Director's Report Details

• 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.

 

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

36-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Not interviewed; text messages received and interview deemed unnecessary

The civilian witness was interviewed on September 9, 2023.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on September 25, 2023.

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on September 7, 2023.

 

Vehicle #1

- Dodge Ram pick-up truck
- Red in colour

Vehicle #2

- Ford Ranger FX4 pick-up truck
- Grey in colour

Vehicle #3

- Monaco Diplomat RV
- Beige and brown in colour

Vehicle #4

- Dodge Ram pick-up truck
- Black in colour

Vehicle #5

- Dodge Ram pick-up truck
- Black in colour

A Glock pistol and an Anti-riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN) were resting on the rear tonneau cover of Vehicle #2. The pistol was on the driver’s side of the tonneau cover and the ARWEN was resting on the passenger side of the tonneau cover.




Figure 1 - Glock pistol and ARWEN located on the tonneau cover of Vehicle #2

Blood pooling was visible on the ground near the front passenger side door of Vehicle #3 - the RV. Medical intervention debris was visible on the ground near the front end and near the front passenger side door of the RV. A window situated near the rear passenger side of the RV was damaged. A crumpled window frame was resting on the ground. Inside the RV, a small plastic baggie containing a white powdery substance was resting on an electronic scale on a table along the driver’s side of the vehicle, mid-length. A partially folded playing card - the ace of spades - had a white, powdery residue on it. Loose cartridges (live ammunition) were resting on the floor. A small red sack was adjacent to the loose ammunition and additional ammunition was visible in the sack. There were apparent signs of used OC spray canisters within the RV.

Forensic Evidence

Firearm Examination

On September 12, 2023, the SIU submitted the Glock pistol, the associated pistol magazine, the fired cartridge case, and the damaged bullet/projectile fragment to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) for forensic examination.

On December 15, 2023, CFS provided a Firearms Report to the SIU. The report indicated that the pistol was test fired using the associated magazine, and that the pistol was capable of being aimed and fired using the action of one hand. Test fired bullets and test fired cartridges were discharged from the pistol and these items were compared to the fired cartridge and damaged bullet/projectile fragment.

The pistol, a semi-automatic handgun, was both a firearm and a prohibited firearm as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada. The pistol magazine was suitable for use in the pistol. The fired cartridge case was identified as having been fired by the pistol. The damaged bullet/projectile fragment could neither be identified nor eliminated as having been fired from the pistol.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

TRU Audio Log

On August 31, 2023, starting at about 9:07 a.m., HRPS requested the assistance of the OPP to assist with arresting a man under the strength of their warrant. The TRU team was requested due to the particulars of the Complainant’s violent history with weapons.

 
Starting at about 1:39 p.m., the HRPS tactical team staged at a church on Robert Street East with plans to execute the warrant in five to ten minutes.

Starting at about 2:22 p.m., three occupants exited the RV - two males and a female. The target, the Complainant, barricaded himself inside; he was contemplating suicide and in possession of a firearm. The HRPS negotiators were trying to make contact.

Starting at about 2:29 p.m., it was confirmed the Complainant was armed with a pistol.

Starting at about 5:53 p.m., OPP TRU took over the scene. They struggled to maintain communication with the Complainant.

Starting at about 7:30 p.m., the power to the RV was shut off.

Starting at about 8:10 p.m., the Complainant was given five minutes to surrender by the negotiators. He expressly refused to do so.

Starting at about 9:17 p.m., a window was breached, and gas was deployed inside the RV.

Starting at about 9:20 p.m., the Complainant exited the RV with a handgun in his left hand and pointed to the side of his head while screaming. The ARWEN and police dog were deployed as the Complainant dropped to the ground with a self-inflicted gunshot to the head.

Starting at about 9:32 p.m., police officers escorted EMS to the hospital.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between September 5, 2023, and October 3, 2023:

• OPP crisis negotiation recordings;
• OPP TRU audio log;
• Photographs;
• Information from computer-assisted dispatch;
• Canine Operational Report;
• Emergency Response Team Operational Report;
• Occurrence Details and Reports;
• Notes – SO;
• Notes – WO #1;
• Notes – WO #2; and
• Notes – WO #3.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources on September 12, 2023:

• Screenshots of text exchange between the Complainant and his sister, CW #2. [3]

In the afternoon of August 31, 2023, an OPP TRU team was deployed to deal with a barricaded persons situation in Penetanguishene. Earlier that day, on the strength of an arrest warrant, HRPS officers had arrived at the grounds of a property near Robert Street East and Fuller Avenue to take the Complainant into custody. The Complainant was inside a RV situated on the premises and refused to come out when directed to do so by the police. The HRPS officers were leery of entering the RV as the Complainant was known to be armed and had a history of violence. Their initial efforts to have the Complainant surrender through negotiation had been unsuccessful. Under the command of the SO, the OPP assumed carriage of the situation at about 5:15 p.m.

Over the course of the next four hours, OPP negotiators took their turn at having the Complainant give himself up peacefully. Communications were sporadic. On those occasions that the Complainant was heard, little progress was made. He warned police not to enter the RV or he would kill himself. At one point, he asked why the officers were taking so long to enter; it seemed he was waiting for that to happen in order to take his life. As the evening wore on, the Complainant, who had admitted to consuming crack cocaine, began to make less and less sense. Negotiations had effectively stalled.

 
With the SO’s approval, a plan was devised to use OC spray to force the Complainant outside the RV where it was hoped officers could safely take him into custody. TRU officers advanced on the RV, broke one of its windows, and deployed OC canisters into the vehicle. The time was about 9:17 p.m.

The Complainant started coughing inside the vehicle and eventually emerged through the door. He held a gun in his left hand. It was pointed at the left side of his head. The Complainant screamed indiscernibly for several seconds and then discharged his weapon. At about the same time, one of the TRU officers, WO #1, fired his ARWEN twice, and another, WO #3, released his police dog.

 
The Complainant fell following the gunshot. He had sustained a gunshot wound to the head.

 
TRU officers, followed quickly by tactical paramedics, rendered emergency care. The Complainant was taken to hospital and was pronounced deceased on September 4, 2023.

 

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to a single gunshot wound to the side of the head.

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

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) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or        

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The offences that arise for consideration are criminal negligence causing death and criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to sections 220 and 221, respectively, of the Criminal Code. The offences are reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. They are 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 SO, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s gunshot wound or death. In my view, there was not.

The SO and the team of TRU officers were lawfully placed and engaged in the execution of their duties throughout the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s self-inflicted gunshot wound. There was a warrant in effect authorizing the Complainant’s arrest on charges of criminal harassment and uttering threats, and authorizing the officers’ entry into the Complainant’s residence for that purpose.

 
I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety, including the Complainant’s health and wellbeing, throughout the standoff. Trained negotiators did what they could to reach the Complainant and prevail upon him to exit the RV unarmed and surrender into police custody. A forensic psychiatrist was also consulted as the situation unfolded. The deployment of OC gas into the RV seems a reasonable tactic. By that time, the OPP negotiations had been ongoing for about four hours with little prospect of success. Moreover, there was a growing concern for the Complainant’s welfare with his admission at about 7:40 p.m. that he had consumed crack cocaine and his increasing incoherence. Had the plan worked, the Complainant would have been forced from an entrenched position into a more vulnerable one with greater odds of a safe apprehension. In the circumstances, that the Complainant still had the wherewithal to arm himself with a gun and use it against himself before the police could bring less-lethal weapons to bear – an ARWEN and police dog – to take him into custody is regrettable but not the result of any criminal negligence on the part of the police.

 
For the foregoing reasons, I am not satisfied that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in his dealings with the Complainant. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.



Date: December 29, 2023

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit