SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OOD-243
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
Mandate of the SIU
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.
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.
Information Restrictions
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:- The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person.
- Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault.
- Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person.
- Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.
- Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.
- Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published.
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Pursuant to section 14 (i.e., law enforcement), certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:- Confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by law enforcement agencies; and
- Information that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.
- The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials;
- Location information;
- Witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence; and
- Other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation.
Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004
Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.Other proceedings, processes, and investigations
Information may also have been excluded from this report because its release could undermine the integrity of other proceedings involving the same incident, such as criminal proceedings, coroner’s inquests, other public proceedings and/or other law enforcement investigations.Mandate Engaged
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 47-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
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 47-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On September 16, 2022, at 1:00 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of the death of the Complainant.PRP advised that the Civilian Witness (CW), the sister of the Complainant, had contacted PRP’s complaint department to report her belief that the police officers who had attended to her brother were negligent in that they did not administer naloxone at the time of the incident to save his life.
PRP records indicated that on November 22, 2021, a civilian [now determined to be Witness #1] had called police to report a man, the Complainant, slumped over in a vehicle at an address on Vanrose Street in Mississauga. Police officers arrived to find the Complainant slouched in the rear seat of a SUV. The police officers believed the Complainant was VSA (Vital Signs Absent). A rush was put on an ambulance and the police officers immediately began CPR.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 09/16/2022 at 2:13 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 09/16/2022 at 2:29 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
47-year-old male; deceasedCivilian Witness
CW Not interviewed; next-of-kinSubject Official (SO)
SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewedThe subject official was interviewed on January 12, 2023.
Witness Official (WO)
WO InterviewedThe witness official was interviewed on October 25, 2022.
Evidence
The Scene
The scene was located in a parking lot of an apartment building on Vanrose Street in Mississauga. SIU did not conduct a scene examination as the matter occurred in November 2021, and was not reported to the SIU until September 16, 2022. Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]
Video Footage – Apartment Building on Vanrose Street
The footage, a summary of which follows, was taken on November 22, 2021. It had no audio component. [2]At 11:33 a.m., a woman [now known to be Witness #2] carried a large duffle bag as she walked into camera view from the front of the apartment building and continued down the sidewalk. She sat on the curb edge next to a SUV. The SUV was reversed into the parking spot with a few other vehicles. The passenger side of the vehicle faced camera view.
At 11:42:42 a.m., Witness #2 stood up with the duffle bag and walked with some difficulty towards the apartment building.
At 11:43:16 a.m., a man [now known to be the Complainant] carried a large duffle bag along with several full shopping bags. The bags appeared to be heavy as he walked towards Witness #2. The Complainant and Witness #2 continued towards the SUV. The Complainant dropped his bags at the rear of the SUV as Witness #2 continued towards the front seat passenger door and entered the SUV.
At 11:43:58 a.m., the Complainant returned to the rear compartment of the SUV, opened the hatch and loaded the bags into the rear compartment. He spent a considerable amount of time rearranging items inside the rear compartment.
At 11:45:24 a.m., the Complainant walked over to the driver’s door of the SUV and then returned to the rear compartment and continued rearranging items.
At 11:48:34 a.m., the Complainant finished in the rear compartment, closed the hatch, walked to the driver’s side and sat in the driver’s seat. There was movement inside the front compartment of the SUV.
At 11:53:18 a.m., the Complainant exited the driver’s door and bent over, remaining at the driver’s door.
At 11:55:55 a.m., the Complainant opened the rear driver’s side door; there was movement in the back seat. Witness #2 remained in the front passenger seat.
At 11:56:14 a.m., the Complainant stood at the driver’s door, and then sat in the driver’s seat. There was movement in the front passenger compartment.
At 11:59:47 a.m., the Complainant exited the driver’s door, stood up, and then sat down again. There was movement in the front passenger compartment.
At 12:04:02 p.m., the Complainant exited the driver’s door, quickly opened and closed the rear driver’s side door, and then returned to the driver’s seat; movement continued in the front passenger compartment.
At 12:08:12 p.m., the Complainant stood outside the driver’s door, bent over for a period, and then stood up.
At 12:09:23 p.m., the Complainant stood outside the driver’s door and then bent over. There was movement in the front passenger compartment.
At 12:12:10 p.m., the Complainant stood outside the driver’s door.
