Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.

Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019

Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following: 

Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.

A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.

In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the death of a 24-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On February 22, 2021, at 12:30 p.m., the London Police Service (LPS) notified the SIU that on February 22, 2021, at 10:30 a.m., the LPS received a call from a man who said he was going to commit suicide in Greenway Park. Upon arrival, LPS officers found the man sitting by the dock and holding a firearm. The man said he was not going to hurt anyone other than himself. A negotiator established contact, but the man discharged the firearm. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) checked the man, pronounced him dead at the scene, and left. LPS officers approached the man and found a pulse. EMS arrived again and transported the man to the hospital. LPS identified the man as the Complainant. At his residence, LPS officers found a suicide note and 20 firearms registered to the Complainant.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 02/22/2021 at 1:29 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 02/22/2021 at 3:10 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators (FIs) assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

24-year-old male, deceased

Civilian Witnesses

CW Interviewed

The CW was interviewed on February 24, 2021.

Subject Officials

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right. Notes received and reviewed.

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #6 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #7 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #8 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #9 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #10 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #11 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #12 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #13 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #14 Interviewed
WO #15 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #16 Interviewed

WO #1, WO #3, WO #4, WO #14 and WO #16 were interviewed on February 25, 2021. Additionally, the notes of one other police officer were received and reviewed.

The Scene

The scene was the riverfront at Greenway Park in London. A parking lot was near the river’s edge and the Complainant’s blue Jeep could be seen parked. It was the only vehicle in the parking lot when an SIU investigator arrived on scene at 3:10 p.m. There was snow on the ground.

The Complainant had called 911 from the wooden observation deck west of the parking lot and on the eastern bank of the Thames River. [1]

West of the parking lot there were walking trails and an observation deck overlooking the Thames River. At the south end of the observation deck was a bench, and located on the bench was a pistol (and magazine), a knife, a liquor bottle, and a cartridge. Under the bench there was a cell phone and a drinking glass. In front of the bench there was a lighter, a hat and a glove. There was a lot of blood on the snow on the bench and underneath the bench.


Figure 1 - The firearm, magazine and knife recovered from the scene.

The material events in question are apparent on the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with officers who were on scene throughout the incident and a review of police communication recordings. As was her right, the SO declined to interview with the SIU. She did, however, authorize the release of her notes.

At about 10:30 a.m. of February 22, 2021, the LPS received a 911 call from the Complainant. The Complainant indicated he was sitting on a bench in Greenway Park near the Thames River holding a handgun and with plans to end his life. He explained that he could not take it anymore. The Complainant made it clear he had no intention of harming anyone else. He was where he was because he wanted to see that view one last time. The dispatcher told him that she was sending police officers to speak with him, and officers were dispatched to the scene.

WO #3 and WO #4 were among the first officers at the scene, arriving at about 10:40 a.m. Their first order of business was to ensure that pedestrians using the park in the area were kept away. From a distance, WO #3 called out to the Complainant saying he wanted to help, but there was no answer. Emergency Response Unit (ERU) officers and a trained negotiator, WO #1, were also dispatched and began arriving at the park. WO #1 was able to reach the Complainant on his cell phone and engage him in dialogue.

The SO arrived on scene at about 11:00 a.m. and began to oversee the police operation.

Over the next 50 minutes or so, WO #1 attempted to dissuade the Complainant from harming himself. They talked about family, dogs, personal struggles and other matters of mutual interest. Though patient and calm, the Complainant was insistent that he would end his life and made it clear that he would shoot himself if officers approached. He reiterated that he had no plans to hurt anyone but himself.

At about 11:32 a.m., the Complainant raised the handgun, in his right hand, to his head and pulled the trigger, his body slumping.

At the sight and sound of the discharge, officers, behind the cover of a light armoured vehicle that had been brought to the scene, made their way to the observation deck. Assured that the scene was safe, the officers summoned for the attendance of paramedics, who had been staging in the area. Believing that the Complainant was obviously deceased, the initial paramedics left the scene. However, paramedics were asked to re-attend shortly thereafter when it appeared to the officers that he had a pulse.

The Complainant was taken in ambulance to the hospital. He had suffered lethal and irreversible injuries, and was pronounced deceased the following day.

Cause of Death

At autopsy, the pathologist was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to a perforating gunshot wound to the head. The gunshot had entered the right temporal scalp and exited via the left temporal scalp.

Section 219, Criminal Code -- Criminal negligence causing death

(a) in doing anything, or

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

Section 220, Criminal Code -- Criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm

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.

The Complainant sustained mortal head injuries when he shot himself in Greenway Park, London, on February 22, 2021. He was taken to hospital after the shooting and was pronounced deceased the following day. As LPS officers were on scene and had interacted with the Complainant for a time before the shooting, the SIU was notified and commenced an investigation. The officer with overall command of the police operation at the park was the SO. She was identified as the subject official 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 offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 220 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for negligent conduct that exhibits a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other, and results in death. Simple negligence will not suffice to ground liability. Rather, what is required is 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 the SO, in her leadership role, fell short in her duties and, if so, whether her shortcomings caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death and were sufficiently egregious as to attract criminal sanction. In my view, there is no evidence to reasonably establish that the SO was derelict in how she conducted herself.

At the outset, it bears noting that the officers, including the SO, were lawfully placed in the park at the time of the Complainant’s death. They were there in the discharge of their foremost duty as police officers, namely, the protection and preservation of life. Having received the Complainant’s 911 call about his plans to die by suicide, the officers were duty bound to attend at the scene and make their best efforts to deter his self-destructive intentions. Given that a firearm was involved, the police also had a duty to ensure the safety of others in the vicinity.

Once positioned in the park, I am satisfied that the officers under the SO’s command conducted themselves with due regard for the health and safety of the Complainant and the public. Efforts were quickly undertaken to clear the park of pedestrians, control vehicular traffic around the area, establish a perimeter around the Complainant, and place deflation devices under the tires of his vehicle, the lone one parked in the lot east of the observation deck. Those initiatives were clearly necessary. Though the Complainant had emphasized that he had no intention of hurting anyone other than himself, he was of unsound mind and armed with a gun. For those same reasons, I am unable to fault the officers for maintaining a safe distance from the Complainant throughout their engagement, a fact which effectively foreclosed the potential use of less lethal weapons as a means of taking the Complainant into custody. As for the efforts to negotiate a safe resolution of the matter, there is no indication in the evidence to suggest that they were remiss in any degree. WO #1, who led those talks, was a trained negotiator. He had managed to develop a rapport with the Complainant and kept him talking for just under an hour before the fateful shot. As those negotiations were ongoing, efforts were even made to consult with an on-call psychologist with the LPS to assist with these types of situations.

In the result, I am unable to reasonably conclude on the aforementioned-record that the SO and the officers under her command comported themselves other than professionally in their dealings with the Complainant. Though the Complainant was able to make good on his intentions, that was through no fault of the involved officers. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the SO and the file is closed.


Date: May 10, 2021


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit