SIU Director’s Report - Case # 20-PCD-208
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 71-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 71-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On August 22, 2020 at 9:55 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of the drowning of the Complainant.The OPP advised that the Complainant had walked away from Montfort Hospital (MH) in Ottawa as he was being held under the Mental Health Act (MHA). A CPIC alert listed the Complainant as having eloped from MH.
On August 22, 2020 at 7:30 p.m., Witness Officer (WO) #1 located the Complainant at the marina near the Ottawa River off Edwards Street in Rockland. Once the Complainant observed the police officer, he jumped into the river. A second officer arrived, the Subject Officer (SO), recognized the Complainant and went into the river to assist the Complainant. The local fire department responded to assist.
The Complainant went under the water before the SO could reach him and had not been located at the time of notification.
The incident was captured on video by Civilian Witness (CW) #1.
The Team
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3 Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Complainant:
71-year-old male, deceasedCivilian Witnesses
CW #1 Interviewed CW #2 Interviewed
Witness Officers
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #4 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #5 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 located at Moulin Park, Edward Street, in Clarence-Rockland. The park has a large grass area with picnic tables to the west and a large gravel parking area for vehicles to the right. There is a boat launch at the park with two separate boat launch areas. The boat launches have three separate docks, one on either side of each boat launch. To the west end of the boat launch are two more docks about 20 to 30 metres in length leading from the retaining wall out into the Ottawa River. The Ottawa River current flows west to east from the Ottawa area to Montreal. The Complainant jumped into the water from the furthest dock to the west and his body was located three days later floating face down in the river about 100 metres east of the dock he had jumped from. The recovery location was near the end of a piece of land that jutted out into the water at the far east end of the park just east of the boat launch area.
Figure 1 - Aerial photograph of Moulin Park, Rockland, obtained from Google Earth Pro.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence
A video from the cell phone of CW #1 was given to OPP officers just after the incident by CW #1. The video footage is about 50 to 75 metres away from the dock area. The video shows WO #1 and the SO in the park near the dock. The SO is seen quickly walking away from the dock towards the parking lot and WO #1 is seen walking onto one of the two docks to the end. WO #1 removes his police uniform and lays it down on the dock at the end. There is an unknown man standing on the end of the dock fishing. The Complainant can be seen with his head just above the water about 15 to 20 metres out from the end of the dock. The video footage ends prior to WO #1 jumping into the water.Another segment of the video depicts an ambulance parked on the grass area near the dock. There are several small vessels in the water and the persons on board appear to be searching the water area in and around the dock where the Complainant jumped in. There is a helicopter flying above the water near the dock area which shortly after flies away in a westbound direction. Numerous fire department personnel are seen walking around near the dock and the parking lot area. The park is full of civilian persons both seated and standing around watching. The parking lot near the boat launch is full of vehicles, both civilian and emergency. The emergency vehicles have lighting activated. The skies appear overcast and it appears to be dusk.
None of the video footage shows any interaction between the SO and the Complainant. The video commences after the Complainant has jumped into the water and is about 15 to 20 metres out from the dock.
Materials obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the OPP:- Event details;
- Dispatch file x 3;
- Notes of the WOs; and
- Video recording taken by CW #1.
Materials obtained from Other Sources
The following documents were received from third-parties:- Preliminary Autopsy Findings from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service.
Incident Narrative
The events in question are clear on the evidence gathered by the SIU and may be summarized in short order. At about 7:30 p.m. of August 22, 2020, the Complainant found himself on one of the docks at the Moulin Park in Clarence Rockland. He was AWOL at the time from the Montfort Hospital where he was being held under the MHA for psychiatric examination. The Complainant had resolved to end his life. The day before, he had also walked away from the hospital. He was located by WO #1 at the time in Moulin Park and returned to the hospital. On this occasion, it was the SO, among the officers searching for the Complainant, who found the Complainant at the park.
At the sight of the SO approaching, the Complainant dove into the water from the dock and swam a distance into the Ottawa River. To no avail, the SO pleaded with the Complainant to swim back so they could talk. Shortly thereafter, WO #1 arrived at the park, disrobed down to his shorts and entered the water in a rescue attempt. At about the same time, the Complainant disappeared under the surface of the water. For the next ten minutes or so, WO #1 remained in the water searching for the Complainant before he tired and returned to the dock.
Firefighters with the Clarence-Rockland Fire Service arrived on scene, as did the OPP’s Underwater Search and Recovery Team. Despite their search efforts, the Complainant could not be located.
Three days later, on August 25, 2020, the Complainant’s body was discovered floating in the water about 100 metres east of the dock from which he had jumped into the river.
The pathologist at autopsy provided a preliminary cause of death, attributing the Complainant’s death to drowning.
At the sight of the SO approaching, the Complainant dove into the water from the dock and swam a distance into the Ottawa River. To no avail, the SO pleaded with the Complainant to swim back so they could talk. Shortly thereafter, WO #1 arrived at the park, disrobed down to his shorts and entered the water in a rescue attempt. At about the same time, the Complainant disappeared under the surface of the water. For the next ten minutes or so, WO #1 remained in the water searching for the Complainant before he tired and returned to the dock.
Firefighters with the Clarence-Rockland Fire Service arrived on scene, as did the OPP’s Underwater Search and Recovery Team. Despite their search efforts, the Complainant could not be located.
Three days later, on August 25, 2020, the Complainant’s body was discovered floating in the water about 100 metres east of the dock from which he had jumped into the river.
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
In the afternoon of August 25, 2020, the Complainant’s body was recovered from the Ottawa River in the area of Moulin Park, Clarence-Rockland. As he had entered the water from a dock in the park on August 22, 2020 just after he was approached by the SO of the OPP, the SIU was notified and commenced an investigation. The SO was identified as the subject officer. 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 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 a reasonable level of care in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is essentially this: did the officers who dealt with the Complainant cause or contribute to his death by way of derelict behaviour sufficient to attract criminal sanction. The answer is clearly in the negative.
The SO was in the discharge of his foremost duty to protect and preserve life when he located and approached the Complainant in Moulin Park. He was well-aware that the Complainant was of unsound mind, suicidal, and unlawfully at large from hospital where he was receiving psychiatric care. The officer had little options available to him to thwart the Complainant from entering into the water; the Complainant was well-ahead of the SO at the time. Indeed, the evidence suggests the SO was never closer than about 15 metres from the Complainant when he jumped into the river. In the circumstances, I am satisfied the officer did what he could in the circumstances.
There is also nothing in the evidence to call into scrutiny the OPP’s search and rescue efforts. In fact, it must be noted that WO #1 was shortly on scene after the Complainant dove into the water and placed his own life at risk by jumping into the river after him. Thereafter, it would appear that the OPP’s more specialized resources were promptly and properly deployed in an effort to locate and save the Complainant.
In the final analysis, there are no reasonable grounds in the aforementioned-record to believe that any of the officers who tried but were unable to prevent the Complainant from taking his own life acted other than professionally. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case, and the file is closed.
Date: February 16, 2021
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
The 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 a reasonable level of care in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is essentially this: did the officers who dealt with the Complainant cause or contribute to his death by way of derelict behaviour sufficient to attract criminal sanction. The answer is clearly in the negative.
The SO was in the discharge of his foremost duty to protect and preserve life when he located and approached the Complainant in Moulin Park. He was well-aware that the Complainant was of unsound mind, suicidal, and unlawfully at large from hospital where he was receiving psychiatric care. The officer had little options available to him to thwart the Complainant from entering into the water; the Complainant was well-ahead of the SO at the time. Indeed, the evidence suggests the SO was never closer than about 15 metres from the Complainant when he jumped into the river. In the circumstances, I am satisfied the officer did what he could in the circumstances.
There is also nothing in the evidence to call into scrutiny the OPP’s search and rescue efforts. In fact, it must be noted that WO #1 was shortly on scene after the Complainant dove into the water and placed his own life at risk by jumping into the river after him. Thereafter, it would appear that the OPP’s more specialized resources were promptly and properly deployed in an effort to locate and save the Complainant.
In the final analysis, there are no reasonable grounds in the aforementioned-record to believe that any of the officers who tried but were unable to prevent the Complainant from taking his own life acted other than professionally. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case, and 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.