At 12:12:30 p.m., the Complainant walked to the rear driver’s side door and opened the door. There was movement in the front and rear seat compartments.
At 12:16:03 p.m., the Complainant was last seen moving in the rear seat compartment near the rear driver’s side door. Both driver’s side doors remained open. There was movement in the front seat compartment.
At 12:24 p.m., a woman approached a van parked to the driver’s side of the SUV; the driver’s door of the SUV was moved. The woman accessed her driver’s door and got in her vehicle, exiting the parking lot. Both driver’s side doors of the SUV remained open. There was movement in the front seat compartment.
At 12:29:51 p.m., the front passenger door opened, and Witness #2 walked around the front of the SUV with a duffle bag to the driver’s side. Witness #2 then stood at the rear driver’s side door. There was movement in the rear seat compartment.
At 12:31:10 p.m., Witness #2 walked along the driver’s side of the SUV at a quickened pace, and crossed in front of the SUV with a duffle bag towards the front sidewalk of the apartment building out of camera view. The rear driver’s side door remained open.
At 12:38:34 p.m., Witness #2 walked to the SUV with a duffle bag. She opened the hatch, and rummaged through the rear compartment removing bags and clothing items.
At 12:42:18 p.m., a man approached Witness #2 at the rear of the SUV. The man approached the passenger side rear door and investigated the back seat, then walked around to the driver’s side rear open door and bent down at the rear door in the rear compartment.
At 12:43 p.m., Witness #2 walked to the driver’s side rear door.
At 12:43:07 p.m., the man walked away from the driver’s side door to the sidewalk, and Witness #2 followed to the rear of the SUV. The man continued towards the apartment building out of camera view as Witness #2 stood on the driver’s side of the SUV.
At 12:43:44 p.m., Witness #2 stood at the rear driver’s side door, bent down in the rear compartment and then returned to the open hatch, rummaging through items. Witness #2 closed the hatch, picked up bags, and walked past the passenger side of the SUV in the parking lot and towards the front of the apartment building.
At 12:46:03 p.m., Witness #2 walked from the front of the apartment building on the sidewalk with a backpack and duffle bag. She walked past the SUV towards Vanrose Street, then out of camera view.
At 12:55:31 p.m., a woman [now known to be Witness #1] walked slowly past the SUV, her attention drawn to it. She then walked out of camera view.
At 13:03:28 p.m., Witness #1 walked towards the driver’s side of the SUV and then into the parking lot as she made a call on her cellular phone and remained in the parking lot.
At 13:11:35 p.m., a police cruiser pulled into the parking lot in front of the SUV.
At 13:11:44 p.m., two police officers [now known to be the SO and the WO] exited the cruiser and immediately approached the rear driver’s side of the SUV.
At 13:12:11 p.m., the WO opened the rear passenger side door, closed the door and ran back to the driver’s side. There was no clear view of the SO and the WO on the driver’s side of the SUV.
911 Call
The recordings, a summary of which follows, were made on November 21, 2021.A woman – Witness #1 - dialed 911 requesting an ambulance, and the call was transferred. Witness #1 told the paramedic dispatcher she believed a person [now known to be the Complainant] was bleeding in a vehicle. The location was an apartment parking lot on Vanrose Street, Mississauga. The Complainant was in a SUV and she provided a description of the vehicle. Witness #1 sounded very scared: “I’m walking…and I see this… I think they’re dead. Yah, I think they’re dead or something, they’re not moving.” She agreed to remain at the scene but was very scared, stating she was uncomfortable with death. She could not determine if it was a man or woman as their face was inside the vehicle.
The PRP 911 operator took over the call explaining PRP had to attend. Witness #1 provided the licence plate number, and said that the person was in the back seat. It looked like he had tried to reach for something, and was stuck and not moving.
Witness #1 had walked by about seven minutes ago and found the situation suspicious. She returned to her residence, and her son told her she needed to call 911. She went back to the parking lot and found the Complainant in the same position. The vehicle the Complainant was in was not running.
Witness #1 remained on the line with police to provide updates as she stood a distance from the vehicle. She believed it was ten minutes or more since she first noticed the Complainant. She said, “Oh, my god, they’re definitely dead.” She continued, “Oh my god, help...I hope, it’s just you know kind of fixable, like I hope they’re not dead, that’s all I’m hoping right now. Maybe they had a heart attack or something when they were bending over. I’ve never seen a dead person before.”
Witness #1 indicated PRP had arrived.
The WO’s BWC Footage
The footage, a summary of which follows, was made on November 22, 2021.At 12:08 p.m., the WO pulled into the parking lot of an apartment building.
At 12:08:34 p.m., the WO walked towards a SUV in the parking lot. The SO approached the open rear driver’s side door of the SUV. A woman - Witness #1 - stood behind a nearby vehicle with her hands on her head, visibly upset. Two feet and lower legs were visible below the door opening of the SUV as the SO addressed the occupant with, “Hello sir, hello.”
At 12:08:45 p.m., the WO stood behind the SO at the open rear door of the SUV and put her gloves on. The Complainant was bent over at the waist; his upper torso was against the back seat. He was not responding. The SO moved in closer to the Complainant as the WO walked over to the rear passenger side of the SUV. The SO still attempted to solicit a response from the Complainant.
At 12:08:56 p.m., the WO opened the rear passenger door. The Complainant was the sole occupant in the vehicle. His head was located behind the centre console - his face turned down and towards the rear seat, and his right arm resting on the rear seat. There was an empty Gatorade bottle on the floor by the Complainant’s forehead. The Complainant was still not responding. The SO told the WO she would have to grab a hold of the Complainant. The WO responded, “Yah, he doesn’t look good,” as the SO continued to try to rouse the Complainant. The SO requested that the WO return to his side of the vehicle so they could lay the Complainant down. There had been no response from the Complainant. The SO and the WO lowered the Complainant to the asphalt parking lot. The Complainant’s body was completely limp, and the groin and left leg of his pants appeared wet. The SO removed the Complainant’s jacket from his face; his eyes were closed and there was a slight discolouration around his mouth and nose.
At 12:09:33 p.m., the SO announced, “He’s VSA,” and asked the WO to request a rush on paramedics.
At 12:09:45 p.m., as the SO commenced CPR, the WO requested that dispatch put a rush on paramedics and advised that CPR had been started. The WO stood by as the SO performed CPR on the Complainant.
At 12:11:32 p.m., the WO asked if she should speak with Witness #1, and the SO agreed. The WO spoke with Witness #1 two parking spots away. Witness #1 had located the Complainant and had no idea who he was. Witness #1 explained that she noticed the Complainant as she walked by. The Complainant was in the same position police found him in.
At 12:12:58 p.m., the WO asked the SO if he needed a break. The SO indicated he was fine as he continued CPR.
At 12:13:45 p.m., the WO told Witness #1 it appeared the Complainant “had been gone for a while, so you did the right thing, it’s not your fault”.
At 12:13:51 p.m., a sergeant [Officer #1] approached the scene as paramedics pulled into the parking lot. Officer #1 asked the SO if Narcan was used and the SO performing CPR replied, “No, not yet.” Officer #1 walked towards the paramedics as the SO continued CPR.
At 12:15 p.m., the WO returned to the SUV, and the SO continued CPR as paramedics prepared the stretcher. The fire department arrived.
At 12:16:10 p.m., the SO assisted paramedics by lifting the Complainant onto the stretcher. Paramedics and the fire department assumed medical care and continued CPR.
The SO’s BWC Footage
The footage, a summary of which follows, was made on November 22, 2021.At 12:08 p.m., the SO was a passenger in a cruiser that pulled into the parking lot of an apartment building.
At 12:08:30 p.m., upon exiting the cruiser, Witness #1 approached the SO. Witness #1 pointed to a SUV with an open rear driver’s side door backed into a parking spot. Two feet and lower legs were visible below the door opening.
At 12:08:36 p.m., the SO immediately approached the rear driver’s side door - the back of the seat was flipped down to the bench. The Complainant was bent over at the waist; his right arm rested on the rear seat, his head - not visible - was between the front and rear seats towards the floor of the vehicle. The SO approached the Complainant and said, “Hello sir, hello,” as he pulled on his gloves. The Complainant had not moved. The SO quickly lifted the back of the Complainant’s T-shirt and began to shake the Complainant’s back. The WO asked if she should check the opposite side of the vehicle. The SO continued, “Sir, hello, hello.” The SO told the WO she was going to have to grab the Complainant as he continued shaking and talking to him.
At 12:09:07 p.m., the SO told the WO to come to his side to assist in lying the Complainant down. The SO pulled the back of the Complainant’s jacket with both hands. The rear compartment behind the rear seats contained several full shopping bags.
At 12:09:32 p.m., the Complainant was lowered to the asphalt parking lot just outside the driver’s side rear door; his eyes remained closed, and his body completely limp. The SO stated, “He’s VSA,” and asked the WO to request a rush on paramedics. The SO removed the Complainant’s jacket, still attempting to rouse him, and then checked for a pulse.
At 12:09:45 p.m., the SO began CPR. He tried to rouse the Complainant without response. The area around the Complainant’s mouth appeared darker. The SO continued CPR, and the WO stood nearby on the sidewalk.
At 12:10:25 p.m., the SO asked for a time CPR was started as he checked for a pulse. The WO indicated ‘12:10 p.m.’ The SO stated, “No rise to the chest, still no breathing,” and then continued CPR. The WO moved closer.
At 12:10:45 p.m., the SO checked for a pulse, stating, “No chest rising,” and continued CPR.
At 12:11:08 p.m., the SO checked for a pulse, stated, “Still nothing,” and continued CPR.
At 12:11:25 p.m., the SO checked for a pulse and then continued CPR. The WO was inaudible. The SO replied, “Yep,” as the WO walked away.
At 12:11:42 p.m., 12:12:02 p.m., and 12:12:26 p.m., the SO checked for a pulse and then continued CPR.
At 12:12:40 p.m., sirens were heard in the distance.
At 12:12:50 p.m., the SO breathed heavily as he checked for a pulse. The WO asked if he needed a break, but the SO replied he was okay and then continued CPR.
At 12:13:15 p.m., the SO continued to breath heavily as he checked for a pulse and then continued CPR.
At 12:13:40 p.m., the SO checked for a pulse, and closed the rear driver’s side door while kneeling next to the Complainant. He continued CPR.
At 12:13:52 p.m., Officer #1 arrived and asked if Narcan was used. The SO, out of breath, replied, “No, not yet,” while continuing CPR. Officer #1 advised paramedics were there now and asked the SO if he was alright.
At 12:14:08 p.m., the SO checked the Complainant’s left arm and hand. The Complainant’s pants were wet in the groin area and down the left leg by what appeared to be vomit. The SO continued CPR.
At 12:14:47 p.m., the SO, clearly out of breath, took a break from CPR and advised, “I didn’t see any drug paraphernalia or anything to…prove it was drugs.” He then checked for a pulse.
At 12:15 p.m., paramedics appeared and asked the SO how long he had been doing CPR. The SO continued CPR as paramedics removed the jacket from the Complainant’s right arm.
At 12:15:19 p.m., the SO stated he had Narcan on him but had not given it yet. The paramedics replied, “That’s OK, we are going to go through our whole thing. It won’t work for him anyways, you go ahead.” The SO continued CPR, while paramedics stood close by.
At 12:15:50 p.m., the SO ended CPR as paramedics lifted the Complainant’s torso off the ground. The Complainant had an indentation mark on the top left side above the hairline of his head. The SO assisted paramedics by lifting the Complainant onto the stretcher.
At 12:16 p.m., Officer #1 told the SO to take a break as a second paramedic unit arrived.
At 12:17:14 p.m., the SO told the WO, “I should have got you to check the car for drugs, I didn’t. Cause we could have given him Narcan, I had no idea. I just went to him right away; the door was open. I pulled him out, I didn’t see anything directly on him.” The WO replied, “I didn’t see anything right away.”
At 12:17:41 p.m., the SO approached Officer #1, and stated, “I got here, he was hunched over from the outside in…. I smelled the puke...his legs were outside, his upper body inside, so he was hunched over the seat.” The SO explained that Witness #1 had advised that ten minutes had passed with the Complainant in that position. The WO added that Witness #1 had seen the Complainant, then went to her residence to do something, and then came back.
At 12:18:21 p.m., the SO told Officer #1, “As soon as I saw him, I tried talking to him, I noticed he was out, I pulled over his shirt. I could tell he was VSA, didn’t see any breathing, so I pulled him out immediately and that’s why I started compressions. I didn’t even look inside the car.”
At 12:19 p.m., Officer #1 and the SO approached the closed driver’s side rear door of the SUV. The SO explained the Complainant’s position in the vehicle, “I could smell the puke and he was… had puke coming out of his nose too.”
