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 52-year-old man on July 26^th, 2017.

Notification of the SIU

At approximately 11:10 a.m. on Wednesday, July 26^th, 2017, the Chatham-Kent Police Service (CKPS) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s death.

The CKPS reported that on Tuesday, July 25^th, 2017, at approximately 11:49 p.m., they received a 911 call from Civilian Witness (CW) #1. CW #1 stated to the police that she and the Complainant had had an argument that evening and that she had fled the home as a result. She also informed the police that the Complainant had armed himself with a firearm.

A short time later, CKPS officers responded and set up a perimeter around the home. All attempts by the CKPS to establish communications with the Complainant were unsuccessful.

On Wednesday, July 26^th, 2017, at approximately 7:10 a.m., CKPS tactical officers entered the home. Once inside the residence, police officers found the Complainant in an upstairs bedroom with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the right temple. The Complainant was pronounced dead at 3:40 p.m. by the coroner.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Complainant:

52-year-old male, deceased

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

Subject Officers

SO #1 Declined interview, as is the subject officer’s legal right, but provided a written statement through counsel. Notes received and reviewed.

SO #2 Declined interview, as is the subject officer’s legal right, but provided a written statement through counsel. Notes received and reviewed.

On July 25^th, 2017, at approximately 11:49 p.m., CW #1 contacted the CKPS to report that she and her common-law partner, the Complainant, had had an argument. CW #1 warned police that the Complainant had a number of firearms in the house where they lived together and that he was accessing these firearms.

At approximately 11:53 p.m., CKPS police units arrived at the residence and contained the surrounding area. On July 26^th, 2017 at 2:50 a.m., the CKPS Critical Incident Response Team (CIRT) was deployed. At some point, a CIRT armoured vehicle was driven up to the end of the driveway of the residence and CKPS officers attempted to engage with the Complainant on a loud hailer. The Complainant did not respond.

At approximately 6:04 a.m., the Incident Commander gave the go ahead for CKPS officers to approach the home and open the front door; there was still no response from the Complainant. At 6:36 a.m., a distraction device was used, but again there was no response.

At 7:00 a.m., the Incident Commander authorized the CIRT team to breach the front door. With the assistance of a pole mirror, the CIRT team entered the residence and cleared the main floor of the house. At 7:14 a.m., the Incident Commander was advised that the Complainant was found dead on a bed in an upstairs bedroom.

Cause of Death

On July 26^th, 2017, at 3:40 p.m., the Complainant was pronounced dead by the Coroner. On July 27^th, 2017, at 8:00 a.m., the pathologist performed an autopsy on the Complainant. The immediate cause of death was determined to be a “gunshot wound of the head”. The contact entrance wound was determined to be at the right temple and the exit wound was on the left side of the Complainant’s head.

The Scene

The scene was a two-storey detached home in the City of Chatham. The deceased was lying on the bed in the master bedroom, which is at the front of the house overlooking the front porch. There was a Sig Sauer, Model P226 9 mm pistol in his right hand. There was no magazine in the pistol and the slide was locked open. There was a cartridge case lying on the bed.

There was a gunshot wound to the deceased’s right temple with gunshot residue apparent around the wound. His head was lying on two pillows. The top pillow had two bullet holes in it, both the top and bottom. The second pillow had one bullet hole on the top and a projectile was found inside the second pillow.

A trigger lock and keys were found on the floor of a bedroom at the rear of the house. A cell phone was found plugged in and charging in the other bedroom at the front of the house. This bedroom contained the Complainant’s personal items and clothing.

A gun locker was found in the basement with the door ajar. There was a .22 rifle, a .22 handgun, and numerous boxes of ammunition in the locker. The keys to the locker were in the locker door.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

Photo of the gun from the scene

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

No audio or video recordings were located in the area. Photos of the scene taken by the CKPS were obtained and reviewed.

Communications Recordings

911 Call Made by CW #1

The recording was made on July 25^th, 2017, beginning at 11:49:38 p.m. The recording does not have an end time and a summary shows the following:

• A woman [now determined to be CW #1] calls the 911 operator. CW #1 said she needed the police at her residence in Chatham. Her boyfriend [now determined to be the Complainant] had guns in the house. She and the Complainant had had an argument. At the time CW #1 was out in the front yard of the home. There was no one else in the house beside the Complainant. CW #1 claimed the Complainant had locked himself in the basement where the guns were located
• The dispatcher asked if the Complainant meant to kill himself and CW #1 replied that she did not know
• The dispatcher asked if the Complainant has ever attempted suicide and CW #1 replied the Complainant has never attempted suicide before
• The dispatcher asked CW #1 the name of her boyfriend and CW #1 provided his name
• The dispatcher asked CW #1 if she has heard anything and CW #1 replied she has not heard anything as yet. She stated the Complainant is in the room with the gun cabinet and there are lots of guns. CW #1 had heard the gun cabinet door being opened
• CW #1 told the dispatcher that the front door of the home was open and she was standing in the driveway. She has the keys to the house
• CW #1 informed the dispatcher that she saw the Complainant upstairs on the second floor
• The dispatcher asked CW #1 if the Complainant had mental health issues and CW #1 responded he did not
• The dispatcher asked CW #1 if she saw a gun and CW #1 responded no, she did not see one in the Complainant’s hand
• The dispatcher told CW #1 to walk away from the house and CW #1 responded she was going east
• The dispatcher asked CW #1 if she has heard anything and CW #1 replied she has not heard anything and that she is now too far away from the house, and
• CW #1 provided the Complainant’s cell phone number. At that point the call ended

CKPS Communications Recordings

These recordings were made from July 25^th, 2017, beginning at 11:50:23 p.m. and ending on July 26^th, 2017 at 07:14:03 a.m. The summary of the recordings show the following:

• At 11:50:23 p.m., four CKPS police units were dispatched to the residence on a priority call, domestic. A woman [now determined to be CW #1] told the dispatcher that there were guns in the house and her boyfriend [now determined to be the Complainant] might kill himself
• At 11:53:45 p.m., the first CKPS police unit is on scene
• At 11:55:05 p.m., police officers begin containment of the home
• At 11:57:53 p.m., the dispatcher confirmed that the Complainant had a valid firearms license and there were three firearms registered to him
• At 12:03:24 a.m., the dispatcher reported there were two handguns, a shotgun and a 22 calibre rifle registered to the Complainant
• At 12:05:28 a.m., dispatcher began the process of locking down the Complainant’s cell phone
• At 12:21:30 a.m., the dispatcher stated that CW #1 last saw the Complainant in a second floor bedroom at the front of the house. The bedroom light was on
• At 12:36:15 a.m., a police unit advised two calls were made to the Complainant’s cell phone with no response. Two messages were also left on the same cell phone
• At 12:38:14 a.m., police called the Complainant’s cell phone and determined it was turned off
• At 12:46:04 a.m., the Complainant’s cell phone was paired with the police negotiators cell phone. Police called the Complainant’s cell phone five times and received no response
• At 12:58:10 a.m., a police officer reported that the Complainant was not on the main floor of the house after having looked into all of the windows
• At 2:17:60 a.m., police sent a text message to the Complainant’s cell phone and received no response
• At around 3:15:18 a.m., CIRT members began to arrive on scene, and
• At 7:14:03 a.m. the recording stopped

Between the time of the first police unit arriving on scene, until the time the CIRT members began arriving on scene, no sound of a gunshot was heard or reported.

Forensic Evidence

Samples from the Complainant’s post mortem were submitted to the Centre of Forensic Sciences for examination.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Activity Log
• CKPS Scribed Interview Notes of CW #1 dated 2017-07-26
• Event Details
• Firearm Acquired - CFP
• List of Involved Officers
• Notes of WO #s 1-4 and SO #s 1 and 2
• Previous General Occurrence Report involving the Complainant
• Procedure: Crisis Negotiation
• Procedure: Armed and Barricaded Persons
• Procedure: Domestic Violence Investigations
• Sudden Death Report
• 911 Call Recording
• Police Transmissions Communications Recording
• Scenes of Crime Photos, and
• Written Statements of SO #s 1 and 2

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

• The post-mortem report

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 July 25^th, 2017 at 11:49:38 p.m., a 911 call was received by the Chatham-Kent Police Service (CKPS) from Civilian Witness (CW) #1 requesting police assistance at her residence in the City of Chatham. CW #1 stated that she and her common-law partner, the Complainant, had an argument and that he had gone down to the basement where his guns were stored and she heard the gun cabinet doors being opened. Upon questioning, CW #1 indicated that she did not know if the Complainant was suicidal and that he had not attempted suicide in the past. CW #1 stated that she was outside of the house and was told by the dispatcher to walk away. At approximately 7:12 a.m., CKPS officers entered the home and found the Complainant dead inside.

During the course of this investigation, four civilian and four police witnesses were interviewed. Although Subject Officer (SO) #1 and SO #2 declined to be interviewed, as was their legal right, both provided written statements to SIU Investigators. Additionally, investigators had access to the 911 recording, the police radio communications recordings, and the memo book entries of all involved officers. There is no dispute as to the facts.

Following the receipt of the 911 call at 11:49 p.m., at 11:50:23 p.m., four CKPS cruisers were dispatched to the residence on a code 0 call, which is the highest priority call. The first officers arrived at the residence at 11:53:45 p.m. and the home was contained by the police with police surrounding the home and a perimeter was set up. Police officers were made aware by the dispatcher that the Complainant had a valid firearms licence and three firearms were registered in his name.

At 12:05:28 a.m. on the 26^th of July, 2017, the dispatcher began the process of locking down the Complainant’s cell phone which prevented anyone but the police to contact him. A number of calls were made to the Complainant’s cell phone over the course of the night and messages were left, but there was never any response;

At 12:09 a.m., SO #2, the front line supervisor, arrived at the residence. He parked his cruiser in order to block any traffic to the house;

At 12:40 a.m., SO #2 requested that the Designated Senior Officer be notified. SO #1 was called at home, as he was off duty and had been sleeping. The homes neighbouring the residence were also contacted and the residents were told to remain inside;

At 12:46:04 a.m., the Complainant’s cell phone was paired with the police negotiator’s cell phone and numerous additional calls were made, again without response;

At 1:30 a.m., a text message was sent from the cell phone of CW #1 to the cell phone of the Complainant, but there was no response;

At 1:57 a.m., police went up to the house and peered in through the windows and patio doors but no movement was detected inside the house;

At 2:35 a.m., the Critical Incident Response Team (CIRT) was called out, arriving at 3:55 a.m.;

At 4:32 a.m., SO #1 arrived at the scene and assumed control of the incident as Incident Commander, relieving SO #2. A request was made to locate the Complainant’s cell phone through the internet service provider and it was confirmed that it was inside the residence;

At 5:27 a.m., CKPS officers were sent under cover of darkness to check any cars in the area and to approach the house; no persons were found inside the cars and no movement was detected inside the house;

At 5:48 a.m., the flashing lights on the CIRT armoured vehicle were then activated in order to stimulate a response from inside the house; when that action was unsuccessful, the air horn and loud hailer were used for the same purpose; the Complainant’s cell phone was also called on numerous occasions. CW #3 stated that at approximately 5:50 a.m., she heard the sirens and then heard someone over the loud hailer refer to the Complainant by his first name and announce “Please come to your door or answer your phone, people are worried about you and want to make sure you’re alright.” She indicated that this message was repeated every five to ten minutes. At no time was there any response or reaction from inside the home;

At 6:03 a.m., the employer of the Complainant was notified and it was confirmed that he was to begin his shift at 7:00 a.m. that morning and that he had not notified his employer that he would not be attending;

At 6:04 a.m., CKPS officers were directed to approach the residence and open the front door; the front door was wedged open by the officers but again there was no response from inside the home;

At 6:36 a.m., a distraction device (‘flash bang’) was deployed at the rear of the house, which was heard by a number of the CWs; there was no reaction from inside the home;

At 7:05 a.m., it was confirmed that the Complainant had not attended at his place of employment to begin his shift;

At 7:12 a.m., the CIRT entered the house in order to clear it. Officers almost immediately located the body of the Complainant in the master bedroom. The Complainant was lying on the bed and had trauma to the right side of his head which appeared to be a bullet entry wound near his right temple which was covered in gunpowder residue; a handgun was located in the Complainant’s right hand and his right arm was lying across his body. A single brass bullet casing was located lying on the bed. The Complainant’s skin colour was observed to be pale and his lower back area showed signs of lividity (a discolouration of the skin usually caused by the pooling of blood inside the body).

A later examination of the scene by forensic investigators confirmed a gunshot wound to the right temple of the Complainant with gunshot residue apparent around the wound. The Complainant’s head was lying on two pillows with the top pillow having two bullet holes in it and the second pillow had one bullet hole and a projectile was located inside the pillow.

All CWs in the area, including CW #1 and her daughter, confirmed that during the time police were present at the residence, at no time was a firearm heard to be discharged. All police witnesses confirmed that no police officer present discharged his firearm.

The Complainant was pronounced dead by the coroner at 3:40 p.m. A subsequent post mortem carried out the following day confirmed the cause of death as a ‘gunshot wound of the head’ with a contact entrance determined to be at the right temple and the exit wound on the left side of the Complainant’s head.

On this record, I find that the Complainant’s death was caused by his own actions without any direct involvement by the police officers present; that officers present were carrying out their duties as required in responding to the 911 call; and that at no time did any officer have either any physical contact or any verbal interaction with the Complainant that could in any way have been seen to initiate the actions of the Complainant.

On a review of all of the evidence, it is clear that no officer discharged his firearm and no police officer was in close proximity to the Complainant at the time of the gunshot nor were they in a position to have fired the shot that ended his life. It is unclear when the Complainant actually took his life, as no gunshot was heard during the seven or more hours that police were at the residence, but the presence of the bullet holes in the pillows on which the Complainant was lying may have effectively muffled the sound of the gunshot.[1]

While we cannot know what the Complainant’s intentions were when he initially went down to the basement and unlocked his gun cabinet to access his firearms, whether it was to take his own life or that of CW #1 or both, it is clear that the senior officers tasked with commanding a team of police officers to bring this incident to an end could not take the risk that the Complainant may have either wanted to engage police in a fire fight or end the lives of others when he ended his own.

The offence that arises for consideration in this matter is one of Criminal Negligence contrary to s. 219 of the Criminal Code and thereby causing death contrary to section 220 of the Criminal Code. This offence is predicated on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from a reasonable level of care in the circumstances.

219. (1) Everyone 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.

This section was interpreted by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R v Sharp (1984), 12 CCC (3d) 428 (Ont. C.A.) as requiring proof of conduct amounting to “a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonable” person “in circumstances where the accused either recognized and ran an obvious and serious risk to the lives and safety of others or, alternatively, gave no thought to that risk”.

On this record, it is clear that the officers tasked with attempting to save the life of the Complainant did everything in their power to bring this incident to a successful end without loss of life, either to the Complainant, the police officers involved, or any member of the community. I find that the actions of the involved police officers, which strictly complied with police policies directed at this type of occurrence, were at all times carried out in consideration of minimizing the “obvious and serious risk to the lives and safety of others” and in no way amounted to “a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonable person in the circumstances”.

On all of the evidence, it is clear that the Complainant took his own life without any intervention by police. It would be speculative to assume that had police acted with less caution and more quickly, that his life could have been saved at the risk of the loss of other human life. The CKPS commanders tasked with this incident followed all procedures as set out in their policy guidelines and cannot be held responsible for the Complainant’s actions in fulfilling his intention to end his own life.

It is notable that at no time were any allegations made against these officers by anyone with respect to any inappropriate actions on their part, and I am satisfied on reasonable grounds on this record that the actions exercised by the officers fell within the limits prescribed by the criminal law and there are no grounds for proceeding with charges in this case.

Date: May 31, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] However, the presence of post-mortem lividity would suggest that the Complainant shot himself well before his body was discovered by the police and perhaps before they arrived on scene. [Back to text]