant was an “LLA” [Liquor License Act] and requested another police unit.

Police Cruiser #2 [known to be occupied by WO #3] was dispatched to the same location as Police Cruiser #1. Police Cruiser #1 indicated the Complainant “HBD [had been drinking] just need a ride”.

Police Cruiser #1 requested an ambulance because the Complainant was passed out and would not wake up. Police Cruiser #3 [believed to be occupied by the SO] cancelled the ambulance. Police Cruiser #1 advised they were transporting the woman to a residence.

Police Cruiser #3, the SO, advised the Complainant was in the back of the police cruiser and was being driven to [his mother’s address], accompanied by Police Cruiser #2, WO #3. Police Cruiser #3 arrived at [the Complainant’s mother’s address], joined by WO #3 in another cruiser.

Police Cruiser #2, WO #3, asked the dispatcher to check on the availability at “Detox of a male bed”. He was informed a bed was not available. Police Cruiser #2, WO #3, requested an ambulance to their location for the Complainant because of his apparent level of intoxication which was worsening.

Police Cruiser #3, the SO, reported an ambulance was on scene. The SO reported the Complainant’s condition had deteriorated, and he had been taken by ambulance on a “medical matter”. The SO cleared himself from the call and WO #3 cleared himself as well.

Materials obtained from Police Service
 

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the TBPS:

•  Communications Recordings;
•  Notes of WOs;
•  TBPS Arrest, Release and Detention policy;
•  TBPS Disclosure Letter;
•  TBPS Vulnerable Persons Assistance policy;
•  TBPS witness statements;
•  TBPS-CPIC Response Report of the Complainant;
•  TBPS-General occurrence and supplementary reports;
•  TBPS-Occurrence Summary-Witness - involved party list;
•  TBPS-List of Reports;
•  TBPS-Report about Communication Recordings;
•  TBPS-Supplementary Occurrence Report;
•  CCTV of LCBO; and
•  TBPS-GPS data for SO’s vehicle.
  

Materials obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources:

•  EMS Report.
  

The following scenario emerges from the evidence gathered by the SIU, which included interviews with a paramedic, a civilian and police officers who observed the events in parts. As was his legal right, the SO declined to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of November 4, 2020, WO #1 and WO #2 were dispatched to an address on Fort William Road following a 911 call reporting an unconscious woman lying by the southwest corner of the building.

While at the scene and tending to the woman, the officers were approached by a paramedic. The paramedic was also in the area trying to assist a male a short distance away by the bank of the Neebing McIntyre Floodway. As the male was being difficult and refusing to be taken to hospital, the paramedic requested that officers’ intervention. The male was the Complainant.

WO #1 left his partner and followed the paramedic to the riverbank, where he met the Complainant. The Complainant, seated on the grass, told WO #1 that he did not wish to go the hospital and wanted simply to be taken home. The Complainant slurred his words but was able to identify himself, stand and, with the help of WO #1, walk up the embankment to the paved roadway behind the building at 959 Fort William Road. The paramedics left the scene.
WO #1 called for more officers to assist with the Complainant’s transport home as the Complainant took a seat on a curb that bordered a transformer. At one point, the Complainant fell over and appeared unconscious. However, with the arrival a minute later of the additional officers– the SO and WO #3 – the Complainant roused. He remained unsteady but was otherwise without apparent physical injury and able to walk to the SO’s cruiser with help from the officer. The Complainant indicated that he had been drinking and just wanted to go home.

The SO drove the Complainant home to his mother’s address. Upon arrival at about 4:45 p.m., the Complainant was assessed by the officers and seen to be non-verbal, drowsy and drooling from the mouth. An ambulance was called to the scene and arrived at 5:01 p.m.

The Complainant was removed from the cruiser and placed in the ambulance, after which he was taken to hospital. The Complainant was diagnosed with a brain bleed, suffered brain injury, and passed away on November 5, 2020.

Cause of Death

At autopsy, the pathologist was preliminarily of the view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to acute subdural hemorrhage due to blunt impact to the right side of the head consistent with a single impact.

Section 219 and 220, Criminal Code -- Criminal negligence causing death

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable             

(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.

Section 215, Criminal Code - Failure to Provide Necessaries

215 (1) Every one is under a legal duty 

(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person

(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and

(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.

(b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.

On November 4, 2020, while in the care of the TBPS, the Complainant became acutely ill. He was transported to hospital by ambulance and passed away the following day. 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 death.

The offences that arise for consideration are failure to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 215 and 220 of the Criminal Code, respectively. The former is premised, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have observed in the circumstances. The latter is intended to capture more egregious cases of neglect and requires a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable level of care. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was a want of care in the manner in which the SO dealt with the Complainant that contributed to his death and/or was sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction. In my view, there was not.

The SO and, indeed, the other officers who interacted with the Complainant on the day in question, attempted to help a man in obvious need of assistance. It appears they believed that the Complainant was suffering the effects of inebriation. In fact, aside from evidence that the Complainant informed the officers that he had been drinking, he displayed hallmarks of alcohol intoxication: slurred speech, unsteadiness and drowsiness. As it turns out, it may well be that these symptoms were the result of an intracranial bleed, a serious condition requiring immediate medical attention. However, paramedics had already been to the scene and, though they found it difficult to assess him, were content to have the Complainant driven home by the officers. In the circumstances, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care when he escorted the Complainant home instead of the hospital, particularly as the Complainant, at that time able to communicate and ambulate, had made it clear that was his wish. [1] It also bears noting that once at the Complainant’s home, there is no evidence to suggest that either of the SO and WO #3 failed to act with dispatch in calling for an ambulance when it became evident that the Complainant was in acute medical distress.

In the result, as I am satisfied on reasonable grounds that the SO conducted himself lawfully at all times throughout his engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: April 14, 2021


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit