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 firearm by the police at a 37-year-old man (the “Complainant”)

Notification of the SIU

On July 4, 2022, at 4:54 p.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) notified the SIU of a firearm discharge and a self-inflicted knife wound to the Complainant.

The OPS reported that on July 4, 2022, at 12:37 p.m., they received a 911 call from a neighbour regarding a domestic dispute at a building unit on Claremont Drive, Ottawa. Upon the arrival of an OPS officer, a woman exited the residence, but the Complainant refused and barricaded himself. Members of the OPS Tactical Unit (TU) and Crisis Negotiators Unit (CNU) attended, and the Complainant threatened to cut his throat should any effort be made to enter the apartment. Negotiations commenced and contact was made with the Complainant, who had previously cut the left side of his neck. TU officers breached the front door to enter the apartment. An Anti-riot Weapon ENfield (ARWEN) was discharged, and the projectile struck the Complainant’s right thigh. He was taken into custody and transported to The Ottawa Hospital – Civic Campus (OHCC). After receiving sutures to close the wound on his neck, the Complainant was discharged and held for a bail hearing.

The Scene

On July 4, 2022, at 9:03 p.m., a SIU Forensic Investigator (FI) attended a building unit on Claremont Drive. He took photographs of the unit, which included a kitchen area with a large amount of pooled blood on the floor. This was where the interaction occurred between OPS TU officers and the Complainant. The SIU FI also examined and collected an ARWEN projectile and casing.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) and Communications Recordings

On July 4, 2022, at 8:44 p.m., the OPS provided the SIU with the CAD and 911 digital communications recordings for the event involving the Complainant on July 4, 2022. These records revealed CW #2 as she contacted the OPS via 911 on July 4, 2022, at 12:36 p.m., to report yelling, fighting and the violent movement of furniture within a building unit.

Uniform patrol officers arrived and attempted to have the Complainant’s partner and the Complainant exit the apartment, but they refused. Eventually, the Complainant’s partner exited. The Complainant threatened OPS officers that if they made attempts to enter, he would “slit his throat”.

CNU and TU officers attended, and dialogue ensued. As the situation deteriorated, the Complainant presented as agitated, and he advertised having armed himself with a firearm and a knife. Communication ended, and TU officers forced entry and an ARWEN was discharged.

The Complainant was taken into custody and, at 3:50 p.m., he was transported to the OHCC for medical assessment for injuries related to a self-inflicted cut to his neck and an ARWEN deployment.

At 12:47 a.m., July 5, 2022, the Complainant was discharged from hospital and transported to the OPS lock-up facility where he was held for a bail hearing.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU reviewed the following materials from the OPS between July 5 and 15, 2022:

• Digital copy of the 911 call as placed by CW #2;
• CAD report;
• Occurrence Report;
• Investigative Action (IA) statements and notebook entries- WO #6;
• IA and notebook entries – WO #3;
• IA and notebook entries – WO #2;
• IA and notebook entries – WO #1;
• IA and notebook entries – WO #4;
• IA and notebook entries – WO #5;
• IA and notebook entries – WO #7;
• IA and notebook entries – WO #6;
• IA and notebook entries – WO #8;
• List of all involved officers;
• Policy - Hostage and Barricaded Persons;
• Policy - Use of Force;
• Witness Statement – CW #2;
• Witness Statement – CW #3; and
• Prosecution Summary.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

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

• The Complainant’s medical records from OHCC; and
• Canadian Police Information Centre query – the Complainant.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with the Complainant and an officer who witnessed the events in question (WO #2) gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO declined an interview with the SIU or to authorize the release of his notes.

At about 12:30 p.m. of July 4, 2022, the OPS received a 911 call from a person on Claremont Drive. The caller – CW #2 – reported a disturbance involving occupants of a residence. They had been yelling and fighting. OPS officers were dispatched to the address.

The persons quarreling in the building unit were a woman and her estranged partner – the Complainant. The Complainant was subject to a court order at the time that he not have any direct or indirect communication with the woman.

The first officer to arrive on scene – at about 12:50 p.m. - was WO #5. The officer knocked on the door of the unit and called-out to the occupants. Following a period of silence, the Complainant announced that he would slit his throat if officers entered the unit. WO #5 was eventually able to speak with the Complainant’s partner through a second-floor window. The Complainant’s partner was reluctant but eventually agreed to exit the apartment. The Complainant was not happy that his partner had left; he yelled from a second-floor window and was observed by officers on the ground to have a cut to the left side of his neck with dried blood around it.

At about 2:10 p.m., WO #8 was on scene as the lead negotiator. He spoke with the Complainant through a second-floor window in an effort to bring the standoff to a peaceful resolution, but to no avail. The Complainant continued to threaten that he would slit his throat if officers entered the apartment. He was seen with a razor blade in his possession. As the negotiations continued, the Complainant held a knife to his throat at one point and mentioned that he had a gun.

Tactical officers who had convened at the home, including the SO, entered the residence at about 3:30 p.m. These officers, a team of five, included an officer with a conducted energy weapon at the ready. The SO was assigned the use of an ARWEN should the weapon be necessary. The officers forced entry through the front door and observed the Complainant at the top of a set of stairs leading to the second-floor apartment. One of the officers, WO #2, directed the Complainant to come down. The Complainant refused and, instead, threw an object at the officers. The SO reacted by firing his ARWEN twice. The first round struck the Complainant’s right leg; the second round missed.

Unaffected by the ARWEN round impact, the Complainant ran into the apartment with the officers giving chase. Confronted by the officers, the Complainant cut the left side of his neck with a knife or razor, after which he was taken to the floor by the SO. As he lay struggling with the officers on the floor, they attempted to stem the flow of blood from his neck.

The Complainant was eventually handcuffed and seen by tactical paramedics at the scene. He was transported to hospital and treated for lacerations to the left side 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,

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 July 4, 2022, the OPS contacted the SIU to report that one of their officers – the SO – had fired an ARWEN at a person – the Complainant – earlier that day. The SIU initiated an investigation naming the SO 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 use of the ARWEN.

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.

In violation of a court order, the Complainant was in the company of his partner. He was subject to arrest on that basis. By the time the tactical officers forced their way into his unit, the officers also had information about the Complainant’s deteriorating mental health and the risk of self-inflicted injury. That would have also given them authority to apprehend the Complainant in order to take him to hospital under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.

With respect to the force used by the SO, namely, the discharge of his ARWEN twice at the Complainant, I am satisfied that it constituted legally justified force in aid of his arrest. The Complainant had been seen to be in possession of a razor and/or knife; he had also mentioned a gun. It only made sense that the officers would seek to neutralize the potential threat the Complainant presented to himself and the officers by attempting to temporarily neutralize him from a distance so that he could be safely arrested. The use of the ARWEN had a reasonable prospect of accomplishing that without inflicting serious injury. That the ARWEN did not fully achieve its objective does not detract from the reasonableness of its use in the circumstances. [2]

In the result, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than within the limits of the criminal law. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: November 1, 2022


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit