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 24-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On September 19, 2020, at 4:05 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU to report a death. On September 12, 2020, at about 1:55 p.m., OPP was notified by Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) police that a vehicle was located next to the train tracks in the area of Machin Township. The OPP attended and found handwritten notes in the vehicle. The notes indicated the writer might be suffering from mental health issues. OPP began searching the surrounding area. The OPP used a passport and registered owner information to identify the person [now known to be the Complainant] they believed was in distress. The OPP searched all week with numerous sightings from various residents in the area.

On September 19, 2020, the OPP located a previously searched cabin that had been broken into. The Complainant was located a short distance away and armed with firearm. OPP Emergency Response Team [ERT] officers were authorized to continue to track the Complainant.

At about 2:00 p.m. (Central Time), the Complainant was contained in the bush by ERT officers. The Complainant put the firearm to his mouth and shot himself in the head. The Complainant was given first aid and placed in the OPP helicopter, which was involved in the search. He was flown to Dryden Regional Health Centre in critical condition. The Complainant was subsequently transported by air ambulance to Thunder Bay.

Earlier in the week, the Complainant’s stepmother [known to be Civilian Witness (CW) #1] and father arrived in the area out of concern for the Complainant.

On September 20, 2020, at 1:13 p.m., the Complainant passed away in hospital.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Complainant:

24-year-old male, deceased

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Not interviewed (Next-of-kin)
CW #2 Not interviewed (Next-of-kin)

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Interviewed
WO #6 Interviewed
WO #7 Interviewed
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






 

Subject Officers

SO #1 Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed
SO #2 Declined interview, as is the subject officer’s legal right. Notes received and reviewed.

The Scene

The scene was located in a clearing in a forested area near Roussin Road in Machin Township.

Physical Evidence

The SIU did not process the scene, but the SIU collected the following items from OPP:

• Winchester Cooey Model 600 .22 calibre SL & LR bolt action rifle with sling;
• Super X .22 calibre cartridge case;
• Tan long pants with brown belt;
• 3 x super X copper jacket cartridge .22 calibre;
• 1 x super X hollow point .22 calibre cartridge;
• Brown and black lace athletic shoes;
• Grey-weathered socks;
• Black-hooded sweatshirt with front torso hand warmer pouch;
• Knife in sheath;
• Black underwear;
• Camouflaged parka with orange reversible liner;
• Lag bolt;
• Hooded camouflaged raincoat;
• 5 x Swedish R-P 6.5 x 55 cartridges;
• Box of .22 calibre cartridge ammunition (20 short cartridges and 22 long cartridges);
• Camouflaged rain pants;
• Camouflaged baseball cap;
• Two blood swabs;
• DNA blood swab;
• Projectile (left side of scalp);
• Portion of camouflaged backpack straps;
• Green camouflaged T-shirt;
• Brown/tan-coloured journal book with handwritten notes; and
• Medical debris.

Figure 1 -- The Winchester Cooey Model 600 rifle.

Forensic Evidence

The SIU submitted the following items to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) for analysis:

• Cooey Model 600 .22 calibre SL and LR bolt action rifle with sling;
• Blood swabs from the Complainant;
• 2 cartridge cases; and
• 18 bullets.

The CFS determined that the Complainant could not be excluded as the source of the DNA profile from the grip area and butt end of the bolt action rifle.

Communications Recordings

The OPP provided a copy of the radio communication tactical channel recordings for September 19, 2020. The recording was 18 minutes and 41 seconds in length. The computer-aided dispatch report started at 2:40:44 p.m. (Eastern Time). The officers were identified by their last names in the recordings. There was no time stamp and the time was the counter time.

At 2:25 minutes (counter time), SO #1 said he saw a guy with a backpack, but he was out of sight. CP asked where and, at 2:36 minutes, SO #1 said they were running towards Roussin Road about 400 to 500 metres east of that. He was out of sight there.

At 3:18 minutes, SO #1 said they had voice contact and that the male was the Complainant.

At 3:26, CP asked whether they saw him.

At 3:31 minutes, an undesignated officer asked if the Complainant was on the tracks.

At 3:37 minutes, SO #2 said keep the chopper out of here. He asked for a couple of officers and noted that they were talking to him from the side of the rail bed. The officer indicated there was an open field and that the Complainant could not get away.

At 3:53 minutes, CP said everybody was en route and asked the undesignated officer to keep the helicopter away.

At 4:00 minutes, an officer said he was pulling onto Roussin Road, off of Schultz.

At 4:07 minutes, WO #3 said WO #3 and WO #4 were just north of the tracks, just off of Roussin.

At 4:12 minutes, another officer asked where SO #1 was.

At 4:18 minutes, SO #2 said they were on the train tracks and the Complainant had a gun in his hand.

At 4:24 minutes, in the background, SO #1 said, “Why do you have a gun?”

At 4:30 minutes, CP asked what type of gun the Complainant had.

At 4:31 minutes, SO #2 said it was a long gun.

At 4:32 minutes, CP asked if the officers were communicating with him.

At 4:35 minutes, SO #2 confirmed they were.

At 4:37 minutes, CP asked if the Complainant was talking back?

At 4:39 minutes, SO #2 said he was but that it seemed like he wanted to walk away.

At 4:45 minutes, CP indicated a need to set up containment around the Complainant.

At 4:56 minutes, SO #2 said the Complainant was behind the brush line walking and that his vest was in the truck. In the background, SO #1 said, “We have some water for you.” SO #2 advised that the officers were offering the Complainant water and what not, but he said he did not want it and was walking away from the officers to an open field.

At 5:24 minutes, SO #2 said the Complainant was walking through some brush and there was no way they could get around behind him.

At 5:33 minutes, CP said the Complainant was now a danger to the public and initiated an armed track. CP asked WO #2 if he wanted to lead.

At 5:42 minutes, SO #2 said they were trying to talk to him, but that he just wanted to walk. The Complainant was reported to have said that if the officers wanted to shoot him, they should just shoot him.

At 6:25 minutes, WO #1 said get medical just in case. In the background, an officer said, “We are here to help you.” WO #1 said they were talking to him out in the field.

At 6:53 minutes, WO #1 said WO #2 was requesting that WO #11 come with a second dog and two leashes.

At 7:05 minutes, an officer said SO #1 was negotiating with the Complainant.

At 7:57 minutes, WO #1 said the Complainant was down, “self-inflicted”.

At 8:00 minutes, an officer said, “Get medical right now, male is self-inflicted.”

Materials obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the OPP Dryden Detachment and Kenora Detachment:

• Computer-assisted Dispatch Event Details (x2);
• Communication recordings;
• General Occurrence Report (x2);
• Notes of SOs and WOs;
• OPP Exhibit List;
• OPP Search Document regarding the Complainant;
• Supplementary report (x11);
• Translation of journal;
• Will States of 10 undesignated officers;
• OPP Photos; and
• OPP Scene Video.

Materials obtained from Other Sources

The SIU also received the following records from the following non-police sources:

• Report of Post-mortem Examination, dated December 28, 2020, from the Coroner’s Office; and
• DNA Report dated November 12, 2020, from the CFS.

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with SO #1 and several other OPP witness officers. As was his legal right, SO #2 chose not to interview with the SIU. He did, however, authorize the release of his notes.

On September 12, 2020, the OPP was alerted to an abandoned vehicle by railway tracks in the area of Mason and Berglund Roads, Machin. The registration information and a passport, contained in the vehicle, indicated that it belonged to the Complainant. The vehicle also contained handwritten notes expressing suicidal ideation and suggesting the Complainant was in mental distress. The Complainant’s parents were contacted and confirmed that he suffered from mental health issues and had talked about suicide in the past. Fearing for the Complainant’s safety, the OPP organized a search and rescue operation. The goal was to find the Complainant as quickly as possible.

Under the management of WO #8, members of the OPP’s ERT, including SO #1 and SO #2, convened in the area to take part in the police search operations. Their ranks included police dog handlers and their service dogs. Over the next few days, the officers patrolled the area looking for signs of the Complainant, responding at times to reports of possible sightings of their subject. A helicopter, equipped with infra-red search capability, was also brought in to assist in the search. These efforts provided unsuccessful.

On September 17, 2020, officers arrived at the scene of a possible break-in at a hunting cabin on Dymterkos Road north of Highway 17. As the windows were broken but nothing of value was stolen, it was suspected that the Complainant might have used the facility for temporary shelter.

The following day, a property owner in the area contacted police to report that he had found a camouflaged jacket and backpack on his land near the hunting cabin. He took a picture of the items, showed them to the police and then returned to the site with officers to find that the clothing was no longer there. The owners of the cabin were shown the picture and confirmed the clothing belonged to them.

On September 19, 2020, while traveling eastward in their vehicle on Roussin Road, SO #1 and SO #2 spotted the Complainant. He was walking on railway tracks south of their location. SO #1 turned into a laneway and drove south toward the railway tracks, where he stopped his vehicle and exited with SO #2. Having lost sight of the Complainant, SO #1 called out to him. The Complainant re-emerged, rising to a standing position among the tall grass, at the base of the ditch that led down from the tracks.

SO #1 and SO #2 told the Complainant that they were there to help him. The Complainant indicated he did not need their help. The officers continued to speak with the Complainant over the course of the next few minutes, offering him food, water, accommodations and an opportunity to speak with his parents. The Complainant maintained that he could not be helped and refused all of their overtures. As the conversation continued, SO #1 noticed that the Complainant was holding a long object in his right hand against the right side of his body. With the use of his binoculars, the officer confirmed that it was a rifle. This was the first time there had been any indication in the week-long search campaign that the Complainant might be armed. The officers reported what they saw over their radio.

At word that the Complainant had a rifle, the focus of the police operation shifted to containment. A team of other ERT officers took up a position on a bridge over a creek to the east of the Complainant’s location to prevent his possible escape in that direction. SO #1 had returned to his vehicle to retrieve a C8 rifle. The Complainant asked the officer why he had a firearm and the officer answered asking about the Complainant’s rifle. The Complainant said his firearm was for hunting. Repeatedly asked to put down his rifle, the Complainant refused. Instead, he began to move eastward toward and then through a field.

Now joined by other ERT officers, SO #1 and SO #2 followed the Complainant from a distance. The Complainant traversed the open field and came to a stop in an area with tall grass and small trees. SO #1, about 50 metres away, recalled that the Complainant had spoken positively about a doctor in his journal and called out to him offering medical attention. The Complainant again replied that he did not want to speak with a doctor. He pointed to his head and asked SO #1, “Why don’t you just shoot me?” When the officer replied that he had no intention of doing that, the Complainant asked, “What if I shoot the police?” or words to that effect. SO #1 told him the police did not want that either. Shortly thereafter, the Complainant indicated this was where and/or when he would die, raised the rifle to the right side of his head, his left hand on the barrel and his right hand at the trigger, and fired his weapon. In the moments that the Complainant lifted and positioned is firearm, the officers screamed at him not to do it, to no avail. The Complainant body slumped to the ground.

All the police officers rushed to the Complainant. They noticed an entry wound to the right side of his head. There was no exit wound, but a noticeable deformation on the left side of the head. A pressure bandage was applied to the wound and the Complainant was carried to the search helicopter, which had landed in the vicinity, to be taken to hospital in Dryden.

The Complainant would subsequently be transported to Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, where he passed away on September 20, 2020.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to a gunshot wound of the head. The gunshot entry wound was at the right temple and the wound path involved both cerebral hemispheres. A metal projectile was recovered from beneath the intact left 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.

On September 19, 2020, the Complainant sustained a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head in Manchin, Ontario, succumbing to his injuries the following day in hospital. As OPP police officers had interacted with the Complainant and were in and around the area at the time of the shooting, 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 officer 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 captures conduct that reveals a reckless or wanton disregard for the lives or safety of others. Liability is predicated, in part, on behaviour that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable level of care in the circumstances. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was a want of care in the manner in which SO #1 and/or SO #2 dealt with the Complainant that caused or contributed to his death. In my view, there was not.

Both officers were part of a lawful week-long police operation aimed at finding the Complainant. The police, having inspected his abandoned car and spoken with his parents, had good cause to believe that the Complainant was in mental distress and a threat to himself and, possibly, others. A police officer’s foremost obligation is the protection and preservation of life. The OPP was duty bound to look for the Complainant.

The search and rescue operation, by all appearances, was conducted professionally. Specially trained officers – ERT members - were brought to the area to look for the Complainant. Over the course of several days, searches of various tracts of land around the Complainant’s abandoned vehicle and reported sightings of the Complainant were performed. The searches included the use of a helicopter and police dogs. A forensic psychiatrist was consulted, who provided advice regarding the Complainant’s potential motivations and whereabouts. While the Complainant was able to elude the police, at times, seemingly, breaking-in to various premises in the area for shelter and other items, I am satisfied it was not for want of trying by the police.

I am further satisfied that the involved officers conducted themselves reasonably when they found and confronted the Complainant in the afternoon of September 19, 2020. Realizing that the Complainant was mentally unwell, they approached the situation with tact. SO #1 appears to have taken the lead in talking with the Complainant. The officer reassured him that the police were there to help him. Food and accommodations were offered to the Complainant, as well as an opportunity to speak with his parents and see a doctor. So as to not excite or scare the Complainant, the helicopter in the air that was part of the search efforts was asked to keep its distance. And it was only when the Complainant was seen with a rifle in his hand by his side that SO #1 armed himself with a C8 rifle. By that time, the Complainant, whom the officers had no reason to believe was armed, suddenly constituted a real and present danger to himself and those around him. Though the Complainant indicated the firearm was for hunting, the officers had every reason to be concerned about the health and safety of everyone involved given the Complainant’s precarious mental state. In the circumstances, it would appear that the police acted reasonably in positioning officers around the Complainant with the intention of containing his movements and, eventually, effecting his apprehension under section 17 of the Mental Health Act. It is highly regrettable that the Complainant chose to shoot himself as the officers desperately implored him to stop, but, in the final analysis, I am of the view that he did so through no fault of the police. As for the possible deployment of less lethal weapons to incapacitate the Complainant, it should be noted that one of the officers present had an ARWEN. However, given the officer’s distance from the Complainant at the time, necessitated by the Complainant’s possession of a firearm, there was never a realistic opportunity to deploy the weapon. Finally, following the shooting, the officers acted with dispatch in rendering what aid they could to the Complainant and enlisted the services of the helicopter to fly the Complainant to hospital.

In the result, as I am satisfied for the foregoing reasons that SO #1 and SO #2 comported themselves within the law throughout their engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against either officer, and the file is closed.


Date: June 21, 2021

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit