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 55-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On June 10, 2023, 6:15 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of the death of the Complainant.

According to the OPP, on June 10, 2023, at 12:49 a.m., the OPP were called to the area of 15496 Highway 12 (Hog Bay Trestle Monument) by the Complainant. He wanted to harm himself and had a firearm in his possession. OPP police officers arrived at 12:57 a.m., with additional support teams, including a critical incident command centre, arriving a short time later. OPP communicated with the Complainant and negotiated over several hours. He did not surrender. OPP officers deployed an Anti-riot Weapon ENfield (ARWEN) and a conducted energy weapon (CEW), and they were ineffective. Shortly after, the Complainant used a firearm to self-inflict an injury by shooting himself. He was transported to the Southern Georgian Bay Hospital where he was pronounced deceased at 10:15 a.m.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 06/10/2023 at 7:35 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 06/10/2023 at 10:36 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

55-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between June 11 and 13, 2023.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the
subject official’s legal right
SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the
subject official’s legal right
SO #3 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the
subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials (WO)

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

The witness officials were interviewed on June 11, 2023.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the parking lot of a rest stop off Highway 12, Port McNicoll, 750 metres west of Reeves Road in the area of 15496 Highway 12.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

The following items of relevance to the investigation were collected by the SIU:

• The Complainant’s 9mm Glock pistol. Two associated 9 mm casings were also collected;
• Three ARWEN cases and two projectiles; and
• CEW cartridge and Anti-felon Identification Disks, as well as two cartridge doors.

Figure 1 – The Complainant’s Glock pistol


Figure 2 – The ARWEN

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data

On June 10, 2023, at 6:01:34 a.m., cartridge #1, a 25-foot cartridge, was deployed for one second.


Figure 3 – The CEW

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

OPP Event History

Starting at about 12:50:37 a.m., June 10, 2023, the Complainant advised he was having relationship issues.

Starting at about 12:52:25 a.m., the Complainant advised he had driven himself to the scene.

Starting at about 12:53:36 a.m., the Complainant advised he had nothing against the “men in blue”.

Starting at about 12:56:48 a.m., the Complainant advised, “I want it to end.”
Starting at about 12:57:13 a.m., the Complainant advised he was going to speak to a police officer.

Starting at about 1:02:57 a.m., police officers provided directions to the Complainant to exit his vehicle with both hands up, but he refused. Emergency Response Team (ERT), Tactical Response Unit (TRU) and other police officers were dispatched to assist.

Starting at about 3:04:37 a.m., the Complainant exited his vehicle, and the driver’s side door was opened.

Starting at about 3:05:16, a.m., the Complainant put a firearm on the dash of his vehicle.

Starting at about 4:04:16 a.m., the Complainant shot his firearm, later explaining that the discharge was accidental.

Starting at about 4:18:20 a.m., police officers continued negotiations with the Complainant and directed him to place the firearm on the dash and come out of the vehicle with both hands visible.

Starting at about 5:01:58 a.m., the Complainant continued to communicate with police officers. He appeared calm but did not surrender.

Starting at about 5:46:55 a.m., the Complainant was out of his vehicle and speaking with police officers.

Starting at about 6:03:16 a.m., police officers had contact with the Complainant.

Starting at about 6:04:46 a.m., EMS was asked to attend at the scene.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with officers who witnessed the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officials chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of their notes.

At about 12:50 a.m. of June 10, 2023, from his car parked at a rest stop north of Highway 12 in Port McNicoll, the Complainant contacted police to report that he was suicidal and planning on taking his life. The Complainant was distraught with recent turns in his personal relationships and in financial difficulty. He told the call-taker that he had nothing against the “men in blue”. The Complainant had a Glock pistol with him.

WO #1 was among the first officers to arrive at the scene. It became apparent that the Complainant had something in his hand, and the suspicion was that the item was a gun. Call-outs to the Complainant that he show his hands and step out of the vehicle went unheeded. The Complainant was eventually contacted by phone by SO #3. The officer attempted to persuade the Complainant that his problems were not worth dying over. He offered alternative solutions to the Complainant’s predicament. The Complainant was unreceptive to any of SO #3’s overtures, and insisted that he would end his life that night.

ERT and TRU officers arrived at the scene and took charge of police operations. Crisis negotiators were also mobilized and one of them, SO #1, took the lead in speaking with the Complainant. On several occasions, it appeared as if progress was being made in the negotiations. At about 3:00 a.m., the Complainant stepped out of his vehicle after placing his firearm on the dash. TRU members in the vicinity told the Complainant that they were there to help him. The Complainant stepped back in his car. At about 4:30 a.m., the Complainant asked to speak to TRU members. He exited the car leaving the gun on the dash, but that too was short-lived. Shortly before 6:00 a.m., the Complainant left his vehicle a third time leaving the gun behind. On this occasion, the police decided on a more proactive posture.

With the Complainant out of the vehicle, TRU officers spoke with the Complainant as they moved closer to his location. As they continued to near, one of their ranks – SO #2 – fired his ARWEN twice. The Complainant buckled and lunged back into his car at about the same time as another ARWEN round was fired. A CEW was also discharged by an officer. Moments later, the Complainant took hold of his gun and shot himself in the neck.

The Complainant was removed from the vehicle by TRU officers, who provided emergency first-aid, including CPR. Paramedics arrived on scene and transported the Complainant to hospital, where he was pronounced deceased at 10:15 a.m.

Sections 219 and 220, Criminal Code -- Criminal Negligence Causing Death

(a) in doing anything, or

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

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 passed away of a self-inflicted gunshot wound on June 10, 2023, in Port McNicoll. As OPP officers were present and engaging with the Complainant at the time of the shot, the SIU was notified and initiated an investigation. Three subject officials were identified: SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the subject officials 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 of the involved officers, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. In my view, there was not.

The officers in and around the scene throughout the series of events that culminated in the Complainant’s self-inflicted gunshot were lawfully placed and in the exercise of their duty. A police officer’s foremost obligation is the protection and preservation of life. Apprised of the Complainant’s suicidal ideations and his possession of a firearm, the police were duty bound to attend at the scene to ensure public safety and do whatever they reasonably could to prevent harm coming to the Complainant.

With respect to the manner in which they tended to their business, I am unable to discern any want of care on the part of the police that transgressed the criminal law. They properly ensured that the scene was contained with a perimeter, in the interests of public safety, before turning their attention to negotiations with the Complainant. The negotiations, much of which were conducted by trained crisis negotiators, appear to have been competently pursued. Regarding the decision to try to temporarily incapacitate the Complainant with the use of an ARWEN and CEW, I am satisfied that deference is owed that choice notwithstanding the fact it appears to have been the immediate catalyst for his final act. Knowing that his custody would be imminent, and desperate to finish what he had planned to do, there was always a risk that the Complainant would end up dead if the use of the ARWEN and CEW failed, as they did. On the other hand, the risk of the Complainant’s death by his own hands was always there, and would remain were the standoff allowed to continue. The police, it seems to me, had given negotiations a fair opportunity to succeed, and their decision to resort to force was a calculated one. After all, the Complainant had stepped out of his vehicle, making himself a target, and there was a reasonable chance that the use of an ARWEN and CEW would immobilize him just long enough that the officers could safely approach and take him into custody. In the end, regrettably, the Complainant was able to accomplish what he had set out to do despite the best efforts of the police.

In the result, as I am satisfied that the police officers involved in this incident comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s welfare throughout their engagement, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: October 6, 2023


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit