• 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. 

Pursuant to section 21 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following: 

• 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.

 
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

66-year-old male, deceased

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed
CW #6 Interviewed
CW #7 Interviewed
CW #8 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between May 9, 2023, and May 23, 2023.

Subject Officials

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on May 17, 2023.

 

 
South of the two OPP vehicles in the driveway was where much of the evidence was located. Preliminary examination of the scene noted two silver cartridge cases, evidence of CEW deployment (CEW cartridges, anti-felon identification (AFID) tags, probes, and blast doors), and a large machete which was broken where the blade met the handle. There was an intermittent trail of blood. Most of the blood was in the immediate area where the evidence was located, but there was also an area of blood approximately 25 metres east of the evidence.


Figure 2 - Blade of machete.


Figure 3 - Broken handled of machete.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

The following items were collected by the SIU from the scene:

• Two WIN 9mm Luger cartridge cases;
• Blade of a machete. It was rusty and had chipped paint on the metal. It measured 40.6 cm (16 inches). It had broken away from the handle;
• The wood handle of the machete. It was in two pieces and the metal at the handle was bent. Fragments of the copper jacket portion of the projectile were embedded in the wood handle. It appeared that a bullet struck the metal where it meets the handle, breaking the blade and bending the metal before pieces of the bullet embedded in the wood handle;
• Three deployed CEW cartridge cases;
• One CEW cartridge case;
• Medical debris;
• Six CEW blast doors;
• Two CEW probes;
• CEW debris – AFIDs bearing serial numbers of three deployed cartridge cases;
• Blood swabs; and
• Copper jacket fragment and lead fragment.

Starting at about 8:00 a.m., May 10, 2023, SIU FIs attended the OPP Kirkland Lake Detachment at 26 Duncan Avenue North, where they examined the SO’s equipment, which had reportedly been secured in a locker after the incident. The equipment consisted of the following:

• Duty belt;
• One sets of handcuffs.
• A collapsible baton (ASP);
• Oleoresin capsicum spray;
• Glock 17M 9mm pistol;
• One Glock magazine with 15 – 9 mm cartridges with the headstamp “WIN 9 mm Luger”;
• A single 9 mm cartridge with the headstamp “WIN 9 mm Luger”; and
• Two Glock magazines each with 17 – 9 mm cartridges with the headstamp “WIN 9 mm Luger”.

It was noted that the duty belt was equipped with a CEW holster, but the CEW was reportedly not involved and had been returned to service.

Forensic Evidence

Firearms Report

On May 24, 2023, SIU FIs submitted two 9mm Lugar fired cartridges, a cartridge magazine, and a Glock 17M 9mm pistol to Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) for expert examination. The items submitted were the equipment of the subject official.

On August 4, 2023, CFS provided a Firearms Report to SIU. The report confirmed that the pistol submitted, within the limits of practical certainty, had fired the cartridges located at the scene and submitted by SIU to CFS for examination.


Figure 4 - The SO's Glock 17M 9mm pistol.

CEW Data

Two CEWs were reportedly deployed in the course of the events in question.

The data downloaded from Taser X2 CEW assigned to WO #2, indicated:

• At 7:36:02 a.m., [2] May 9, 2023, cartridge 1, a standard 25-foot cartridge, was deployed for five seconds.

The data downloaded from Taser X2 CEW assigned to WO #1, indicated:

• At 7:44:21 a.m., May 9, 2023, cartridge 1, a standard 25-foot cartridge, was deployed for two seconds.
• At 7:44:27 a.m., cartridge 2, a standard 25-foot cartridge, was deployed for six seconds.

Figure 5 - WO #2's Taser X2 CEW.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [3]

The SIU searched for and obtained video records of relevance, as set out below.

 

Video Footage Summary – École Secondaire Catholique L’Envolée Du Nord

Video footage from five cameras on the building exterior was provided to SIU on May 9, 2023. The camera system was motion-activated, resulting in discontinuous footage. Moreover, there was a consistent lapse of 30 seconds from 7:27:00 a.m., to 7:27:30 a.m., on all camera angles that was explained as a possible problem with the server or network. As a result, no CEW deployments or firearm discharges were captured by the school surveillance.

Starting at about 7:19:02 a.m., the Complainant was captured running west on Second Avenue East towards Duncan Avenue South.

Starting at about 7:20:44 a.m., the Complainant walked south on Duncan Avenue South. He was wearing red shorts and had no shirt or shoes on. He held a long object in his right hand [now known to be a machete.]

Starting at about 7:20:45 a.m., the Complainant placed the machete on the ground next to a hydro pole and put his hands behind his back.

Starting at about 7:21:00 a.m., the Complainant picked up the machete with his right hand and walked south on Duncan Avenue South. The machete was pointed down to the ground and swung back and forth as the Complainant walked.

Starting at about 7:21:41 a.m., the Complainant placed the machete on the ground to his right side, sat down on the southside curb of a school driveway, and rested his arms across his knees.

Starting at about 7:25:17 a.m., the first police vehicle, a SUV, travelled southbound on Duncan Avenue South, turned left into the school driveway, and parked parallel to the northside curb.

Starting at about 7:25:20 a.m., the second police vehicle, a SUV, travelled southbound on Duncan Avenue South, turned left into the school driveway, and parked directly behind the first police vehicle.

Starting at about 7:25:32 a.m., a third police vehicle, a SUV, travelled southbound on Duncan Avenue South, and parked facing south on the west side of the street across from the school driveway.

Starting at about 7:26:08 a.m., a fourth police vehicle travelled south on Duncan Avenue South, and parked on the east shoulder perpendicular to the first two police vehicles, facing south.

Starting at about 7:26:52 a.m., WO #3 and WO #1 were captured standing in the middle of the school driveway facing south in front of the Complainant. WO #2 was at the front of the second police vehicle on the passenger side, and the SO was at the rear of the first vehicle. WO #1 and WO #3 appeared to have weapons drawn. Their arms were together and extended in front of their bodies at shoulder height.

Starting at about 7:27:01 a.m., all four police officers started to move forward, south towards the Complainant, who was still seated on the curb.

Starting at about 7:27:31 a.m., the Complainant walked east towards the school. He did not appear to be holding the machete. WO #3, WO #1, WO #2 and the SO followed behind him.

Starting at about 7:27:40 a.m., WO #1 came up behind the Complainant, placed his hands on his upper shoulder area and put his right leg in front of the Complainant’s left leg. The Complainant fell forward onto the ground.

Starting at about 7:27:42 a.m., WO #1 knelt on the ground to the west of the Complainant and WO #2 knelt to the east of him.

Starting at about 7:27:44 a.m., WO #1 turned his head down to the right as if speaking on a portable police radio, and WO #2 leaned over the Complainant.
Starting at about 7:27:59 a.m., the SO, WO #2 and WO #3 were all on the ground, leaning over the Complainant.

Starting at about 7:31:51 a.m., an ambulance travelled south on Duncan Avenue South, turned left into the school driveway, and parked to the east of the Complainant and the police officers on the ground.

 

Cell Phone Video Footage

The first video clip provided a view of two OPP SUV vehicles parked facing east in a school driveway with a third OPP vehicle parked facing south on the east side of Duncan Avenue South. The location of four OPP officers relative to the police vehicles was captured. From the left to the right of the video frame were the SO, WO #2, WO #1, and WO #3, each facing in a southern direction. All four police officers remained in their position until the 10-second mark of the video, when a crack is heard, followed by electrical sounds, identical to the deployment of a CEW.

After the CEW deployment, the SO and WO #1 took several steps forward (south) away from the police cruisers. Both the SO and WO #1 had their arms extended forward in a position of a two-hand shooting stance.

The SO was positioned between the two SUV police vehicles parked on the school driveway. He was in a shooting stance, and appeared to be holding a black handgun. WO #1 was in a similar stance at the rear of the second SUV police vehicle parked in the driveway; however, the video frame did not provide a view of what he was holding.

WO #2 and WO #3 had most of their bodies blocked by police vehicles and no observations of their movement or actions were possible. No other persons were visible in the first video.

The second video commenced with the Complainant, wearing only red boxers, walking east on the driveway towards the school. WO #1 walked immediately behind the Complainant and WO #2 and the SO were to the left of the Complainant. At the five-second mark of the video, WO #1 and WO #2 re-holstered their pistols. At the six-second mark, WO #1 grabbed hold of both of the Complainant’s shoulders from the rear and used a leg to sweep the right leg of the Complainant. The Complainant then fell forward onto the southern driveway near the sidewalk.

