SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-PCD-236
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 48-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 48-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On June 22, 2023, at 3:35 p.m., the OPP Huron County contacted the SIU with the following information.On June 22, 2023, at about 1:15 p.m., the OPP were contacted by a company and asked to check on the wellbeing of one of their employees. The employee was the Complainant. He had a history of mental health issues and suicidal ideation, according to OPP records. The OPP obtained a cellphone number and tracked it to the Goderich area. At approximately 2:25 p.m., the OPP located the Complainant’s truck in the parking lot of a motel on Bayfield Road. While approaching the Complainant’s room to do a door knock, a single gunshot was heard. The officers announced themselves and knocked on the door. The door was locked. The officers immediately breached the door and located the Complainant in the bathroom of the unit. He had a single gunshot wound to his head. A handgun was beside the body. OPP officers called Emergency Medical Services, which responded and pronounced the Complainant deceased. There was no OPP contact or interaction with the Complainant prior to the weapon being discharged.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 06/23/2023 at 9:23 a.m.Date and time SIU responded: 06/23/2023 at 9:25 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
48-year-old male; deceasedCivilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 Interviewed CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed on June 28, 2023, and June 29, 2023.
Subject Officials (SO)
SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal rightSO #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 Interviewed The witness official was interviewed on June 27, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in and around a room of a motel on Bayfield Road, Goderich.As the SIU did not initially invoke its mandate, the OPP conducted the forensic examination of the scene. OPP scene images were obtained by the SIU on June 28, 2023.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
Communications Recordings
On June 29, 2023, the SIU obtained a copy of the OPP communications recordings in connection with the incident under investigation. At about 1:15 p.m., on June 22, 2023, a company contacted the OPP and requested a wellbeing check on an employee, the Complainant. The Complainant had not shown up for work in two days. The caller reported that the Complainant was friendly with another employee and that she had indicated that the Complainant had told her the day before that he was dealing with something personal. The Complainant’s emergency contact had not heard from him either. Addresses were provided to the OPP as well as a contact cellular telephone.
SO #1 and SO #2 attended at the addresses, with negative results.
The OPP dispatcher advised of the year, colour and brand of vehicle the Complainant was associated with, and that he was flagged suicidal. The Complainant had criminal offences outstanding and was possibly wanted on a warrant.
SO #2 requested a ping on the cellular telephone, which resulted in the cellular telephone triangulating to the area of Blake Street East in Goderich, within a 52-metre radius.
SO #1 advised that the Complainant’s emergency contact was spoken to, and they advised that the Complainant had been messaging a family member earlier in the day. She advised the Complainant would stay in a motel in Goderich.
SO #2 located the Complainant’s vehicle at a motel in the back parking lot, and he learned the Complainant’s room number. SO #3 broadcast that he was at the motel with SO #2 and SO #1, and paramedics were asked to stage in the area.
At about 2:25 p.m., as the OPP sergeants approached the Complainant’s room, they broadcast that a shot was heard. A ram was used to enter the room. SO #3 broadcast that a handgun was located, and the Complainant had a gunshot wound to the head.
Once the paramedics arrived, SO #3 broadcast that the Complainant was being worked on but seemed to be vital signs absent.
At 2:49 p.m., SO #3 advised the Complainant had been pronounced deceased.
Attempt to Download Motel Video
On June 23, 2023, a SIU forensic investigator was asked to assist with retrieving video footage from the motel at Bayfield Road, Goderich. At 7:10 p.m., the SIU forensic investigator arrived at the motel and learned the video monitoring system had produced an alarm earlier in the month, so had been silenced. The SIU forensic investigator checked the video monitoring system. It was not recording, and had not recorded anything since June 19, 2023. It appeared the alarm was an indicator that file storage for the unit was full. As a result, no video was recovered.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
The SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between June 23, 2023, and August 2, 2023:- Communications recordings;
- Computer-assisted dispatch report;
- Notes – the WO;
- Sudden Death Investigation Report;
- Scene Photographs; and
- Email from OPP regarding OPP weapons - make and model.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU gives rise to the following scenario. As was their right, none of the subject officials agreed an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes.
Shortly after 1:00 p.m. of June 22, 2023, the OPP received a call from the Complainant’s employer. The caller reported that the Complainant had not been at work the last couple of days and she was concerned about his well-being.
The Complainant had checked into a motel in Goderich, a handgun in his possession. The Complainant, who had struggled with mental health and suicidal ideation in the past, was again in a troubled point in his life.
SO #1 and SO #2 attended at several addresses associated with the Complainant to locate him, with negative results. He was eventually located after the police ‘pinged’ his cell phone.
SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3 arrived at the motel and ascertained the Complainant’s room number. The officers approached the door and SO #3 knocked. Moments later, a gunshot was heard from inside the room. With the use of a ram, the officers forced entry into the room and found the Complainant in the bathroom. He had suffered a wound to the head. A gun was found between his legs.
Paramedics attended and attempted to resuscitate the Complainant without success.
Cause of Death
The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the cause of the Complainant’s death was a ‘gunshot wound to the head’.
Shortly after 1:00 p.m. of June 22, 2023, the OPP received a call from the Complainant’s employer. The caller reported that the Complainant had not been at work the last couple of days and she was concerned about his well-being.
The Complainant had checked into a motel in Goderich, a handgun in his possession. The Complainant, who had struggled with mental health and suicidal ideation in the past, was again in a troubled point in his life.
SO #1 and SO #2 attended at several addresses associated with the Complainant to locate him, with negative results. He was eventually located after the police ‘pinged’ his cell phone.
SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3 arrived at the motel and ascertained the Complainant’s room number. The officers approached the door and SO #3 knocked. Moments later, a gunshot was heard from inside the room. With the use of a ram, the officers forced entry into the room and found the Complainant in the bathroom. He had suffered a wound to the head. A gun was found between his legs.
Paramedics attended and attempted to resuscitate the Complainant without success.
Cause of Death
The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the cause of the Complainant’s death was a ‘gunshot wound to the head’. 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 in Goderich of a self-inflicted gunshot wound on June 22, 2023. As OPP officers were present in the vicinity of the shooting when it occurred, the SIU was notified and initiated an investigation. Three OPP officers were identified as subject officials – 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 only 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 the subject officials, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. In my view, there was not.
A police officer’s foremost obligation is the protection and preservation of life. Given what they knew of the situation, there was legitimate concern over the Complainant’s welfare and the subject officials were engaged in their lawful duties when they attended at the motel to check on him.
Once at the motel, I am satisfied that the subject officials comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s safety. They had just knocked on the door to ascertain if he was present when, moments later, they heard a single gunshot. Thereafter, they quickly breached the front door, located the Complainant on the bathroom floor, rotated his body on its side to open his airway, and facilitated entry by paramedics. On this record, it is apparent that the officers had no opportunity to prevent the Complainant from harming himself, or that they were otherwise reckless in their efforts. In the final analysis, while the officers’ presence and knock on the door might well have precipitated his final act, it is apparent that none of the subject officials transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in their brief engagement with the Complainant.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the subject officials. The file is closed.
Date: October 20, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
The only 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 the subject officials, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. In my view, there was not.
A police officer’s foremost obligation is the protection and preservation of life. Given what they knew of the situation, there was legitimate concern over the Complainant’s welfare and the subject officials were engaged in their lawful duties when they attended at the motel to check on him.
Once at the motel, I am satisfied that the subject officials comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s safety. They had just knocked on the door to ascertain if he was present when, moments later, they heard a single gunshot. Thereafter, they quickly breached the front door, located the Complainant on the bathroom floor, rotated his body on its side to open his airway, and facilitated entry by paramedics. On this record, it is apparent that the officers had no opportunity to prevent the Complainant from harming himself, or that they were otherwise reckless in their efforts. In the final analysis, while the officers’ presence and knock on the door might well have precipitated his final act, it is apparent that none of the subject officials transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in their brief engagement with the Complainant.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the subject officials. The file is closed.
Date: October 20, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) The information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s finding of facts following its investigation. [Back to text]
- 2) 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.