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 serious injury a 29-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.

Notification of the SIU

On November 21, 2021, at 5:39 p.m., the Kawartha Lakes Police Service (KLPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

Reportedly, at 4:23 p.m., November 21, 2021, police officers responded to call from the Complainant’s mother, who reported her son, the Complainant, was suicidal. The Complainant had a history of mental health issues and had on a previous occasion stabbed his mother. When police officers arrived at 4:25 p.m., the Complainant came to the door armed with a butcher knife and cut his own throat. By 4:32 p.m., the Complainant was in custody and transported to Ross Memorial Hospital (RMH) where, assessed as critical, he was to be transported to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 11/21/2021 at 7:04 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 11/21/2021 at 7:45 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

The Scene

The incident occurred in and around the Complainant’s residence situated in Lindsay, Ontario.

A SIU Forensic Investigator attended the scene at 9:08 p.m., November 21, 2021, to process it forensically. It was photographed, and video recorded.

The scene was a house with two entrances. The common entrance was on the side of the house adjacent the driveway. A less used entrance was at the front of the house. Steps led to a porch, or landing, that reached the elevated side entrance. The side entrance consisted of a storm door, with broken window, and a standard exterior door with a window. The doors accessed the kitchen. From the kitchen, one could access a dining room.

There was blood pooled on the floor in the kitchen, opposite the door.

There was a ball cap, a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) blast door and CEW anti-felon identification tags (AFIDs) near the pooled blood. Next to the door, inside a boot tray, was a bloody 31.75-centimetre kitchen knife. Just outside the doorway, on the landing, was another CEW blast door.

A significant pool of blood existed on the floor of the dining room.

The area was rough sketched, and measurements were obtained for a scene drawing.

Physical Evidence

The following physical evidence was collected by the SIU:

• Exhibit 1: CEW AFIDs from kitchen.
• Exhibit 2: CEW blast door from kitchen floor.
• Exhibit 3: CEW blast door from landing.
• Exhibit 4: Spent CEW cartridge.
• Exhibit 5: CEW Taser X29.
• Exhibit 6: Bloody knife.

Figure 1 – Officer #1’s CEW



Figure 2 – The Complainant’s knife

Forensic Evidence

CEW - Officer #1

The CEW offline report recorded it was armed at 4:27 p.m., on November 21, 2021. [1] There followed a trigger activation that deployed the 25-foot standard cartridge in cartridge position one at 4:28:59 p.m. That CEW was then made safe at 4:29:32 p.m., on November 21, 2021, with cartridge one deployed and cartridge two ready to be deployed.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

911 Call

The 911 call recording was requested on November 22, 2021, and received by the SIU on November 25, 2021.

CW #1 called 911 on November 21, 2021, at 4:23:01 p.m., to request police and ambulance at her house because her son was trying to commit suicide. She told the 911 operator that the Complainant had schizophrenia, was cutting himself, was trying to slit his throat with a butcher knife, and had a history of assaulting her. The operator assured her police were en route.

CW #1 also informed the operator she was outside the house. The Complainant was inside the house, in the dining room. She wanted him taken to the hospital and asked the operator to direct the police to arrive without their lights or sirens activated because that could further upset the Complainant.

The following scenario emerges from the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the Complainant, and several police officers and civilians present at the scene who witnessed the incident in parts.

Shortly before 4:30 p.m. of November 21, 2021, KLPS officers began arriving at the Complainant’s residence in Lindsay. They had been dispatched to the location following a 911 call to police by CW #1, the Complainant’s mother. CW #1 reported that her son was in possession of a knife and threatening to kill himself. She confirmed that information to one of the attending police officers on the driveway of her home, and was then directed to wait by the detached garage of the property.

The half-dozen officers organized a perimeter outside the home, with Officer #1 and Officer #2 taking up positions by the stairs and landing to the side entrance. Aware that the Complainant was in possession of a knife, and that he had previously been involved in an episode of domestic violence involving a knife, the plan was to contain the residence pending the arrival of a negotiator. Before arrangements could be made to deploy a negotiator and other police resources to the area, however, events compelled the officers into a more proactive posture.

Specifically, Officer #1 and Officer #2 saw the Complainant through the glass of the screen door cutting his throat with a knife. The officers entered the residence, confronted the Complainant, and directed him to drop the knife. Officer #1, within seconds of entering the home, discharged his CEW at the Complainant, causing the Complainant to fall to the floor just inside the doorway. The officers proceeded to handcuff the Complainant behind the back, and carried him outside to a waiting ambulance.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and treated for a 12-centimetre laceration across the left front of the neck.

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,

The Complainant was seriously injured in his home in Lindsay on November 21, 2021. As KLPS officers were present on the property at the time of the injury, the SIU was notified and initiated an investigation. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the involved officers committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s injury.

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 required or authorized to do by law.

The officers who responded to the 911 call made by CW #1 were at all times lawfully placed and in the execution of their duties throughout their engagement with the Complainant. An officer’s foremost duty is the protection and preservation of life. Aware that the Complainant was inside his mother’s residence in possession of a knife and intending to harm himself, the officers were duty bound to do what they reasonably could to prevent that from occurring.

I am also satisfied that the force used against the Complainant, in substance, a CEW discharge by Officer #1, was legally justified. Though it is unclear in the evidence whether the Complainant still had possession of the knife when he was subjected to the CEW discharge, the fact is he had just used it to self-inflict a serious neck wound. In light of his recent possession of the knife, the speed with which events unfolded, and the need to immediately incapacitate the Complainant lest he be in a position to continue to harm himself or, possibly, the officers, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the single CEW deployment was excessive in the circumstances.

Aside from the CEW discharge, it should further be noted that there is no evidence of any want of care on the part of the involved officers that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s injury. The officers acted reasonably in first establishing a perimeter around the home in the interests of public safety. The Complainant was apparently of unsound mind at the time and in possession of a knife, and the officers were right to be concerned about possible risks to third-parties should the Complainant leave the home. Thereafter, though efforts were made to have a negotiator attend the scene, their hands were forced when the Complainant was seen cutting his neck. At that point, reasonably, in my view, Officer #1 and Officer #2 decided to physically engage the Complainant to prevent him doing further harm. Indeed, but for their efforts, it might well be that the Complainant would have suffered an even more serious, and potentially lethal, fate.

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the involved officers comported themselves unlawfully in their dealings with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. Accordingly, the file is closed.


Date: March 21, 2022


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit