Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving police officers where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. The Unit’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation. If, after an investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the officer. Alternatively, in all cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director does not lay criminal charges but files a report with the Attorney General communicating the results of an investigation.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act (“FIPPA”)

Pursuant to section 14 of FIPPA (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 whose release 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 of FIPPA (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this document. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• subject officer name(s)
• witness officer name(s)
• civilian witness name(s)
• 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 (“PHIPA”)

Pursuant to PHIPA, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may have also 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.

The Unit’s investigative jurisdiction is limited to those incidents where there is a serious injury (including sexual assault allegations) or death in cases involving the police.

“Serious injuries” shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. “Serious Injury” shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault. Where a prolonged delay is likely before the seriousness of the injury can be assessed, the Unit should be notified so that it can monitor the situation and decide on the extent of its involvement.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the death of a 48-year-old man on September 4, 2017.

Notification of the SIU

At approximately 5:10 a.m. on September 4, 2017, the Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) notified the SIU of the death of the 48-year-old Complainant.

The GSPS reported that they responded to a call regarding a suicidal male on the evening of September 3, 2017. The Complainant’s family had taken a firearm from the Complainant and had locked him out of the residence. The Complainant attempted to force his way into the residence and a family member called 911. When the Complainant was eventually successful in forcing his way into the residence, the family fled. Responding GSPS officers established a perimeter around the residence.

At 2:23 a.m., a family member was able to access an internet camera inside the residence and was able to see the Complainant lying motionless on the kitchen floor. GSPS officers and a paramedic attended and determined that the Complainant was dead.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

SIU Forensic Investigators responded to the scene and identified and preserved evidence. The relevant scene associated with the incident was photographed and a diagram was prepared. Forensic Investigators attended and recorded the post-mortem examination and assisted in making submissions to the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

Complainant:

48-year-old male, deceased

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Not interviewed (Next-of-kin)

CW #6 Not interviewed

CW #2 and her daughter were both unable to speak to SIU investigators immediately following the incident due to the emotional stress they were experiencing. CW #2 later met with SIU investigators and during that conversation she provided information about the incident.

CW #6’s information was consistent with the information provided by CW #4, as a result of which she was not interviewed.

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed, notes and written statement received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed, notes and written statement received and reviewed

WO #3 Notes and written statement reviewed, interview deemed not necessary

WO #4 Notes reviewed and written statement, interview deemed not necessary

WO #5 Notes reviewed and written statement, interview deemed not necessary

WO #6 Notes reviewed and written statement, interview deemed not necessary

WO #7 Notes reviewed and written statement, interview deemed not necessary

WO #8 Notes reviewed and written statement, interview deemed not necessary

WO #9 Notes reviewed and written statement, interview deemed not necessary

The SIU elected to interview WO #1 and WO #2, as they were two of the first three police officers arriving in the area. WO #9 was the first police officer to arrive. The SIU held off issuing a designation for WO #9 until the sequence of events could be further understood. WO #9 was ultimately designated as a witness officer following a review of the timeline of the events when it became clear that the Complainant took his life prior to the arrival of any police officer.

Additionally, the notes and written statement from one other police officer were received and reviewed.

Subject Officers

No subject officers were identified or designated.

The Complainant resided with CW #2 at a residence in the Village of Whitefish, in the Greater Sudbury area.

On September 3, 2017, CW #2 returned to the residence, after being out, where she joined the Complainant in their backyard gazebo. Also present at the residence that evening were the daughter of CW #2, as well as CW #4 and CW #1.

The Complainant had been drinking that day and was intoxicated as he sat with CW #2 in the gazebo. The Complainant and CW #2 started to have an argument that centred on CW #2 recording her conversation with the Complainant on her cellular telephone. CW #2 stated she was going into the house to sleep and she did so.

CW #2 had activated a voice recording application on her cellular telephone and that application remained active for the next several hours recording the events that transpired inside the residence.

The Complainant became upset and told CW #2 that their relationship was as good as over if she chose to sleep in her daughter’s bedroom. The Complainant then entered the bedroom and told CW #2 that he intended to kill himself.

CW #2 asked CW #1 to assist her and CW #1 was able to take a loaded 9mm handgun away from the Complainant. CW #1 brought the handgun into the residence, unloaded it, and placed it onto the dining room table. The family locked the door to prevent the Complainant from accessing his other handguns.

The Complainant became increasingly upset and he started to strike the door to the residence in an effort to force the door open. In response, CW #2’s daughter contacted 911 and requested an ambulance. Due to the nature of the call, the GSPS also dispatched several police officers to attend the residence.

Eventually the Complainant was able to break open the door to the residence. As a result CW #2, as well as her daughter and CW #1, fled the residence through another door. They then fled the area in a vehicle.

The Complainant retrieved a .45 calibre pistol from his gun safe. Approximately 16 minutes after his family fled the residence, the Complainant discharged one shot into some items resting on a tabletop in the kitchen. One minute later, the Complainant used the pistol to shoot himself in the head.

Responding police officers and paramedics met CW #2, her daughter, and CW #1 a short distance away from the residence. Three police officers moved closer to the residence in an attempt to establish observation of the Complainant. They were soon joined by other police officers who surrounded the residence. Eventually the GSPS tactical team was dispatched, but they did not have time to deploy before the Complainant shot himself.

While in the presence of police, CW #2’s daughter and CW #1 were able to access a remotely viewed internet camera mounted in the kitchen of the residence, from which they were able to see the Complainant lying on the floor of the kitchen, with blood on the nearby cupboards and a handgun lying between his legs.

At 2:23 a.m. on September 4, 2017, the police entered the residence and a paramedic supervisor declared the Complainant deceased.

Cause of Death

Following the post-mortem, the attending pathologist determined that the cause of death of the Complainant was from a single contact gunshot wound to his right temple, which perforated his head and brain.

The Scene

The Complainant’s residence is located at a residence in the Village of Whitefish, west of Sudbury. It is a single storey residence, with a swimming pool and gazebo at the rear of the residence and a detached two car garage to the left side of the residence.

An entrance at the rear of the residence is used as the main access point into the residence. There is also a door at the front of the house, which was generally not used.

The rear door was heavily damaged from impacts by some type of object. A decorative glass insert in the centre of the door was destroyed and there was broken glass on the interior stairways and into the kitchen. Outside, beside the door, there was a large concrete figurine that had been displaced and had likely been used in an attempt to force open the door. Once inside the doorway, there was a sledge hammer resting against a wall.

The Complainant was found on his back on the kitchen floor, with obvious gunshot trauma to his right temple (his left temple was not observable in the position in which he was lying). There was a large pool of blood above his head.

The residence was photographed and examined.

A spent .45 calibre cartridge case was found on a kitchen shelving unit, and a second cartridge case was found on the kitchen floor. On a small kitchen island table, a projectile had struck a ceramic plate, a cordless telephone, and two small tea tins before impacting a steel-sided crock pot. That bullet was recovered from inside of one of the tea tins. Three live .45 calibre rounds were also found on the kitchen island.

A second bullet, which had passed through the Complainant’s head, was lodged in a door frame down a hallway running off the kitchen area.

A Sig Sauer P226 9mm pistol was recovered from the dining room table and a Colt Model 1911 .45 calibre pistol was recovered from the kitchen, lying between the Complainant’s feet. Other handguns were found in an open firearm safe in the basement. A separate safe containing ammunition was also found to be open.

The Complainant’s cellular telephone, a trigger lock, and ammunition for the pistol were found inside the gazebo. A message was located on the Complainant’s cellular telephone which he had apparently sent via a messaging application. Another trigger lock was found inside the garage.

CW #1 was observed to have blood deposits on his jeans. CW #1 explained the blood deposits were the result of removing the family dog from the residence.[1] In the interest of being thorough, those blood deposits were swabbed and submitted for analysis. The DNA report received from CFS indicated that these blood deposits could not be confirmed as being human.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

The Colt Model 1911 .45 calibre pistol recovered from the kitchen, lying between the Complainant’s feet.

The Sig Sauer P226 9mm pistol recovered from the dining room table.

Other handguns found in an open firearm safe in the basement.

Forensic Evidence

The SIU consulted with the CFS regarding the need to conduct analyses on the bullet that had passed through the Complainant’s head. Given the circumstances of the incident, the CFS did not see a need to match the fired projectile to the firearm and they declined to accept the submission.

The SIU also submitted the swab taken of the blood stain on CW #1’s pants, to alleviate any concerns regarding the source of that blood. The CFS was asked to confirm the blood came from a canine. The results received on June 27, 2018, indicated that the blood cannot be confirmed as human.

Expert Evidence

According to the pathologist who performed the post-mortem examination on the body of the Complainant, the cause of death was determined to be a single contact gunshot wound to the right temple, perforating the head and brain.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

Audio Recording from CW #1 Cellular Telephone

CW #2 activated an audio recording application on her cellular telephone while she sat in the gazebo with the Complainant.

The recording revealed CW #2 telling the Complainant that he was the one freaking out, and that CW #1 was worried about CW #2’s safety. The Complainant asked CW #2 if she was recording with her phone and she denied doing so. The Complainant asked why not, if she wanted to end this in a spectacular way, she must still be recording with her phone. The Complainant then told her he could see she was recording things with her telephone. He told her that she was “So fucking transparent” and imbecilic. CW #2 suggested they call the Complainant’s mother to talk him down.

The Complainant lamented that if their relationship was at the point where one of them needed to be talked down, “We’re just fucking done. And I didn’t think that was ever going to happen in our entire lives, ever, because I believed in you. And I thought this was not even possible. But now, apparently, it’s happening.”

CW #2 stated that she was going to bed and the Complainant told her to do that. CW #2 said she was going to sleep in her daughter’s room and he told her to go ahead and make her choice and they would go from there. CW #2 went into the residence and prepared for bed.

CW #1 could be heard asking CW #2 if she wanted a ride somewhere. CW #2 was crying and CW #1 continued to whisper to her. CW #2’s daughter was also whispering to CW #2, telling her the situation was not good for her or the family. CW #2 said something about playing Solitaire and the Complainant reacting.

Music was playing in the background of the recording and it became louder.

The Complainant then entered the bedroom and he threatened that if CW #2 chose to go to bed there [in the daughter’s room] and given everything she has professionally [inaudible], he would “Tell everyone about some other (unknown parties). Everybody.” He departed but returned and said, “Everyone,” to which CW #2 responded, “Go ahead.”

The Complainant soon returned and said, “Just so you know, you wanna sleep there tonight, you’re sealing your fate. ‘Cause I will tell everyone.” CW #2 told him “Go,” but the Complainant continued by listing all the persons he was going to tell and then saying, “I will tell everyone who wants to listen, about what you did.” He further stated, “Okay, seriously, you’re done. And you sleep here tonight, we’re done.” He then closed the bedroom door.

At 25 minutes and 55 seconds (25:55) into the recording, the Complainant returned to the bedroom and said tearfully, “If you’re really gonna do this, then you are going to have no problem, legally. I didn’t think you were this kind of person. Never imagined that you were this kind of person, but you will not have any problem, legally. I will kill myself and you’ll just have to deal with the cleanup. That’ll be the only crap you have to deal with. And if that’s what you want and that’s who you are, then I’m better off dead anyhow. ‘Cause I put all my eggs into this basket and I thought it was a good basket. And if this is how it goes, then this is how it goes. But you’ll have to deal with me for a little bit until I’m 100 percent sure that this is what the fuck you want to do. Then you won’t have to worry about me at all. I just hope the kids aren’t here. Good night.” He then closed the door.

At 41:25 into the recording, the Complainant entered the bedroom and stated, “Goodbye, I love you. Goodbye.” CW #2 asked, “Where you going?” but the Complainant simply closed the door.

Sounds were then heard on the recording as though someone else entered the room and there was whispering from a male, believed to be CW #1. The bedroom door opened and a female (believed to be CW #2’s daughter) asked, “Where did CW #1 go?”

At 49:45 into the recording, CW #2 asked CW #1 to help her. Faintly in the background a male could then be heard repeating, “No, no, no.” Two males could be heard having a discussion and then the Complainant could be heard repeating, “Give me my fucking gun, give me my fucking gun,” following which he could be heard saying something along the lines of, “I’m fucking done.” CW #1 twice told the Complainant that he would not be getting his gun back, to which the Complainant responded, “I want my fucking gun back.”

The sound of someone unloading a semi-automatic pistol could be heard and CW #1 stated, “It’s safe.” There were then sounds of the door into the residence being impacted.

A female said something about calling an ambulance and CW #1 asked that they call someone. The sound of a telephone number being entered could be heard and CW #2 yelled to the Complainant that they were calling someone for him.

The daughter of CW #2 could be heard speaking to the 911 call taker and saying that they needed an ambulance. In the background, the Complainant could be heard swearing and CW #2 stated that she needed help holding the door. The daughter of CW #2 instructed CW #1 to help holding the door.

The daughter of CW #2 told the call taker she had a drunk, aggressive, and emotional Complainant who was threatening to kill himself. She stated they had just removed a gun from his hand, unloaded it, and brought it inside. She confirmed the Complainant had a handgun in his hand but it had been unloaded and was sitting on the kitchen table. She stated that he was outside trying to bang the door down.

The Complainant could be heard yelling for them to “Open this fucking door,” and the daughter of CW #2 confirmed with the call taker that what they could hear was the Complainant, who was very intoxicated and very aggressive. In the background, the Complainant was threatening, “I’m gonna fucking lose it.” The impacts on the door became louder, perhaps because he had picked up an instrument or because CW #2 (or her telephone) had moved closed to the door. CW #2 asked CW #1 to “Tell him that the police are coming.”

The daughter explained to the call taker that the Complainant had a restricted firearms license and he went to a gun range frequently. CW #1 informed the daughter that the handgun that the Complainant had been holding was a 9mm and the daughter provided that information to the call taker. The Complainant was still banging on the door.

The daughter informed the call taker that the Complainant had consumed a “twenty-sixer” of vodka.

At one hour into the recording [1:00:00], very loud strikes against the door could be heard. At one hour and 23 seconds [1:00:23], shattering glass could be heard. The daughter asked CW #2 if they would be able to exit through the front door and, when CW #2 said they could, the daughter told the 911 call taker they were going out the front door. At 1:01:50 into the recording, the sound of a car speeding away could be heard. The Complainant could be heard walking with heavy steps into the kitchen.

The Complainant spoke out loud, “Really? Really? This is what you want to do? Really?”

At 1:08:48 into the recording, with country music playing in the background, the Complainant could be heard working the action of a semi-automatic pistol. Minutes later he continued to talk out loud, “Really? Really?”

At 1:15:51 into the recording, the Complainant stated, “Really? Really? Yeah, okay. That’s fine. That’s fine.”

At the 1:16:08 mark, the Complainant could be heard working the action of a semi-automatic pistol and bullets could be heard falling onto the kitchen island. At 1:16:15 into the recording, the pistol discharged and there was the sound of a plate breaking. At 1:16:35, the Complainant worked the action of the pistol again and a bullet could be heard falling onto the kitchen island. At 1:16:41, the Complainant said, “Yeah, fuck you!”

At 1:17:40 into the recording, the Complainant said, “Fuck it. Fuck it.” At 1:17:52, the Complainant worked the action of the pistol and at 1:17:56 into the recording there was the sound of a gunshot and a thud as if a body was falling to the floor.

Country music could be heard playing in the background.

The recording on CW #2’s telephone continued for two more hours. During that time, there was a repeated, irregularly-timed, sound of something hitting something else. The source of the sound could have been the entrance door to the residence moving in the wind, but there is no way of determining that source with certainty.

The country music would occasionally stop, and after some time would resume.

At 3:09:30 into the recording, the telephone (landline) inside the house rang. At 3:11:23, the telephone rang again.

At the 3:26:43 mark, the recording ended.

Communications Recordings

Event Chronology Report

The event chronology report and the police communications recordings were reviewed and found to be consistent with each other.

The event chronology report indicated that at 11:22 p.m. on September 3, 2017, the GSPS received a telephone call from the daughter of CW #2, who reported that the Complainant was speaking about killing himself and he had been holding a loaded firearm, but the firearm was taken from him and unloaded. Further, the Complainant had been locked outside and was trying to get into the house.

In the background of the telephone call, the call-taker could hear banging. CW #2’s daughter reported that the doors were locked but that the Complainant knew the electronic access code.

WO #9, WO #2, and WO #1 were dispatched to the call at 11:25 p.m.

CW #2’s daughter reported that the Complainant owned other firearms, but they were secured inside the residence. She reported that the Complainant had consumed approximately 26 ounces of vodka and he could be expected to be aggressive toward police.

At 11:30 p.m., the daughter reported that the Complainant had broken open the door and they were leaving the residence through the front door. She reported that they were fleeing and would wait for the police at a nearby intersection.

At 11:50 p.m., WO #9 arrived at the intersection indicated by CW #2’s daughter. At 11:52 p.m., WO #9 moved closer to the Complainant’s residence. At 12:11 a.m. on September 4, 2017, WO #9 advised that he and WO #2 were moving toward the residence in order to get a closer look.

The recording revealed ongoing discussion regarding the positioning of the police officers around the residence and tire deflation devices were deployed under the various vehicles parked in the driveway of the residence.

At 1:16 a.m., WO #9 reported that the Inspector wanted the police officers to try to contact the Complainant. WO #9 also asked that more police carbine rifles be involved in the call. At 1:26 a.m., the involved police officers discussed an arrest plan should they be able to establish contact with the Complainant.

At 1:31 a.m., telephone calls were placed into the residence but those calls were not answered.

At 2:06 a.m., the decision was made to deploy the entire tactical team, and steps were taken to call out the tactical team.

At 2:16 a.m., the paramedic supervisor advised police that CW #1 might be able to access a camera inside the house. At 2:18 a.m., the paramedic supervisor reported that CW #1 had successfully accessed the camera and they could see the Complainant lying on the kitchen floor with a gun between his legs.

At 2:23 a.m., the paramedic supervisor was cleared to enter the residence and she immediately determined that the Complainant was deceased.

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the GSPS:

• Driver’s Licence information for the Complainant
• A Person Query report for the Complainant
• Event Chronology report
• Involved Persons List
• 911 Call Recordings
• Recordings of EMS Calls to GSPS
• Police Transmissions Communications Recordings
• GSPS Scene Photos
• Notes of WO #s 1-9 and one undesignated police officer, and
• Written Statements from WO #s 1-9 and one undesignated police officer

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from other sources:

• EMS Report of Death
• Audio recording from CW #2’s cellular telephone
• Five Firearm Registration Certificates for Five Restricted Firearms in the possession of the Complainant, and
• DNA Report from the CFS

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

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

1. in doing anything, or
2. 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.

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

1. 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
2. in any other case, to imprisonment for life

On September 3, 2017, the Complainant was at his home in the Village of Whitefish in the Greater Sudbury Area when he became embroiled in an argument with Civilian Witness (CW) #2, following which he accessed a loaded firearm and threatened to take his own life. CW #1, who was present in the home at the time, disarmed the Complainant and unloaded the firearm, following which the Complainant was locked out of the house. The daughter of CW #2 then called 911 requesting assistance as the Complainant was intoxicated and threatening suicide. The dispatcher for the GSPS suggested that CW #2, her daughter, and CW #1 leave the residence and advised that the police had been dispatched. Within minutes of CW #2, her daughter, and CW #1 leaving the residence, a gunshot was heard from a neighbouring home and it was later confirmed that the Complainant had taken his own life.

A post-mortem examination carried out on the body of the Complainant confirmed the cause of death as a single contact gunshot wound to the right temple, perforating the head and brain.

There is no dispute as to the facts, as the entire interaction between CW #2 and the Complainant was recorded by CW #2 on her cellular phone, which was left behind when CW #2, her daughter, and CW #1 fled from the house, and recorded the fatal shot which took the Complainant’s life when he was alone in the residence.

Furthermore, the timing of the fatal shot as occurring after CW #2, CW #1, and the daughter of CW #2 left the residence is confirmed by a neighbour and his girlfriend, who heard the occupants speed away in their motor vehicle and then heard a gunshot a number of minutes later.

Additionally, prior to the arrival of police at the residence, the daughter of CW #2 was able to access a live internet camera inside the residence and observed the Complainant lying on the kitchen floor with blood spatter seen on the kitchen cupboards and a handgun lying on the floor between his legs. The daughter provided her cell phone to CW #3, a superintendent with the Greater Sudbury Paramedic Service, who was waiting near the residence with the Complainant’s family until the matter was resolved. CW #3, while looking at the live feed to the cell phone, observed the Complainant dead on the floor and notified police, who she then also observed entering the residence shortly thereafter.

Examination of the Complainant’s cell phone by SIU investigators after the fact revealed that the Complainant had sent a text message to a close friend on the date of his death, indicating that he thought he might die that night, not due to the fault of anyone but himself, and that he was sorry and loved his friend.

The recording of the incident on CW #2’s cell phone also revealed the Complainant repeatedly threatening to take his own life and recorded the fatal shot when the Complainant was apparently alone in the house.

A synchronization between the recording on CW #2’s cell phone and the police radio transmissions, as well as the timing when the 911 call came in, determined that the Complainant fired the fatal shot at 11:48 p.m. The 911 call was made at 11:22 p.m. and CW #2, her daughter, and CW #1 fled the house shortly thereafter, while still on the call with the 911 call taker, and waited for the police at a nearby intersection.

Witness Officer (WO) #9, WO #2, and WO #1 were dispatched to attend the scene at 11:25 p.m., but each were travelling from some distance away and WO #9 was the first to arrive and meet with the Complainant’s family at 11:50 p.m., moments after the Complainant had already inflicted the fatal shot.

Unaware of the fact that the Complainant had already taken his own life, in accordance with police procedure and in order to bring this matter to a close without the loss of life, the police then received information from the family, sketches were made and received of the layout of the interior of the house, a perimeter was set up, tire deflation devices were put in place to prevent the Complainant being able to flee from the police, attempts were made to contact the Complainant by telephone, and, after the Complainant was seen on the live internet feed to be lying lifeless on the floor of his kitchen, at 2:18 a.m., the police entered the home and found the Complainant already deceased.

On all of this evidence, it is clear that the Complainant took his own life by firing a gunshot into his temple from close range without any intervention, either physical or verbal, from the police. The timeline, as established by numerous different sources, positively confirmed that the Complainant took the fatal shot prior to the arrival of the police and that there was nothing that the police could have done to prevent his having done so.

The remoteness of the area, unfortunately, prevented the police arrival prior to the Complainant putting into action his plan to end his life; that plan having been made abundantly clear by his text message to his close friend, as well as his utterances to CW #2 recorded on her cell phone.

Having considered all of the evidence, it is clear that the officers tasked with attempting to prevent the loss of the Complainant’s life followed all necessary procedures to prevent that loss of life while proceeding with caution in order to preserve their own, but would not have been able to save the life of the Complainant even had they not done so, as the Complainant had already put his plan into action prior to police even arriving on scene.

As such, the police officers, who responded to this crisis as quickly as they were able, cannot be held responsible for the Complainant’s actions in fulfilling his intention to end his own life. On these facts, there are no reasonable grounds here for the laying of criminal charges and none will issue.

Date: July 12, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] The family dog was in a cage in a basement bedroom. The dog was removed from the residence by CW #1. The dog was suffering from anal cancer and was bleeding in that area. [Back to text]