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 discharge of a less-lethal firearm at a 51-year-old man (“the Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On July 15, 2021 at 2:25 a.m., the Chatham-Kent Police Service (CKPS) reported the following.

On July 14, 2021 at 9:11 p.m., police officers responded to a 911 hang-up call from a residence in Chatham. When officers arrived at the residence, the Complainant exited carrying what appeared to be a baseball bat. He returned inside and exited carrying a machete. The Complainant returned inside the residence a third time and exited carrying what officers believed to be a crossbow.

The CKPS containment team arrived and attempted to negotiate with the Complainant. The Complainant returned inside the residence, put on a tactical vest, and began to taunt the officers. The Complainant’s wife arrived at the residence while his daughter was inside the residence. Police officers had several conversations with the Complainant, who was known to police.

At 1:45 a.m., on July 15, 2021, the Complainant came out of the residence carrying a machete and began to walk towards the officers. A Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) was deployed, followed by a less-lethal round. The Complainant was struck in the leg with the less-lethal round and taken into custody.

Paramedics arrived and removed the CEW probes from the Complainant, and he was cleared medically.

CKPS had seized the less-lethal firearm and the CEW probes.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 07/15/2021 at 3:19 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 07/15/2021 at 6:37 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

The Scene

The scene was a single-storey house with a paved driveway but no garage. There was a sidewalk leading from the driveway to the front door. There were CEW anti-felon identification tags and blast doors on the driveway in the area of the sidewalk.

The scene was photographed.

Physical Evidence

At 7:57 a.m., the SIU forensic investigators met with an officer, who turned over a ‘foam baton’ projectile and cartridge case.

At the same time, a rifle used to fire the ammunition, a Lewis Machine Tool (LMT) Model 40mm Launcher, was photographed.


Figure 1 - The SO's LMT Launcher.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the CKPS:

• Event Chronology (x3)
• Communications Recordings; and
• Notes of the SO and WOs.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the following other sources:

• Ambulance Call report.

The following scenario emerges from the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the Complainant, a number of civilian eyewitnesses, and police officers who were in and around the area at the time of the shooting. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of July 14, 2021, two police officers arrived at the Complainant’s home in Chatham. They were there following a 911 call made by the Complainant’s wife, CW #1. CW #1 and the Complainant had been arguing that day and CW #1 had begun to feel threatened, prompting her call to police. Before her call was answered, CW #1 had hung up the phone. The police were able to ascertain her address and had dispatched officers to check on her well-being.

While the officers were outside, their cruiser parked on the other side of the street from the residence, the Complainant exited his home to confront them. He told them in no uncertain terms that they were not welcome and should leave. The officers explained that there had been a 911 call from the home, but a skeptical Complainant remained belligerent. He held in his hands a crossbow.

CW #1 exited the home, briefly spoke to the officers, told them she had not been assaulted, and left to run an errand. When she returned, at about 10:00 p.m., the initial police officers were no longer there. The Complainant was inside speaking with a police officer on the phone.

The police officer was WO #2, a member of the CKPS Critical Incident Response Team (CIRT). [1] As a trained negotiator, WO #2 contacted the home hoping to de-escalate the situation and have the Complainant surrender peacefully to arrest – the decision had been made to take the Complainant into custody for being in possession of a weapon dangerous to the public. Following a number of phone calls between the two, it was apparent to WO #2 that the Complainant had no intention of giving himself up. The Complainant threatened that there would be violence if the police went onto his property. If they entered his home, the Complainant said there would be a “bloodbath”.

A CIRT team was dispatched to the property and arrived with an armoured-vehicle, which was parked on the driveway. The time was about 1:00 a.m. Members of the team took up positions around the vehicle, including the SO with a less-lethal firearm, after which WO #2 contacted the Complainant by phone again and asked him to come out.

The Complainant did so, this time brandishing a machete. He continued to rebuff all efforts by WO #2 to reduce tensions, and repeatedly threatened the officers. At one point, the Complainant talked about how quickly he could advance on the officers with the machete. At another, when asked about other family members in the house, the Complainant asked WO #2 how he knew they were not already dead. [3] At yet another, he reached behind his back into his waistline and quickly pulled his hand out, pointing his finger at police, as if he was retrieving and pointing a firearm.

At about 1:45 a.m., the Complainant walked down the steps of his front porch and onto the driveway, machete still in hand. Repeatedly directed to stop and drop his weapon by the officers on scene, the Complainant refused and walked in their direction. From a distance of about 10 to 13 metres, he was struck by a less-lethal foam round fired by the SO. The impact stopped the Complainant in his tracks, after which he began to move back towards the porch. At about this time, WO #2 and WO #1 discharged their CEWs at the Complainant. The Complainant fell to the ground and was handcuffed behind his back.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code -- Protection of persons acting under authority

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

On July 15, 2021, the Complainant was struck by a less-lethal round discharged by a CKPS officer in the course of his arrest. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The officer who discharged his weapon – the SO – was identified as the subject official. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the discharge of his firearm.

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were authorized or required to do by law.

In view of the 911 call CW #1 had placed, the uncertainty that remained around the nature of the call and the well-being of others inside the residence, and the Complainant’s threatening behaviour while in possession of a weapon, I am satisfied that the police were within their rights in seeking to arrest the Complainant for being in possession of a dangerous weapon. I am further satisfied that the officers were lawfully placed at the time of the shooting, including being in and around the driveway of the home. More specifically, the exigencies of the situation entitled the officers to take up positions in the vicinity of the house in the interests of public safety.

As for the propriety of the firearm discharge by the SO, it clearly constituted reasonably necessary force. At the time, the Complainant was advancing on the officers with a weapon clearly capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm and death. When he failed to stop and disarm himself, and instead neared to within 10 to 13 metres of the SO, and closer to other officers, the subject official acted reasonably in meeting a potentially lethal attack with a resort to a less-lethal weapon – a ‘launcher’ that discharged foam-nosed projectiles. The force used by the officer performed as intended – the projectile struck the Complainant in the abdomen and prompted him to retreat. Thereafter, following several CEW discharges by a couple of other officers, the Complainant was taken into custody without serious injury.

In the result, as I am satisfied that the SO comported himself lawfully in his engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the officer. The file is closed.


Date: February 7, 2022


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit