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 47-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On November 27, 2022, at 7:00 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On November 26, 2022, at approximately 10:00 p.m., the OPP had responded to a domestic-related incident at a rural address near the town of Arthur. Reportedly, a man [now known to be the Complainant] had been consuming whiskey and had gone on a drunken rampage inside the home. He had armed himself with a hatchet and axe, and smashed up the kitchen before retreating to a bathroom in the basement with a crossbow. The rest of the family ran from the house for their safety. OPP officers arrived at the address at approximately 10:15 p.m. They set up a perimeter and requested that the Emergency Response Team (ERT) and Police Service Dog units also attend. A loudhailer was used to try to establish verbal contact with the Complainant, as were several telephone calls to his cellphone, but there was no response. After several hours, ERT officers approached the residence and used airborne Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) and surface robotics to attempt to locate the Complainant through the basement windows. This, too, was unsuccessful. At 6:00 a.m., Tactics and Rescue Unit (TRU) officers went into the residence to extract the complainant. They discovered the locked, basement bathroom door. When they breached the door, the Complainant was found deceased inside the bathroom, having shot himself in the eye with a crossbow. There was never any contact between the OPP and the Complainant until he was found in the bathroom.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 11/29/2022 at 9:31 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived: 11/29/2022 at 11:52 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a residence situated in Kenilworth.

The Complainant was found deceased in the basement bathroom. The bathroom door appeared to have been breached as the lock was damaged. He was sitting in a large pool of drying blood on the floor with his back against the wall and bathtub adjacent to the bathroom vanity and sink. A crossbow was by his left side. A blood-smeared Excalibur Proflight 18 Black Eagle-brand crossbow projectile/bolt/arrow with a tapered point, known as a ‘field tip’, was found behind the deceased.

There was a broken crossbow bolt projectile/bolt/arrow on the vanity near the sink. The projectile’s point had been broken off. There was no projectile/bolt/arrow component visible in or on the Complainant’s body. It appeared that his right eye was the source of the blood.

The OPP forensic investigator that first examined the Complainant’s body reported that rigor was present but not fully established, and that lividity would still blanch with pressure.

Physical Evidence

The Complainant’s external body was examined for injury and the only injury was an X-shaped, stellate injury marginally above his right eyeball. The Computed Tomography scans showed a pointed, metal object in his brain. At autopsy, a four-blade, arrowhead was discovered in the posterior area of his brain and collected by the SIU forensic investigator. The arrowhead featured two vertical and two horizontal blades, and could be characterized as ‘razor-sharp’. The arrowhead was collected and measured by the SIU forensic investigator during the autopsy and found to be 54 mm. It had perforated the brain and stopped at the posterior aspect of the cranium but did not appear to have damaged the occipital bone. The arrowhead was attached to a portion of the arrow shaft/bolt. The end of the shaft was broken, and the remainder of the arrow shaft/bolt was missing at autopsy [now known to have been located on the bathroom vanity near its sink].

The Excalibur Proflight 18 Black Eagle-brand broken projectile/bolt/arrow had been broken mid-shaft, and the tip was located inside the Complainant’s cranium. The broken component was measured and found to be approximately 360 mm.

The Excalibur GRZ2 crossbow with an Excalibur-brand scope mounted on it was also collected by the SIU forensic investigator. The crossbow was equipped with a stirrup at the distal end of the barrel to assist with pulling the cable/bowstring back to cocked position. The entire weapon was spattered with blood. It had a rifle-type frame with a trigger inside a trigger guard. There was a safety switch for the trigger, and it was in the safe position. No serial number was noted on the frame.


Figure 1 - The crossbow

In the late evening of November 26, 2022, OPP officers were dispatched to a residence in the area of Kenilworth. Two 911 calls had come in from the home reporting a domestic disturbance. The first, placed by the CW #4 at about 10:15 p.m., indicated that the Complainant was becoming violent and was threatening to do harm to her and other family members. When asked by the call-taker, the caller noted that the Complainant had access to multiple guns and knives in the residence. The second 911 call came from the CW #2, who reported that the Complainant was armed with an axe and in mental health crisis. Moments later, having spoken with another family member, also present at the residence, it was noted that the Complainant was threatening to harm himself with an axe or a firearm.

With the arrival of officers at the scene, the family members, save for the Complainant and CW #1, left the home into the safety of the police outside. CW #1 remained on the main floor of the residence and did not cross paths with the Complainant. Reached by an OPP sergeant by phone, CW #1 was ultimately persuaded to leave the house, which is what he did at about 1:20 a.m. of November 27, 2022.

By that time, there was a full police presence outside the home. The incident commander – WO #1 – had overall charge of police operations at the scene. Under his command, a variety of police resources were deployed, including tactical officers, crisis negotiators, drones, and a police dog. Multiple efforts were made to contact the Complainant via phone and loudhailer, all of which went unanswered. At about 5:15 a.m., the decision was taken to enter the home to search for the Complainant.

TRU officers made entry into the main level of the home and began their search. Shortly after 6:00 a.m., Officer #3 of the TRU team reported that a man – the Complainant – had been located deceased in the basement bathroom. The mortal wound appeared to have been self-inflicted by a crossbow.

Section 219, Criminal Code -- Criminal Negligence Causing Death

(a) in doing anything, or

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

Section 220, Criminal Code -- Criminal Negligence Causing Death or Bodily Harm

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 the basement bathroom of a residence in Kenilworth on November 27, 2022. As his body had been discovered by an OPP officer, and OPP officers may have been present outside the exterior of the home at the time of his death, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any OPP officer 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. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of any OPP officer, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. In my view, there is no such misconduct disclosed in the evidence.

The officers who convened on the property and then entered the home were lawfully placed throughout the police operation that culminated in the discovery of the Complainant. They had been called to the scene by residents of the home fearful that the Complainant might do harm to them and himself, and were duty-bound to do what they reasonably could to prevent that harm from materializing.

I am also satisfied that the police comported themselves, in the design and implementation of their plans of action, with due care and regard for public safety, including the health and well-being of the Complainant. The first priority was to contain the situation and ensure the safety of the Complainant’s family members. This they accomplished in short order soon after the first officers’ arrival at the scene and with the establishment of a perimeter around the house. They then made every effort to communicate with the Complainant. Regrettably, whether because he was already incapacitated or simply unwilling, none of those measures were successful. When those efforts had run their course and it became apparent that the Complainant could or would not answer, the decision was taken to enter the home. I am unable to fault WO #1 or any of the officers under his ultimate command for waiting as long as they did before adopting a more proactive posture. The police had been advised that the Complainant was unstable and had access to multiple long guns, crossbows, and knives in the house. In the circumstances, they were within their rights in exhausting all communication efforts from outside the home before they ventured inside. As they still could not be sure of the Complainant’s status or intentions, the tactical officers acted reasonably when they first deployed robotics and the dog to see if the Complainant could be located ahead of their advance. On this record, the evidence does not give rise to any concerns that the police failed to act with the necessary dispatch.

It remains unclear at the end of the investigation when precisely the Complainant inflicted his mortal wound with the use of the crossbow. It is possible that might have occurred before the arrival of any police officer at the scene. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the officers who took part in the police operations that day transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: March 27, 2023

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit