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 death of a woman in Chapleau (the “Complainant”) on January 20, 2022. 

Notification of the SIU

On January 21, 2022, at 2:56 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On January 20, 2022, at approximately 5:16 p.m., a female (now known to be the Complainant) contacted a friend via text. The text contained an image of herself holding a firearm, indicating that she wanted to end her life. The friend contacted police, and officers arrived at the Complainant’s residence at approximately 5:31 p.m. One officer, the Subject Official (SO), shouted out to the Complainant through an unlocked back door. When the officer received no response, he disengaged from the residence awaiting the arrival of the Tactical Unit. On January 21, 2022, sometime just prior to 1:42 a.m., tactical officers entered the residence to find the Complainant with what appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest.

The scene has been secured and the coroner has been contacted.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 01/21/2022 at 6:13 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 01/21/2022 at 1:27 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

The Scene

The location of the incident was the interior of a residence in Chapleau. The street the residence was on ran in a general north - south direction. The house was a single family detached bungalow. There was a pickup truck in the driveway and there was a spike belt behind the rear tires.

The house had three bedrooms. There was a living room, a dining room, and a kitchen on the main floor. There was a blanket and pillow on top of the sofa in the living room that appeared to have been used. The television in the living room was on. The master bedroom was in the corner of the house. The blanket on the bed was partially pulled back. There was another bedroom in the house with blankets and pillows covering the bed. There was an office near the main entry hall. There was no sign of disturbance and no sign of forced entry. The basement of the home had furniture and boxes and was undergoing repair or renovations.

The Complainant’s body was in the smallest of the three bedrooms, converted to an office. The door opened inward. There were filing cabinets along the wall and a printer table in a corner. There was an L-shaped desk. The office was equipped with a computer, fax machine and copier. The Complainant was in the approximate middle of the room, in an office chair facing the doorway. She was slouched in the chair with her head against the right arm rest of the chair, and her legs outstretched. There was an apparent gunshot injury to her left upper chest. There was a rifle on the ground just beyond her feet.

The Complainant was wearing a white sweater, burgundy-coloured stretch pants, socks, and slippers. No blood was visible on the front of her body. There were black gun powder stains radiating around the hole in her sweater. There was a perforating hole to the chair seatback and a hole to the wall. It appeared a projectile had penetrated the wall.

On the desk next to the body was a box of Federal Premium .44 calibre magnum ammunition. There are 11 cartridges in the box that originally contained 20.

The following scenario emerges from the evidence collected by the SIU, which included an interview with the SO and several officers involved in the police operation that developed in and around the Complainant’s home.

The Complainant had not been doing well in the days before the events in question. At about 5:15 p.m. of January 20, 2022, the Complainant sent a text message to CW #1 and CW #2. The message contained a photograph of a firearm and indicated that she was planning to take her own life. CW #1 quickly alerted the police.

The SO learned of the 911 call that had been received and attended at the Complainant’s home to check on her well-being. He was joined at the residence by WO #2 and an officer from the Nishnawbe Aski Police Service. The SO called-out to the Complainant from outside the home but received no response. The officers peered into the residence through windows but could not see the Complainant. Entering through the unlocked rear door of the residence, the SO proceeded a distance into the home - again calling out to the Complainant without response – before exiting through the same doorway. It was decided that tactical officers would be deployed to the scene because the Complainant was reported to be in possession of a firearm.
As the incident had effectively become one involving a potentially armed person barricaded in her home, a critical incident commander – WO #1 – was assigned to lead the police response. A command post was established in an arena in the area of the Complainant’s home. Patrol and ERT officers were deployed to contain the scene pending the arrival of a team of TRU officers. In the time before the TRU officers arrived, repeated calls to the Complainant’s phone went unanswered. The SO was also able to confirm with the Complainant’s family that the photograph she had sent accurately depicted the inside of the home and one of the family’s firearms – a .44-calibre lever action long gun. Paramedics had also been summoned to the scene and were staging at the command post awaiting word when they could safely enter the residence.

TRU members were flown in to Chapleau, touching down at the local airport shortly after 11:00 p.m. By about 11:50 p.m., they were on scene and ready for active deployment. WO #3 and WO #6 were assigned to conduct reconnaissance around the perimeter of the home. Like the officers before them, they too were unable to locate the Complainant through the windows. A robot was subsequently sent into the home and went room to room trying to locate the Complainant with negative results. At about 1:03 a.m., approval was given to send officers into the home with a police dog and the dog’s handler – WO #7. The dog picked up a human scent behind a closed door. Opening the door of the room – an office – the officers walked in to find the Complainant slumped on an office chair and without vital signs. A bullet wound was found on her upper left chest. A corresponding exit wound was located on her back. Beside her on the floor was a .44 calibre lever action rifle. The time was about 1:46 a.m.

Paramedics were dispatched to the home to examine the Complainant. She was confirmed deceased at 1:50 a.m.

Sections 219 and 220, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Death

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

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.

The Complainant was found deceased in her home in Chapleau by OPP officers in the early morning of January 21, 2022. She had died of a self-inflicted gunshot to the left chest. OPP officers had been on scene around the Complainant’s home from the late afternoon of the day prior. One of those officers – the SO – was identified as the subject official for purposes of the ensuing SIU investigation. 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 Complainant’s death.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 220 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. Simple negligence is not enough to give rise to liability; rather, what is required is a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised. In the instant case, the issue is whether there is any indication in the conduct of the SO or any of the other officers involved in the police operation of a want of care, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. In my view, there is not.

The SO was in the lawful execution of his duty when he attended at the Complainant’s residence to check on her well-being. He had received word from an acquaintance of the Complainant that she was imminently planning to end her life with a firearm. A police officer’s foremost obligation is the protection of life and the officer was within his rights, as were those that accompanied and followed him, to do what they reasonably could to prevent harm coming to the Complainant.

I am also satisfied that the SO and the officers involved in the operations that culminated in the discovery of the Complainant’s body in the home comported themselves at all times with due care and regard for the Complainant’s welfare. The SO was prudent to pull back and wait for the arrival of tactical officers before entry was made into the home. He had good reason to believe that the Complainant was in distress and apparently in possession of a firearm. The tactical officers under the overall command of WO #1 acted with care and dispatch once at the scene. Again, because of their understanding of a firearm potentially at play, they reasonably refrained from making immediate entry into the home. Instead, they deployed a robot and repeatedly called-out to reach the Complainant. When those efforts had been exhausted without success, TRU officers entered the home and located the Complainant with the assistance of a police dog. The Complainant was obviously deceased, leaving little for the officers to do at that point other than have the paramedics attend the scene.

In the final analysis, it is unclear whether the Complainant had been shot or was even alive by the time the first officers arrived at the scene. In fact, it might well be the case that the Complainant was already dead by the time of their arrival. Be that as it may, as I am satisfied for the foregoing reasons that the SO and the other involved officers did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.


Date: May 20, 2022

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit