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 29-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On September 9, 2020, at 2:00 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s death. According to the OPP, on September 9, 2020, at 12:30 p.m., OPP police officers responded to an address on Third Street, Collingwood, for a report of a barricaded man. As they were setting up a perimeter, the man [now known to be the Complainant] walked out of the residence with a shotgun. The Subject Officer (SO) confronted the Complainant and deployed a conducted energy weapon (CEW) with no success. When the Complainant levelled the shotgun, the SO fired his firearm. The Complainant was taken to Collingwood Marine Hospital and pronounced deceased.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned : 4

Interviews of witness officers were protracted due to the coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) pandemic and ensuing employment protocols during this investigation.

SIU investigators interviewed civilian and police witnesses, canvassed for additional witnesses, and searched for closed-circuit television (CCTV) data in the area where the incident occurred.

SIU investigators utilized social media to canvass for and garner the cooperation of a civilian who had made a local broadcast media outlet aware of his presence in the area of the incident when it transpired; however, the prospective civilian witness ultimately chose not to cooperate with the SIU.

SIU forensic investigators made digital photographs and a drawing of the scene, collected exhibits and utilized the services of a Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) police service dog (PSD) to assist with the search for firearm projectiles that were not overt and already located by SIU forensic investigators in the area of the scene.

SIU investigators obtained CCTV data of unknown quality and quantity from an address on Third Street in the immediate area of the incident; however, at the time of this report, SIU investigators had been unable to distil from the data any images having prospective probative value. Despite efforts made by SIU investigators to retrieve CCTV recordings of the interaction between the SO and the Complainant, which may very-well have been captured, it appeared that those specific recordings were either no longer on the memory card, not able to be viewed, or never recorded at all.

Complainant:

29-year-old male, deceased

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3  Interviewed
CW #4  Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed
CW #6 Interviewed
CW #7 Interviewed
CW #8 Interviewed
CW #9 Interviewed
CW #10 Interviewed
CW #11 Interviewed
CW #12 Interviewed
CW #13 Interviewed
CW #14 Interviewed
CW #15 Interviewed
CW #16 Interviewed
CW #17 Interviewed
CW #18 Interviewed
CW #19 Interviewed
CW #20 Interviewed
CW #21 Interviewed

Witness Officers

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

Subject Officers

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

The Scene

The scene was on the sidewalk in the area of Third and Beech Streets in Collingwood. Numerous members of the OPP were at the scene restricting vehicle and pedestrian traffic. The area was comprised primarily of single-family residences.

Located in the intersection facing south was a marked, OPP Tahoe police cruiser [believed to be operated by the SO]. On the sidewalk of the northwest corner were a single-shot Cooey Model 84 shotgun, one viable shotgun shotshell, one CEW wire with a probe attached to it, and 11 empty .223 calibre cartridges. There were also bloodstains on the sidewalk. Inside the OPP Tahoe police cruiser on the passenger’s seat was one CEW assigned to the SO.

The material events in question are clear on the evidence gathered by the SIU, which included interviews with multiple civilian witnesses, the SO, and other officers who participated in the police operation that ended in the Complainant’s death, as well as information derived from forensic examination of the scene and items of evidence.

Shortly after 1:00 p.m. of September 9, 2020, the Complainant was shot and felled by the SO while standing on the northwest corner of the Third and Beech Streets intersection. In all, the SO discharged 11 rounds from his C8 rifle. The Complainant was holding a shotgun aimed in the SO’s direction at the time of the shooting.

The shooting was the culmination of a train of events set in motion the evening before. The Complainant, who resided at an address on Third Street, had quarreled with CW #10. The situation got out of hand and CW #10 called the police. Officers attended and prevailed on the Complainant to find accommodation elsewhere for the night. He did and left for his mother’s home.

The following day, at about 12:30 p.m., CW #10 called the police again to report that a suicidal Complainant, who had returned from his mother’s home, had locked himself in his room with an unloaded shotgun that was inoperable. The investigation revealed some evidence the Complainant wanted “death by cop”.

At about 12:30 p.m., police officers were dispatched to the area. Among them, WO #5 and WO #8 attended at the home and evacuated CW #1, CW #10 and another resident, CW #17. As she was making her way out, CW #10 told the officers that the shotgun in the Complainant’s possession was, in fact, loaded. WO #5 advised the communications centre of this development, as well as a sergeant making his way to the scene, WO #1. The information was broadcast to all officers.

The SO, an ERT officer, arrived at the scene, was briefed by WO #1 and parked his police SUV in the middle of the Third and Beech Streets intersection. The officer took cover behind the passenger side of WO #5’s cruiser, which she had parked on the east side of Beech Street just north of Third Street. As he started changing into his hard body armour, the SO heard over his radio that the Complainant had briefly emerged from the home with a gun in hand. The officer took hold of his C8 rifle and, taking a position behind the engine compartment of WO #5’s cruiser, knelt to stay hidden.

Within seconds of the initial reports of the Complainant exiting his home, he emerged again, this time through an opening in the hedges that bordered the east side of the property. His right hand by the trigger, the Complainant was holding a shotgun parallel to the ground. The SO was directly across the street from the Complainant. The officer trained his C8 at the Complainant and repeatedly yelled at him not to move and to drop the gun. The Complainant was unmoved. He raised his left hand in the officer’s direction, made an obscene gesture and said, “Fuck you,” after which he turned to his right and started to walk south.

The SO stopped yelling commands and came out around the front end of WO #5’s cruiser onto Beech Street. His C8 rifle held in his right hand, the butt pressed against his right shoulder and still aimed at the Complainant, the SO drew his CEW with his left hand. The officer neared to within 4 to 7 metres of the Complainant, stopped and discharged the weapon. The CEW probes missed the Complainant, but caught his attention.

The Complainant, by now on a patch of grass between a fire hydrant and a stop sign at the northwest corner of the intersection, turned to face the SO behind him. He was still holding the shotgun in the same position, the barrel pointed toward the SO as he stopped his turn. The SO tossed his CEW aside and grabbed his C8 with both hands. Still on the roadway several metres north of the Complainant, the officer yelled at the Complainant to put the gun down. The Complainant told the officer, “Fuck you,” after which he was on the receiving end of a barrage of gunfire from the SO.

The SO fired 11 shots, eight of which struck the Complainant.

WO #1 and WO #11 rushed toward the Complainant and began to administer first aid. Paramedics, staged at the scene on Third Street, east of the intersection, arrived and took over the Complainant’s care. He was transported to hospital and subsequently pronounced deceased at 1:26 p.m.

The Complainant had been holding a Cooey Model 84 shotgun. It, together with a shotgun shotshell, were recovered by the SIU at the scene. The results of testing by the CFS concluded that the shotgun functioned correctly as a break-open single shot shotgun. The weapon was not loaded at the time it was obtained by the SIU.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy attributed the Complainant’s death to multiple gunshot wounds.

Section 34, Criminal Code -- Defence of person - Use of threat of force

(a) They believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person; 

(b) The act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

(c) The act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

(a) the nature of the force or threat;

(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;

(c) the person’s role in the incident;

(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon; 

(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;

(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and 

(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

On September 9, 2020, the Complainant passed away as the result of multiple gunshot wounds inflicted by an OPP police officer in the course of a standoff in Collingwood. The officer – the SO – was identified as a 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.

Pursuant to section 34 of the Criminal Code, the use of force that would otherwise constitute an offence is legally justified provided it was intended in the defence of oneself or another from a reasonably apprehended attacked, actual or threatened, and was itself reasonable. With respect to the reasonableness of the force, it is to be assessed against all the relevant circumstances, including with respect to such considerations as: the nature of the force or threat; the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force; whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon; and, the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force. In my view, the force used by the SO fell within the four corners of the justification set out in section 34.

I accept that the SO discharged his C8 rifle believing it was necessary to protect himself and others around him, including other officers and civilians in the area, from a lethal risk presented by the Complainant. That is what the officer told the SIU, and that is what is borne out by the circumstances. Though the shotgun in the possession of the Complainant was unloaded, the officer would not have known that. In fact, just the opposite; he had learned over the radio moments before the shooting that the shotgun was loaded. Confronted by a seemingly operable firearm pointed in his direction, I am satisfied that the SO acted to thwart a threat of imminent death to himself and others.

I am further satisfied that the SO’s use of force was reasonable. For starters, the officer was lawfully placed at the time he approached the Complainant and subsequently shot him. An officer’s foremost duty is the protection and preservation of life, and the SO was in the lawful execution of his duty as he responded to the scene following reports of a suicidal Complainant armed with a gun. Thereafter, when the Complainant emerged from the home and adopted a defiant posture, weapon in hand, as he strolled south toward the intersection, he constituted a clear and present danger to the well-being of the SO and other officers in the area, as well as civilians in and around their homes. Accordingly, the officer was within his rights in tracking the Complainant southward and challenging his continued movements.

The exigencies of the moment speak to the reasonableness of the SO’s actions. The officer was within two to three metres of the Complainant at the time of the shooting. To reiterate, the Complainant had turned in the SO’s direction pointing what the officer could only assume was a fully loaded and functional shotgun. At that moment, the SO was faced with imminent death with nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. In the circumstances, it is difficult to see what else the officer could have done other than to discharge his weapon if he was to preserve himself.

The context around the shooting is also instructive. The Complainant was intent on provoking what he hoped would be a lethal confrontation with police. He had made that clear just before the officers’ arrival when he talked about wanting “death by cop”. Though the SO would not have been privy to that information at the time, the Complainant’s motivation lends credence to the SO’s perceptions at the time, namely, that the Complainant’s conduct left him no choice but to fire his weapon. Moreover, it is important to note that the SO had already shown a significant degree of restraint. Arguably, though the Complainant’s behaviour before the shooting, as he stepped onto the sidewalk and then started walking south toward Third Street, presented an immediate risk of death or grievous bodily harm to the SO and others, the officer chose first to engage him verbally and then with his CEW. It was only when those options failed to neutralize the Complainant that the SO turned to his firearm.

Finally, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO acted excessively with respect to the number of shots he fired – 11 in total. The officer explained that he fired his weapon until the Complainant fell to the ground and was no longer a threat. Given the rapidity with which the SO fired his weapon, and the weight of the witness evidence indicating that the Complainant fell after the final shot was discharged, I accept the officer’s evidence at its word. On this record, with the Complainant on his feet with a shotgun in hand until the final shot, I am satisfied that the SO’s apprehensions regarding the nature of the threat and the necessity of resorting to his C8 rifle, remained reasonable throughout the period of gunfire.

In the result, as I am satisfied for the foregoing reasons that there is insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that the SO comported himself other than lawfully throughout his encounter with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: August 23, 2021

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit