SIU Director’s Report - Case # 20-PCD-113
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 77-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 77-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On May 20, 2020, at 7:29 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of the death of the Complainant.The OPP had reportedly received a telephone call from the Complainant at 6:19 p.m., during which he said something about his spouse and that he could not take it anymore. After several minutes during which the Complainant could be heard breathing but not responding to inquiries of the 911 operator, the Complainant abruptly terminated the call.
Subject Officer (SO) #2, SO #1 and Witness Officer (WO) #2 were dispatched to check on the Complainant’s well-being. A volunteer firefighter, Civilian Witness (CW) #9, responded as well. Upon arrival at the Complainant’s residence, the police officers knocked on the front door and no one responded. They proceeded to the back door and knocked again. CW #9 walked toward the garage at the rear of the property and saw a man [now known to be the Complainant] sitting in a chair with his back toward CW #9. The Complainant was holding a large, antique-style revolver in his right hand. CW #9 immediately retreated and informed the police officers of his observations.
The police officers got their ballistic shields from their police vehicles and, as they were entering the area where the Complainant was still seated, the Complainant discharged his weapon at the right side of his head.
The police officers immediately commenced first aid by applying a bandage to the Complainant’s head and, when the Complainant ceased breathing, administering cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) compressions. The compressions continued throughout the Complainant’s transportation to the Georgian Bay General Hospital (GBGH) where he was pronounced deceased.
Included in the notification details from the OPP was information regarding a witness who had spoken to him prior to May 20, 2020, and that the Complainant had been talking recently about depression and suicide.
The Team
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3 Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2
SIU Investigators interviewed civilian and police witnesses, reviewed police disclosure materials, including 911 and communications audio recordings, and canvassed for and obtained digital images made by a civilian witness relevant to the incident. SIU Forensic Investigators made a digital photographic record, a scale diagram of the scene and collected exhibits relevant to the incident.
WO #4 was not interviewed. The review of WO #4’s memorandum book notes did not reveal any new information that was not already known from the subject officers, the civilian and police witnesses, and from police data obtained during the investigation.
Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed cellular telephone images/video from CW #8 relevant to the incident.
Complainant:
77-year-old male, deceasedCivilian Witnesses
CW #1 Not interviewed (Next-of-kin)CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Not interviewed (No information)
CW #5 Interviewed
CW #6 Interviewed
CW #7 Interviewed
CW #8 Interviewed
CW #9 Interviewed
Witness Officers
WO #1 Interviewed, notes received and reviewedWO #2 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed
WO #4 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary
Subject Officers
SO #1 Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed SO #2 Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed
Evidence
The Scene
The scene was limited to the rear area of a residence in Victoria Harbour, Tay Township. A driveway led from the roadway to the rear of the property where the Complainant had been seated in a lawn chair when he discharged his revolver. A lawn chair was upright and resting near one corner of the garage, and the seat of the chair and area beneath it were blood-soaked. A cellular telephone was located on the barbeque near the garage and a pair of broken eyeglasses was on the ground.
A revolver was on the ground near a corner of the garage by two recycle bins. The revolver was approximately five metres from the lawn chair. The revolver’s hammer was in the cocked position. The barrel was pointed toward the garage door. Small droplets of red staining believed to be blood and tissue were visible on different parts of the weapon.
The SIU Forensic Investigator was advised at the scene by WO #1 that a member of the OPP Emergency Response Team (ERT) attended the scene earlier to prove the weapon safe. The police officer apparently had difficulty proving the weapon safe and it was placed near the recycle bins in the condition it was found and described by the SIU Forensic Investigator.
There was one 45-calibre empty discharged cartridge still in the revolver’s cylinder that apparently during the ERT police officer’s endeavour to make the weapon safe, had cycled clockwise one chamber away from the hammer and firing pin.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence
The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence, and was able to locate the following source:- Cellular telephone video and photographs from CW #8.
CW #8’s Cellular Telephone Video and Photographs
Police Communications Recordings
911 Communications Audio Recording
The file was 17 minutes and 26 seconds in length. The first 50 seconds involved an unrelated call and then the file was continuous until the cellular telephone was disconnected by somebody at the scene.
The time stamp at the beginning of the audio was May 20,2020, at 6:17:39 p.m.
A call was transferred to the communicator/call-taker with the explanation that a gentleman was calling from Victoria Harbour and it was difficult to hear if he needed an ambulance.
The communicator/call-taker asked if the man [now known to be the Complainant] needed the police or ambulance. The Complainant replied, “Police my dear.” In a very low voice and at times inaudible, the Complainant, when asked if he was okay, said that he was not okay, and he mentioned something about his spouse. He indicated that he was at his house, at an address in Victoria Harbour, and that he could not take it anymore.
The Complainant never spoke another word for the duration of the call. The communicator/ call-taker replied to the Complainant, “Want you to stick with me.” This was followed by, “Hello,” being repeated about 26 times and some, “Are you there?” phrases to get the Complainant to speak.
About five minutes into the call, the communicator/call-taker began to call the Complainant by his first name. She asked the Complainant repeatedly, “Are you there?” “Can you hear me?” or just, “Hello,” about 21 times. Between nine and ten minutes into the call, the language changed to, “If you can hear me you’re going to be okay,” and then the language quickly changed to, “If you can hear me we’re here to help you,” “If you can hear me please let us help you,” “Please put it down for them to help you,” and, “Are you there?”
About eleven and a half minutes into the call the communicator/call-taker introduced herself and told the Complainant, “I know you called for help today. Please let us help you.”
The Complainant was told there was a lot of support there for him, and that he was close to the telephone because he could be heard. At times a low moaning sound could be heard and/or the sound of the wind.
The Complainant was encouraged to speak with the communicator/call-taker, and he was told he was not alone. On one occasion, the Complainant was addressed as buddy.
The Complainant was asked by name, “Is that you?” and in the background a male voice stated, “Sir, can you hear me?”
At approximately 15 minutes and 40 seconds into the call, the communicator/call-taker stated, “Oh, oh. Hello?” The sound of the gunshot was not heard on the recording. Again, a voice was heard to saying, “Sir?” followed by the sound of what appeared to be stertorous breathing. The communicator/call-taker said, “Hi,” but the telephone call was disconnected.
Police Communications Audio Recordings
The following is a summary of these calls.
Audio EMS (Emergency Medical Services)-Fire
The time stamp on this audio file was May 20, 2020, 6:20:37 p.m.:
- The OPP called the EMS and asked for their assistance in locating an address using the 911 call location information;
- The OPP were told that this was the Victoria Harbour Fire Department (VHFD) situated at the Complainant’s address in Tay Township;
- The OPP inquired if anybody was at the fire department, but was told that EMS would not know;
- The details of the Complainant’s 911 called were supplied;
- It was agreed that the EMS would make their way to the area and the OPP would contact the VHFD;
- At 01:57 minutes into the recording, the OPP contacted the VHFD;
- It was explained how the location of the call had been identified as coming from the fire station;
- It was confirmed that nobody would be at the station;
- The VHFD was told there had been a 911 call and they were not sure what the emergency was;
- Details of the 911 call were supplied; and
- The VHFD would head to the area.
Audio EMS 2
The time stamp was May 20, 2020, at 6:27:22 p.m.:
- The EMS called the OPP and asked if they were going to stage in the area because few details had been received; and
- The EMS was told to stage in the area of the involved address.
Audio EMS 3
The time stamp was May 20, 2020, at 6:41:46 p.m.:
- The EMS again called with regards to staging or approaching the address; and
- The EMS were told they would be escorted in shortly.
Dispatch Phone Audio 4
The time stamp was May 20, 2020, 6:46:56 p.m.:
- The OPP called the GBGH to make sure they were aware that a man was coming with a self-inflicted gunshot wound;
- Phone calls related to the SIU investigation followed;
- At 01:46 minutes, WO #4 called the PCC; and
- In part, WO #4 advised that only three OPP members were at the residence when this happened. WO #4 was waiting for direction with regards to the SIU possibly invoking its jurisdiction and then calling out the proper OPP investigators for this suicide.
Dispatch Radio Audio 7
The time stamp was May 20, 2020, 6:19:26 p.m.: [1]
- At 6:19 p.m., SO #1 was sent to a service call at the Complainant’s address because a party stated he needed the police. SO #1 questioned the reason and was told details were pending;
- WO #2 stated she would head to the call as well;
- The dispatcher advised that an elderly man [now known to be the Complainant] was still on the line. He said something happened, mentioned his wife and said he could not take it anymore;
- SO #1 acknowledged and asked for EMS to respond;
- SO #2 advised he was on his way to a different location for an evidence search, but he would drop by;
- The dispatcher advised there was still an open line, and nothing was heard;
- SO #2 requested the address because his Mobile Data Terminal was not working;
- At 6:22 p.m., the dispatcher explained that nothing could be found for the address supplied by the Complainant, but a search of the telephone number on NICHE showed an association to a nearby address;
- The dispatcher advised that EMS was responding, and the line was still open. Nothing could be heard in the background;
- At 6:27 p.m., SO #1 advised he would be at the location in under a minute;
- SO #1 asked to hear the comments spoken by the Complainant. He was told the caller mentioned his wife and could not take it anymore;
- SO #1 confirmed there was an open line after that;
- SO #1 reported his arrival at the Complainant’s address;
- SO #2 reported himself and WO #2 were coming onto the Complainant’s street;
- At 6:30 p.m., the dispatcher requested an update and SO #1 said the back door was unlocked, but he was not getting anybody responding;
- WO #2 reported herself and SO #2 arrived at the Complainant’s address;
- The dispatcher acknowledged and reported the line was still open;
- About 15 seconds later, SO #1 reported the man (the Complainant) was in the back and had a gun to his head;
- The dispatcher acknowledged as a couple of units said they were on their way now;
- SO #2 supplied an update that the Complainant had a firearm to his head in the backyard and was threatening suicide;
- At 6:31 p.m., SO #2 reported they were making a larger perimeter and it looked like a high-power rifle;
- SO #1 requested more assistance for containment to close the road because of lots of traffic;
- WO #1 and another officer were responding;
- SO #2 reported the road was closed and there was a loose perimeter;
- An undesignated officer reminded police officers to put on their hard body cover from the trunk;
- The dispatcher updated the line was still open;
- At 6:34 p.m., SO #1 reported that the Complainant was still in the backyard sitting in a chair by the garage. He had a large revolver style pistol to his head;
- It was reported that a Crisis Negotiator and the ERT were responding;
- The PCC Sergeant advised he was monitoring;
- The dispatcher asked SO #1 if the Complainant had a telephone in his hand;
- An undesignated officer and WO #3 were driving onto the Complainant’s street;
- At 6:37 p.m., SO #1 reported a shot was fired and it was believed the Complainant was down;
- SO #1 said that the Complainant fired one round;
- SO #1 reported his belief that their portables were not working properly. He then stated one shot fired by the “suspect” and only at himself;
- At 6:38 p.m., SO #2 reported the injury was self-inflicted and they were not getting any response inside from the wife, so they were going inside the residence;
- At 6:40 p.m., WO #2 requested that the EMS come to the backyard;
- At 6:41 p.m., WO #3 advised they had the firearm and they were trying to administer first aid;
- At 6:42 p.m., SO #2 reported the house has been cleared;
- An undesignated officer advised that the EMS were on scene; and
- At 6:46 p.m., the EMS were being escorted to the GBGH.
Forensic Evidence
Centre of Forensic Sciences Firearms Report
Materials obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the OPP:- CAD Event Details;
- Communication Recordings;
- Crime Scene Continuity Log;
- Notes-WO #3;
- Notes-WO #2;
- Notes-WO #4;
- Notes-WO #1;
- Notes-SO #1;
- Notes-SO #2;
- Property- Firearms;
- Supplemental Reports;
- Training Record-SO #1; and
- Training Record-SO #2.
Materials obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from non-police sources:- Report of Postmortem Examination, dated September 14, 2020 and received by SIU from Coroner’s Office on October 2, 2020;
- Firearms Report from Centre of Forensic Sciences dated August 4, 2020; and
- Cellular telephone video and photographs from CW #8.
Incident Narrative
The following scenario emerges on the evidence gathered by the SIU in its investigation, which included interviews with both subject officers, a witness officer who was present on scene as well, and several non-police witnesses who observed different parts of the incident.
The Complainant had struggled with his mental and physical health in the latter years of life. At about 6:20 p.m. on May 20, 2020, the Complainant made a cryptic 911 call to the police during which he made mention of his spouse and then observed that he could no longer take it. Police were dispatched to investigate.
At about 6:30 p.m., SO #1 was the first officer to arrive at the Complainant’s address in Victoria Harbour. Arriving at about the same time was a volunteer firefighter for the Victoria Harbour Fire Service, CW #9. Knocking at the front door and receiving no answer, the men made their way to the rear of the detached, single-story home. SO #1 climbed the back deck to the rear entrance, entered through the unlocked door and called out to the Complainant. There was no response and the officer could see no one in the home. CW #9, still outside at the time, had started to make his way to the northside of the backyard when he suddenly noticed a man seated in a lawn chair. The man was the Complainant; he was holding in his right hand a silver revolver [2] pressed to his right temple. His head was bobbing up and down, giving the appearance of someone struggling to stay awake. CW #9 positioned himself behind one of two outbuildings in the backlot. Calling out to SO #1, CW #9 pointed in the Complainant’s direction. The officer yelled out to the Complainant to not “do that” and then made his way to the front of the house.
SO #2 and WO #2 were also responding to the residence and arrived at about the same time just as SO #1 was returning from the backyard. SO #1 briefed them on what he had seen and retrieved his C8 rifle from his cruiser. SO #2 armed himself with a less-lethal firearm. Together, the officers made their way along the driveway on the south side of the house to the backyard. WO #2 donned an additional protective vest and followed behind the other two officers a distance behind.
Once at the rear of the home, the officers took up a position some six to nine metres behind the Complainant. The Complainant remained seated in the same lawn chair, his back to the officers and the revolver pointed at his head. SO #2 and SO #1 planned to first set up some containment around the Complainant before they would attempt to negotiate with him. Just as SO #1 was preparing an advance to a position closer to the Complainant, the sound of a gunshot was heard.
The Complainant had pulled the trigger of the revolver. The discharge resulted in a through and through wound in his head, entering the right side and exiting the top of the head.
The officers quickly went to their vehicles to secure their long arms, after which they returned to the backyard to tend to the Complainant. The Complainant was still moving and attempting to talk, but he had suffered a grievous wound and was struggling. With the arrival of other officers and first aid supplies, SO #1 did what he could to apply bandages to the Complainant’s wounds.
Paramedics arrived on scene, took over the Complainant’s care, loaded him in an ambulance and rushed him to hospital. Despite further attempts at resuscitation, the Complainant was pronounced deceased at hospital at 7:17 p.m.
Cause of Death
The pathologist concluded that the immediate cause of death without antecedent causes was “perforating contact-range gunshot wound to head”.
The Complainant had struggled with his mental and physical health in the latter years of life. At about 6:20 p.m. on May 20, 2020, the Complainant made a cryptic 911 call to the police during which he made mention of his spouse and then observed that he could no longer take it. Police were dispatched to investigate.
At about 6:30 p.m., SO #1 was the first officer to arrive at the Complainant’s address in Victoria Harbour. Arriving at about the same time was a volunteer firefighter for the Victoria Harbour Fire Service, CW #9. Knocking at the front door and receiving no answer, the men made their way to the rear of the detached, single-story home. SO #1 climbed the back deck to the rear entrance, entered through the unlocked door and called out to the Complainant. There was no response and the officer could see no one in the home. CW #9, still outside at the time, had started to make his way to the northside of the backyard when he suddenly noticed a man seated in a lawn chair. The man was the Complainant; he was holding in his right hand a silver revolver [2] pressed to his right temple. His head was bobbing up and down, giving the appearance of someone struggling to stay awake. CW #9 positioned himself behind one of two outbuildings in the backlot. Calling out to SO #1, CW #9 pointed in the Complainant’s direction. The officer yelled out to the Complainant to not “do that” and then made his way to the front of the house.
SO #2 and WO #2 were also responding to the residence and arrived at about the same time just as SO #1 was returning from the backyard. SO #1 briefed them on what he had seen and retrieved his C8 rifle from his cruiser. SO #2 armed himself with a less-lethal firearm. Together, the officers made their way along the driveway on the south side of the house to the backyard. WO #2 donned an additional protective vest and followed behind the other two officers a distance behind.
Once at the rear of the home, the officers took up a position some six to nine metres behind the Complainant. The Complainant remained seated in the same lawn chair, his back to the officers and the revolver pointed at his head. SO #2 and SO #1 planned to first set up some containment around the Complainant before they would attempt to negotiate with him. Just as SO #1 was preparing an advance to a position closer to the Complainant, the sound of a gunshot was heard.
The Complainant had pulled the trigger of the revolver. The discharge resulted in a through and through wound in his head, entering the right side and exiting the top of the head.
The officers quickly went to their vehicles to secure their long arms, after which they returned to the backyard to tend to the Complainant. The Complainant was still moving and attempting to talk, but he had suffered a grievous wound and was struggling. With the arrival of other officers and first aid supplies, SO #1 did what he could to apply bandages to the Complainant’s wounds.
Paramedics arrived on scene, took over the Complainant’s care, loaded him in an ambulance and rushed him to hospital. Despite further attempts at resuscitation, the Complainant was pronounced deceased at hospital at 7:17 p.m.
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 passed away in the evening of May 20, 2020, the result of a single gunshot to the head. As OPP officers had responded to his residence and were present when the gunshot went off, the SIU was notified and commenced an investigation. Two of those officers, SO #1 and SO #2, were identified as subject officers for purposes of the SIU investigation. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either of the subject officers committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s death.
As it is apparent that the Complainant pulled the trigger that resulted in his death, the only issue that arises for consideration as far as the potential criminal liability of any police officer is concerned is whether either of SO #1 and SO #2 contributed to the death by any want of care on their part. That is to say, is there any reason to believe that one or both of the officers were criminally negligent in connection with the Complainant’s death? In my view, there is not.
Simple negligence will not suffice to ground liability in criminal negligence. Rather, what is required, in part, is a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. The circumstances that marked the subject officers’ interventions in this matter do not permit of such a finding.
SO #1 and SO #2 were clearly engaged in the lawful execution of their duties, namely, their foremost duty to preserve and protect life, when they responded to the Complainant’s address to check on the welfare of its occupants and, thereafter, attempted to deal with an armed Complainant threatening to do himself harm with a firearm. When SO #1’s attention was first drawn to the Complainant, he was taken by surprise, and understandably so. Though he suspected he might be responding to a domestic disturbance call involving a man and his wife, [3] the officer had no reason to believe that the Complainant would be armed and on the precipice of shooting himself. In the circumstances, SO #1 conducted himself reasonably in first seeing to the safety of non-police officers in the vicinity, directing CW #9 away from the scene and several neighbours back into their homes. SO #1 can also not be faulted for first returning to his cruiser to retrieve his C8 rifle before attempting to engage the Complainant. As the Complainant was armed with a firearm, the officer was entitled to take reasonable steps to ensure his own safety before placing himself at further risk. Finally, though events on the ground were moving quickly, SO #1 and SO #2, both ERT officers, appear to have been on the same page with respect to a plan for dealing with the Complainant. They would attempt to contain the threat of an armed individual before seeking to speak with him from a position of cover – a reasonable course of action, in my view. Regrettably, just as SO #1 was getting into position to begin negotiations, the Complainant pulled the trigger.
In speaking with several of the Complainant’s friends and neighbours, the consensus that emerged is that the Complainant took his own life as his health began to deteriorate, not wishing to suffer or be a burden on anybody else. One such witness was of the view that the Complainant orchestrated the final moments of his life to have the police on scene so that his family would not be the ones who found him deceased. Be that as it may, it is apparent on the aforementioned-record that SO #1 and SO #2 comported themselves reasonably at all times, and that the Complainant is alone responsible for his death. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against either subject officer, and the file is closed.
Date: February 8, 2021
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
As it is apparent that the Complainant pulled the trigger that resulted in his death, the only issue that arises for consideration as far as the potential criminal liability of any police officer is concerned is whether either of SO #1 and SO #2 contributed to the death by any want of care on their part. That is to say, is there any reason to believe that one or both of the officers were criminally negligent in connection with the Complainant’s death? In my view, there is not.
Simple negligence will not suffice to ground liability in criminal negligence. Rather, what is required, in part, is a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. The circumstances that marked the subject officers’ interventions in this matter do not permit of such a finding.
SO #1 and SO #2 were clearly engaged in the lawful execution of their duties, namely, their foremost duty to preserve and protect life, when they responded to the Complainant’s address to check on the welfare of its occupants and, thereafter, attempted to deal with an armed Complainant threatening to do himself harm with a firearm. When SO #1’s attention was first drawn to the Complainant, he was taken by surprise, and understandably so. Though he suspected he might be responding to a domestic disturbance call involving a man and his wife, [3] the officer had no reason to believe that the Complainant would be armed and on the precipice of shooting himself. In the circumstances, SO #1 conducted himself reasonably in first seeing to the safety of non-police officers in the vicinity, directing CW #9 away from the scene and several neighbours back into their homes. SO #1 can also not be faulted for first returning to his cruiser to retrieve his C8 rifle before attempting to engage the Complainant. As the Complainant was armed with a firearm, the officer was entitled to take reasonable steps to ensure his own safety before placing himself at further risk. Finally, though events on the ground were moving quickly, SO #1 and SO #2, both ERT officers, appear to have been on the same page with respect to a plan for dealing with the Complainant. They would attempt to contain the threat of an armed individual before seeking to speak with him from a position of cover – a reasonable course of action, in my view. Regrettably, just as SO #1 was getting into position to begin negotiations, the Complainant pulled the trigger.
In speaking with several of the Complainant’s friends and neighbours, the consensus that emerged is that the Complainant took his own life as his health began to deteriorate, not wishing to suffer or be a burden on anybody else. One such witness was of the view that the Complainant orchestrated the final moments of his life to have the police on scene so that his family would not be the ones who found him deceased. Be that as it may, it is apparent on the aforementioned-record that SO #1 and SO #2 comported themselves reasonably at all times, and that the Complainant is alone responsible for his death. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against either subject officer, and the file is closed.
Date: February 8, 2021
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) There were no further time stamps during the recording and any times came from the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) report. [Back to text]
- 2) A .45 calibre six shot single action revolver. [Back to text]
- 3) SO #1 was unaware at the time that the Complainant’s wife was deceased. [Back to text]
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.