At 12:28 p.m., paramedics left the scene with the Complainant.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from PRP between September 16, 2022, and November 21, 2022:- Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
- Person Details Report;
- Notes – the WO;
- Notes – Officer #1;
- Notes – the SO;
- Video footage – Residence on Vanrose Street;
- BWC footage;
- Communications recordings;
- Occurrence Report;
- Report of Post-mortem Examination;
- Photos of SUV;
- Officer Roles; and
- Procedure - Naloxone Nasal Spray.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:- Email from the pathologist dated October 21, 2022.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with the SO and a review of video footage from police body-worn cameras that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario.
At about 12:08 p.m. of November 22, 2021, the SO, in the company of his partner, the WO, whom he was coaching, arrived in the parking lot of an apartment building on Vanrose Street, Mississauga. They had been dispatched to the scene following a 911 call to police at about 12:03 p.m. from Witness #1. Witness #1 had come across the body of a male whose legs were hanging out the open rear driver’s side door of a SUV parked in the lot – his upper body was slumped stomach-first inside the vehicle. Witness #1 was concerned that the male was in medical distress or possibly deceased.
The male was the Complainant. Video footage from a security camera at the address captured the Complainant in and around the SUV as early as 10:40 a.m. [3] He was in the company of a woman – Witness #2. For upwards of 30 minutes, the Complainant entered and exited the front driver’s compartment of the SUV a number of times, sometimes bending down, sometimes reaching into the SUV through the open driver’s side rear door, and sometimes handling items in the rear storage compartment of the vehicle from the open rear hatch. The Complainant was last seen moving in the rear seat compartment of the SUV near the rear driver’s side door at about 11:13 a.m. Witness #2 left the scene of the parked SUV at about 11:43 a.m.
The SO and the WO parked their cruiser in front of the SUV, exited, and immediately approached the rear driver’s side of the SUV. The Complainant remained unresponsive as the SO called out to him and shook him by the back. The officers worked together to remove the Complainant from the SUV and place him supine on the pavement beside the rear driver’s side door. Within seconds, the SO announced that the Complainant was “VSA”, asked the WO to request a rush on paramedics, and commenced CPR. He would continue with CPR until about 12:16 p.m., by which time paramedics were on scene.
The Complainant was transported to hospital and later pronounced deceased.
Cause of Death
The pathologist at autopsy attributed the Complainant’s death to fentanyl and cocaine toxicity.
At about 12:08 p.m. of November 22, 2021, the SO, in the company of his partner, the WO, whom he was coaching, arrived in the parking lot of an apartment building on Vanrose Street, Mississauga. They had been dispatched to the scene following a 911 call to police at about 12:03 p.m. from Witness #1. Witness #1 had come across the body of a male whose legs were hanging out the open rear driver’s side door of a SUV parked in the lot – his upper body was slumped stomach-first inside the vehicle. Witness #1 was concerned that the male was in medical distress or possibly deceased.
The male was the Complainant. Video footage from a security camera at the address captured the Complainant in and around the SUV as early as 10:40 a.m. [3] He was in the company of a woman – Witness #2. For upwards of 30 minutes, the Complainant entered and exited the front driver’s compartment of the SUV a number of times, sometimes bending down, sometimes reaching into the SUV through the open driver’s side rear door, and sometimes handling items in the rear storage compartment of the vehicle from the open rear hatch. The Complainant was last seen moving in the rear seat compartment of the SUV near the rear driver’s side door at about 11:13 a.m. Witness #2 left the scene of the parked SUV at about 11:43 a.m.
The SO and the WO parked their cruiser in front of the SUV, exited, and immediately approached the rear driver’s side of the SUV. The Complainant remained unresponsive as the SO called out to him and shook him by the back. The officers worked together to remove the Complainant from the SUV and place him supine on the pavement beside the rear driver’s side door. Within seconds, the SO announced that the Complainant was “VSA”, asked the WO to request a rush on paramedics, and commenced CPR. He would continue with CPR until about 12:16 p.m., by which time paramedics were on scene.
The Complainant was transported to hospital and later pronounced deceased.
Cause of Death
The pathologist at autopsy attributed the Complainant’s death to fentanyl and cocaine toxicity. Relevant Legislation
Section 215, Criminal Code - Failure to Provide Necessaries
215 (1) Every one is under a legal duty
(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person
(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.
(2) Every person commits an offence who, being under a legal duty within the meaning of subsection (1), fails without lawful excuse to perform that duty, if
(b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.
Sections 219 and 220, Criminal Code -- Criminal Negligence Causing Death
219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(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.
(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.
Analysis and Director's Decision
On September 16, 2022, the PRP contacted the SIU to report that a male with whom an officer had interacted on November 22, 2021 – the Complainant – had subsequently been pronounced deceased. The SIU initiated an investigation and named 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 Complainant’s death.
The offences that arise for consideration are failure to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing death contrary to sections 215 and 220 of the Criminal Code, respectively. Both require something more than a simple want of care to give rise to liability. The former is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. The latter is premised on even more egregious conduct that demonstrates a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is not made out unless the neglect constitutes a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable standard of care. In the instant case, the question is whether there was any want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that endangered the Complainant’s life or caused his death. In my view, there was not.
The SO was lawfully placed and in the execution of his duty when he responded to the scene of a medical distress call and began to render emergency care. A police officer’s foremost obligation is the protection and preservation of life, and the officer acted quickly attempting to do just that with the Complainant.
I am further satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for the Complainant’s health and well-being throughout his efforts. The officer quickly realized that the Complainant was in need of acute medical care, put a rush on responding paramedics, and promptly began to administer CPR. The question arises why the officer did not administer naloxone – an opioid antagonist – a dose of which he had in the form of a nasal spray. The evidence in its totality left open a slim possibility that its administration might have worked to resuscitate the Complainant. Be that as it may, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in failing to do so. The officer had no articulable reason to believe that the Complainant’s predicament was the result of a drug overdose. Though there was drug paraphernalia in the SUV, it was contained in the glove compartment box and centre console storage, and not in plain view. The SO instead suspected, given the Complainant’s positioning in the vehicle, that he had suffered a heart attack and acted accordingly. Indeed, that was the impression of Witness #1, who said as much in her 911 call to police.
In the final analysis, it remains unclear whether the failure to administer naloxone caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death, or endangered his life, in the language of the relevant Criminal Code sections – the Complainant had been discovered VSA soon after the officers’ arrival on scene and might well have been deceased. In any event, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than lawfully throughout his engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.
Date: January 13, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
The offences that arise for consideration are failure to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing death contrary to sections 215 and 220 of the Criminal Code, respectively. Both require something more than a simple want of care to give rise to liability. The former is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. The latter is premised on even more egregious conduct that demonstrates a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is not made out unless the neglect constitutes a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable standard of care. In the instant case, the question is whether there was any want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that endangered the Complainant’s life or caused his death. In my view, there was not.
The SO was lawfully placed and in the execution of his duty when he responded to the scene of a medical distress call and began to render emergency care. A police officer’s foremost obligation is the protection and preservation of life, and the officer acted quickly attempting to do just that with the Complainant.
I am further satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for the Complainant’s health and well-being throughout his efforts. The officer quickly realized that the Complainant was in need of acute medical care, put a rush on responding paramedics, and promptly began to administer CPR. The question arises why the officer did not administer naloxone – an opioid antagonist – a dose of which he had in the form of a nasal spray. The evidence in its totality left open a slim possibility that its administration might have worked to resuscitate the Complainant. Be that as it may, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in failing to do so. The officer had no articulable reason to believe that the Complainant’s predicament was the result of a drug overdose. Though there was drug paraphernalia in the SUV, it was contained in the glove compartment box and centre console storage, and not in plain view. The SO instead suspected, given the Complainant’s positioning in the vehicle, that he had suffered a heart attack and acted accordingly. Indeed, that was the impression of Witness #1, who said as much in her 911 call to police.
In the final analysis, it remains unclear whether the failure to administer naloxone caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death, or endangered his life, in the language of the relevant Criminal Code sections – the Complainant had been discovered VSA soon after the officers’ arrival on scene and might well have been deceased. In any event, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than lawfully throughout his engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.
Date: January 13, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]
- 2) The video footage recorded time-stamp was approximately one hour ahead of the actual time. The time notations in this report reflect the time captured on the video footage. It should further be noted that the time-stamps were about three minutes and 15 seconds ahead of the time-stamps from the police body-worn camera (BWC) footage. [Back to text]
- 3) The times have been synchronized using the time-stamps from the police BWC footage. [Back to text]
Note:
The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.