SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-PCD-209
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 37-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 37-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On June 1, 2023, at approximate 9:42 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of the death of the Complainant.According to the OPP, the OPP had received a 911 call at approximately 8:38 a.m. from a residence located in Cameron. The 911 caller reported there was an unwanted man at the residence. At 8:48 a.m., police officers arrived and believed the man – the Complainant – was sleeping in the basement of the residence. The police officers had no interaction with the Complainant other than eye contact when a shotgun was discharged by the Complainant. At 8:51 a.m., Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was called, and the Complainant was pronounced deceased.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 06/01/2023 at 11:37 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 06/01/2023 at 1:57 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
37-year-old male; deceasedCivilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 Interviewed CW #2 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between June 1 and 2, 2023.
Subject Officials (SO)
SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed SO #2 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed
The subject official was interviewed on June 20, 2023.
Witness Official (WO)
WO Interviewed The witness official was interviewed on June 2, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The incident took place within a residence in Cameron. The doorway to the basement was damaged with one hinge detached. The lockset and doorjamb did not appear to be damaged or forced.
In the basement was a 12-gauge pump action shotgun lying on the floor. The breech and ejection port were partially opened with a shot shell case exposed. Further into the basement was the deceased, the Complainant. The deceased was lying on his right side. There was a large pooling of suspected blood on the floor beneath the deceased. Close to the deceased was evidence of first-aid administration; a trauma wound package had been torn open with the contents removed.
Physical Evidence
The following items were collected at the scene by the SIU:- Clothing and personal effects – the Complainant;
- DNA sample – the Complainant;
- Notes – the Complainant;
- Remington 870 Tactical 12-gauge pump action shotgun;
- Brenneke shot shell case from breech;
- Four shot shells from magazine;
- Brenneke slug projectile; and
- Trauma wound dressing package.
Figure 1 – Remington 870 Tactical shotgun
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]
Communications Recordings
At 8:38 a.m., a 911 telephone was made to the OPP in which the caller reported that a man was sleeping in the garden shed. He was identified as the Complainant. The Complainant had been harassing the caller for a long time.At 8:48 a.m., the police arrived on scene.
At 8:51 a.m., the police officers requested EMS. The Complainant was said to have shot himself in the chest.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP on June 6, 2023:- Officer notes;
- Record of computer-assisted dispatch;
- Homicide Sudden Death Report;
- Communications recordings;
- List of Occurrences involving the Complainant;
- Supplementary Report; and
- In-car camera system footage.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following record from other sources: - Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized. As was his legal right, SO #2 chose not to interview with the SIU.
In the morning of June 1, 2023, OPP officers were dispatched to a residence in Cameron. A resident of the address had called 911 to report that the Complainant was present on the property and that he had been harassing the caller for a long time.
SO #1 and SO #2 arrived at the address at about 8:45 a.m. with the intention of checking a shed on the property where the Complainant had been observed sleeping. The Complainant exited the shed and made his way into the basement of the house, refusing to stop as police called out his name. The officers made their way to the threshold of the open basement door, from which location the Complainant was discerned in the darkness some distance into the basement. He was standing but bent over a shotgun that was pointed at his chest. SO #1 yelled, “Gun,” after which the shotgun was discharged. The Complainant had shot himself.
SO #1 reported what had happened over his radio and requested the attendance of EMS. He remained by the doorway while SO #2 returned to his cruiser to retrieve a rifle and don his heavy body armour. The WO, who had heard the “shots fired” transmission by SO #1, arrived at the address and joined the subject officials. Efforts made to locate the Complainant in the basement through windows and call-outs were met with negative results. Eventually, the officers entered the basement and located the Complainant slumped on the ground. He was clearly deceased.
Case of Death
The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to a ‘shotgun wound of chest’.
In the morning of June 1, 2023, OPP officers were dispatched to a residence in Cameron. A resident of the address had called 911 to report that the Complainant was present on the property and that he had been harassing the caller for a long time.
SO #1 and SO #2 arrived at the address at about 8:45 a.m. with the intention of checking a shed on the property where the Complainant had been observed sleeping. The Complainant exited the shed and made his way into the basement of the house, refusing to stop as police called out his name. The officers made their way to the threshold of the open basement door, from which location the Complainant was discerned in the darkness some distance into the basement. He was standing but bent over a shotgun that was pointed at his chest. SO #1 yelled, “Gun,” after which the shotgun was discharged. The Complainant had shot himself.
SO #1 reported what had happened over his radio and requested the attendance of EMS. He remained by the doorway while SO #2 returned to his cruiser to retrieve a rifle and don his heavy body armour. The WO, who had heard the “shots fired” transmission by SO #1, arrived at the address and joined the subject officials. Efforts made to locate the Complainant in the basement through windows and call-outs were met with negative results. Eventually, the officers entered the basement and located the Complainant slumped on the ground. He was clearly deceased.
Case of Death
The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to a ‘shotgun wound of chest’. Relevant Legislation
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
The Complainant passed away from a self-inflicted gunshot wound on June 1, 2023. As police officers were in proximity to the Complainant at the time, the SIU was notified and initiated an investigation naming two subject officials – SO #1 and SO #2. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official 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 SO #1 or SO #2, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant death. There was not.
There is no indication that either subject official failed to comport himself with due care and regard for the Complainant’s well-being. They had only just arrived at the address when the Complainant made his way from the shed to the basement of the home. The officers were prudent in not immediately following the Complainant into the basement. Though they had not seen the Complainant with a firearm, they were aware he had a firearms possession and acquisition licence. In fact, the Complainant did have a firearm with him, which he used to shoot himself moments after entering the basement. SO #1 and SO #2 were also prudent in not immediately entering the basement after the shot had been fired. They could not be sure of the Complainant’s condition at the time, and would have been justly concerned of a risk to their own lives and safety. Once they had taken a number of steps to ascertain the Complainant’s whereabouts, and were reinforced in number (with the arrival of the WO) and equipment (SO #2’s rifle and body armour), they cautiously entered the basement to find the Complainant deceased.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law throughout their brief engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: September 29, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
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 SO #1 or SO #2, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant death. There was not.
There is no indication that either subject official failed to comport himself with due care and regard for the Complainant’s well-being. They had only just arrived at the address when the Complainant made his way from the shed to the basement of the home. The officers were prudent in not immediately following the Complainant into the basement. Though they had not seen the Complainant with a firearm, they were aware he had a firearms possession and acquisition licence. In fact, the Complainant did have a firearm with him, which he used to shoot himself moments after entering the basement. SO #1 and SO #2 were also prudent in not immediately entering the basement after the shot had been fired. They could not be sure of the Complainant’s condition at the time, and would have been justly concerned of a risk to their own lives and safety. Once they had taken a number of steps to ascertain the Complainant’s whereabouts, and were reinforced in number (with the arrival of the WO) and equipment (SO #2’s rifle and body armour), they cautiously entered the basement to find the Complainant deceased.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law throughout their brief engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: September 29, 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]
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.