WO #1 and WO #2 knelt beside the Complainant. None of the four police officers had firearms or conducted energy weapons visible in their hands.

Communications Recordings and Record of Computer-Assisted Dispatch (CAD)

On May 9, 2023, at 7:21:45 a.m., a 911 call was received from CW #7, who advised that a man [now known as the Complainant] was observed at Duncan Avenue South and Second Street, Kirkland Lake. He had no shirt and no shoes, and was only wearing shorts. He also had a large machete-style knife. When CW #7 stopped her vehicle to access her telephone, the Complainant hid the knife behind his back, then took off and ran south on Duncan Avenue South towards the French high school.

At 7:23 a.m., the SO, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #1 were dispatched to investigate the matter.

The following police radio transmissions in relation to the incident began at 7:23:18 a.m.

Unit	Elapsed Time	Transmission
Dispatcher	9 seconds	[The SO]
The SO	10 seconds	Have received that call
Dispatcher	12 seconds	10-4, just to broadcast the details, suspicious person call at the intersection of Duncan Avenue South and Second Street East.  Complaint reporting a male at that intersection wearing no shirt, no shoes, appears to be carrying a large knife, possibly a machete.  He hid the knife behind his back when the complainant stopped.  Male has since taken off running south on Duncan.
The SO	39 seconds	Ya, I got him sitting at the school here.  The same guy from yesterday.
WO #3	44 seconds	Comm Centre, that will be the Complainant, he’s holding a machete.  In the school parking lot.
The SO	53 seconds	[The SO], advising I have one at gun point.  He’s holding a large machete.
Dispatcher	58 seconds	10-4
The SO	59 seconds	Shots fired, shots fired, we need EMS to my location right now

Dispatcher	1 minute 4 seconds	10-4
WO #1	1 minute         5 seconds	Comms Centre, EMS en route, shots fired
Dispatcher	1 minute          9 seconds	10-4, we are calling them now.  Just one injured party?
WO #1	1 minute      13 seconds	Male down
Dispatcher	1 minute      16 seconds	10-4
WO #1	1 minute      17 seconds	Comms Centre, we’re doing emergency medical
Dispatcher	1 minute      24 seconds	10-4
WO #1	1 minute      29 seconds	If there is any other bodies at detachment, they can head this way.
Dispatcher	1 minute      48 seconds	EMS is en route
WO #1	1 minute      50 seconds	Comms Centre, EMS to expedite

Dispatcher	1 minute      55 seconds	10-4, they are enroute
WO #1	2 minutes       5 seconds	EMS on scene
WO #1	2 minutes     37 seconds	Comms Centre, [WO #1] we are just shutting down the area for the crime scene
unknown male	2 minutes     47 seconds	EMS is leaving the scene now

At 8:16 a.m., WO #3 called into police communications by telephone, advised his portable radio was broken, and provided information that the Complainant had been pronounced dead at 8:09 a.m.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the OPP Kirkland Lake Detachment between May 10, 2023 and May 29, 2023:

• Record of CAD details;
• Call-signs for involved officers;
• Homicide Sudden Death Report;
• Notes-WO #2;
• Notes-WO #1;
• Notes-WO #3;
• Occurrence Details and Reports;
• Communications recordings;
• SIU Request Training Records – the SO;
• Temiskaming Mobile Crisis Rapid Response Team Protocol; and
• CEW data.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

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

• Scrapbook notes of the Complainant;
• Firearms Report from the CFS; and
• Pre-Autopsy Report Revised

At about 7:20 a.m., May 9, 2023, OPP officers arrived in the area of École Secondaire Catholique L’Envolée Du Nord, a high school on the east side of Duncan Avenue South, south of 2nd Street. They were there following a 911 call to police made by a motorist – CW #7. CW #7 had observed a shirtless and shoeless man, wearing only underwear, carrying a machete near the school.

The Complainant was the male with the machete. He had made his way to the school and taken a seat on the southside curb of the school’s circular driveway, metres away from the roadway and chain link fence, the machete still in his possession. He was in that position upon the officers’ arrival.

 
The SO was the first officer on scene, bringing his police SUV to a stop by the northside curb of the circular driveway, opposite the Complainant. WO #2 was right behind him, parking their SUV right behind his. The officers exited and, from the driver’s sides of their vehicles, engaged the Complainant, directing him to drop the machete. They were soon joined by WO #1 and WO #3, the former having stopped his cruiser facing south along the east side of Duncan Avenue South, just north of the driveway, the latter having parked across from the driveway on the west side of the road.

The Complainant was of unsound mind at the time. He spoke incoherently and occasionally waved the machete above his head.

 
The four officers lined up side-by-side by the passenger’s sides of the police SUVs on the driveway and started to move towards the Complainant. The SO was the furthest east in formation. To his right, in order from east to west, were WO #2, WO #1 and WO #3. The SO and WO #3 had their guns out, and WO #1 and WO #2 had their CEWs drawn. The plan was to ‘Taser’ The Complainant, with lethal force at the ready in case it was needed.

 
As WO #1 neared to within three or four metres of the Complainant, he fired his CEW. The discharge had no effect on the Complainant, who appeared to swat one or more of the weapon’s probes from his chest with his left arm. A second CEW deployment moments later by WO #1 appeared to incapacitate the Complainant, as he fell onto his back, but only briefly. The Complainant again appeared to dislodge one or more of the probes and sat back up. A third and final CEW discharge, this time from WO #2, was also ineffective.

Following the last CEW discharge, the Complainant stood up and started to advance in the direction of the SO and WO #2, the machete in his right hand and at chest level. The officers continued to direct the Complainant to drop the weapon. As he neared to within two to three metres of the SO, the officer fired his gun twice in quick succession. One of the bullets struck the machete and broke off the blade from the handle. The other pierced the Complainant’s upper right chest.

After the shooting, the Complainant started to walk eastward in the direction of the school. WO #1 approached him from behind and tripped him to the ground. The officers began to administer emergency first-aid and called for an ambulance.

The Complainant was taken from the scene in ambulance to hospital and pronounced deceased at 8:09 a.m.

Section 34 of the Criminal Code provides that conduct that would otherwise constitute an offence is legally justified if it was intended to deter a reasonably apprehended assault, actual or threatened, and was itself reasonable. The reasonableness of the conduct is to be assessed in light of all the relevant circumstances, including with respect to such considerations as the nature of the force or threat; the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force; whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon; and, the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force. In my view, the SO’s resort to lethal force fell within the ambit of justification prescribed by section 34.

The SO was in the lawful execution of his duties when he engaged the Complainant on the high school driveway. Given what he knew of the 911 call received by police, and his own observations of the Complainant, the officer had every reason to be concerned about public safety, and had grounds to take the Complainant into custody for ‘weapons dangerous’ pursuant to section 88(1) of the Criminal Code.

Though the SO did not interview with the SIU, I am satisfied that he reasonably apprehended an actual or threatened assault on the part of the Complainant when he fired his weapon. That inference is supported by the accounts of the other officers on scene, each of whom, similarly situated to the SO, said they believed themselves and others to be a risk of grave harm by the Complainant. It is also supported by the circumstances that confronted the SO, namely, the advance of a male holding a machete – a weapon capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm and death.

The force the SO chose to defend himself – two gunshots – was reasonable in the circumstances. He and the other officers on scene had repeatedly directed the Complainant to drop the weapon he was holding, to no avail. The officer had also seen the Complainant unaffected by three CEW discharges. In the circumstances, the Complainant constituted a real and present danger to the lives of the SO and his colleagues as he advanced upon them wielding the machete in his right hand. Withdrawal or retreat were not viable alternatives given the speed with which events unfolded and the presence of third-parties in the area, including the anticipated arrival of school-goers. Nor does it appear that the police missed a chance to deploy their mobile crisis response team to the scene, which pairs officers with mental health professionals with a view to defusing and de-escalating police-citizen encounters involving a mental health component. The presence of a weapon in the hands of the Complainant and the volatility of the situation effectively precluded that option. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO acted with excess when he chose to meet a threat of lethal force with a resort to lethal force of his own.

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than within the limits of the criminal law when he shot the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with charges against the officer. The file is closed.

Date: September 6, 2023


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit