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

Notification of the SIU

On January 20, 2022, at 2:44 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU and reported the following.

On January 20, 2022, at approximately 1:02 p.m., a Civilian Witness (CW) called 911 from her home and reported that her husband, the Complainant, had brandished a knife and threatened suicide. OPP officers from the Bancroft Detachment and the Emergency Response Team (ERT) attended and found the Complainant barricaded within a bedroom. There was a verbal interaction with the Complainant and an Anti-riot Weapon ENfield (ARWEN) and Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) were discharged. The Complainant was apprehended under the Mental Health Act (MHA) and transported to Quinte Health Care (QHC) – North Hastings Hospital (Bancroft) for a medical assessment. The Complainant was diagnosed with welts to his abdomen. He was subsequently released with no criminal charges.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 01/20/2022 at 5:14 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 01/21/2022 at 3:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators
assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

51-year-old male interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on January 22, 2022.

Civilian Witnesses

CW Not interviewed (Wife of the Complainant)

Subject Officials

SO #1 Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
SO #2 Declined notes and interview, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Not interviewed; notebook entries reviewed
WO #4 Not interviewed; notebook entries reviewed
WO #5 Not interviewed; notebook entries reviewed

WO #1 and WO #2 were interviewed on January 27, 2022.
WO #3, WO #4 and WO #5 remained outside the residence for scene security. They had no interaction with the Complainant, and therefore were not interviewed. Their notebook entries were obtained and reviewed.

The Scene

The scene was a bedroom within the main level of a residence located in the area of Sherbourne Street North and Rosedale Valley Road, Bancroft.

Physical Evidence

On January 20, 2022, at 8:30 p.m., a SIU forensic investigator attended the residence in Bancroft. Photographs and video recordings were taken of the scene. The SIU forensic investigator examined and collected an ARWEN projectile and casing. Also examined and seized was a discharged CEW, CEW cartridge, wires, probes, and Anti-Felon Identification (AFID) confetti.

Forensic Evidence

Information downloaded from the CEW revealed that it was fired on January 20, 2022, at 1:21 p.m., for a duration of six seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

This incident was confined to the interior of a residence and, as such, there was no third-party audio, video, or photographic records of the interaction. The OPP ERT officers were not wearing body-worn cameras.

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized. As was his legal right, SO #2 chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of the day in question, officers were dispatched to a house in Bancroft. They were there following a call to police by the CW reporting that her husband, the Complainant, was in the bedroom with a knife threatening to harm himself.

A team of ERT officers arrived at the residence, including SO #1, to find the Complainant in a bedroom holding a knife. Armed with an ARWEN, SO #1 took up a position by the open doorway of an office that formed part of the larger room containing the bedroom. He was kneeling and in front of WO #1, in a standing position by the doorway. WO #1 had been speaking with the Complainant to de-escalate the situation. The Complainant, standing by a bed, warned the officers that he would either cut himself or charge at the officers with the knife if they entered the bedroom.

WO #1 eventually managed to convince the Complainant to allow him and SO #1 into the office. Shortly after they entered, however, the Complainant became increasingly agitated and lifted the knife towards his chest area. Concerned that he was about to harm himself, SO #1 discharged his ARWEN at the Complainant. At the same time, SO #2, positioned by another doorway into the bedroom, fired his CEW at the Complainant. The weapons’ discharges met their mark and the Complainant fell to the floor.

The officers rushed towards the Complainant, dispossessed him of the knife and handcuffed him.

Paramedics who had been staging in the vicinity transported the Complainant to hospital from the scene.

The Complainant was diagnosed with a welt to the left side of his abdomen. He was released later that day from hospital.

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,

Section 17, Mental Health Act -- Action by police officer

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

On January 20, 2022, the Complainant was struck by an ARWEN round discharged by an OPP officer in Bancroft. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1 and SO #2 as the subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the subject officials committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident.

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.

SO #1, SO #2 and the rest of the officers who responded to the Complainant’s address were lawfully placed throughout the incident. Called to the house by the Complainant’s wife reporting that the Complainant was holding a knife and intending to harm himself, the officers were duty bound to attend at the residence to do what they reasonably could to prevent harm from materializing.

I am further satisfied that the officers were proceeding lawfully to apprehend the Complainant at the time they discharged their weapons. Given what they had been told, and what they gathered for themselves at the scene vis-à-vis the Complainant’s mental health and behaviour, the officers were within their rights in seeking to arrest the Complainant under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.

The force used by officers in aid of their lawful objectives was legally justified. Attempts to resolve the situation via dialogue had proven unsuccessful and the Complainant appeared on the precipice of self-harming – he had lifted the knife to his chest and began to breathe heavily – when SO #1 and SO #2 fired their weapons. In the circumstances, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officers acted unreasonably when they attempted to prevent grievous bodily harm or death coming to the Complainant by incapacitating him with a CEW and ARWEN – the weapons held the prospect of immediately immobilizing the Complainant to allow the officers to safely approach and take him into custody. And that is precisely what occurred, with the Complainant having only suffered a welt by the ARWEN round impact.

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official comported himself unlawfully in their dealings with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: May 19, 2022


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit