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 serious injury reportedly sustained by a 43-year-old man during an encounter with police on July 1^st, 2017.

Notification of the SIU

At approximately 6:00 a.m. on July 1^st, 2017, the Chatham-Kent Police Service (CKPS) notified the SIU of the serious injury sustained by the 43-year-old complainant during an encounter with police officers at the rear yard of his Chatham home.

The CKPS reported that at approximately 1:30 a.m. on July 1^st, 2017, police received an urgent call from the wife of the Complainant. She told police that she had received a text message from her husband in which he threatened to harm himself. Police responded and located the Complainant in his backyard. The Complainant carried a container of gasoline and a lighter and told police to leave or he would set himself on fire. He counted to three and carried out his threat. The Complainant was subsequently transported to hospital where he was treated for third degree burns to 60 percent of his body.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Complainant

43-year-old male, interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

Subject officers

SO #1 Interviewed, but declined to provide notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right

SO #2 Interviewed, but declined to provide notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right

In the late evening on June 30^th, 2017, into the early morning hours of July 1^st, 2017, CW #1 received numerous text messages from her husband indicating that he intended to do harm to himself. As a result, CW #1 called the CKPS and officers were dispatched to the Complainant’s residence to do a well-being check.

Police arrived at the residence at 1:39 a.m. and observed the Complainant seated in his back yard with a gasoline container on his lap. Police attempted to engage the Complainant, from the other side of the fence surrounding his back yard, as he would not give them permission to enter. As the officers tried to speak to the Complainant to discern why the Complainant was upset, and what they could do to help, the Complainant counted to three, doused himself in gasoline and set himself on fire.

The police officers then immediately entered the yard and doused the flames.

Nature of injuries/treatment

The Complainant suffered third degree burns to 60 percent of his body and remained at the burn unit in hospital for eight weeks.

The scene

The Complainant was injured in the backyard of his residence in the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. The residence is a detached home with a large backyard. The backyard contained a fire pit, a commercial sized barbeque, various tables, and plastic chairs.

A melted five gallon gasoline container was found at the scene and the lighter used to ignite the gas was seized from the backyard by SIU forensic investigators (FIs).

A fire extinguisher used by a police officer was photographed at the scene and then removed by the SIU FIs.

Forensic evidence

No submissions were made to the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

Communications recordings

The 911 call recording and the police transmissions communications recordings were obtained and reviewed.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Background Event Chronologies (x2)
• CKPS Email with First Aid Qualifications Dates-2017-07-05
• General Occurrence Report
• Notes of WO #1
• Occurrence Summary
• Procedure: Police Response to Persons who are Emotionally Disturbed;
• Subject Profile of the Complainant
• Audio Interview with Complainant’s wife
• Scene Photos
• 911 Call Recording, and an
• Police Transmissions Communications Recordings

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

• Medical Records of the Complainant
• Ambulance Call Reports
• Fire Marshall’s Report, and
• Text messages from the Complainant to his wife, preceding the incident

In the late evening of June 30^th, 2017, into the early morning hours of July 1^st, 2017, CW #1 received a number of text messages from her husband, the Complainant, indicating that he was upset about their marital situation and that he intended to do harm to himself. Specifically, in one such text message, he wrote “With gas and a litter (sic), how bout just making you a widow instead” and sent a photograph of a container of gas followed by the words “Burning the trash is easily done”. Out of concern for the Complainant’s well-being, CW #1 called 911 at approximately 1:30 a.m. on July 1^st, 2017. The Chatham-Kent Police Service dispatched a number of police officers to the Complainant’s residence to do a well-being check on the Complainant. Following his interaction with the police, the Complainant was transported to hospital where he was treated for third degree burns to 60 percent of his body and remained in the burn unit for eight weeks.

During the course of this investigation, four civilian witnesses, including the Complainant, and four police witnesses, including the two subject officers, were interviewed. Additionally, investigators reviewed the memorandum book notes of one of the witness police officers and the 911 recording, the police radio transmission recordings, the text messages between the Complainant and CW #1, and the Complainant’s medical records. While there is much disagreement as to the surrounding facts, including the Complainant’s intentions at the time, there is no dispute as to the actions of the police officers and the Complainant at the scene and as to the cause of the Complainant’s injuries.

While there is no allegation that the police were in any way directly responsible for the Complainant’s setting himself on fire, it is alleged that the incident never would have happened if the police officers had not arrived at the Complainant’s residence.

SO #2 advised that he received a call to attend the Complainant’s residence in the Municipality of Chatham-Kent because CW #1 had concerns for the well-being of her husband who had sent her an ominous photograph of a gas container. SO #2 arrived at the location at 1:39 a.m. and awaited the arrival of WO #1, SO #1 and WO #2, before all four made their way up the driveway to the back yard of the residence. This is confirmed by the police radio transmissions recording.

SO #2 advised that he was the first to arrive at the gate in the fence which enclosed the backyard and he observed the Complainant sitting on a lawn chair; SO #2 introduced himself by his first name in order to start a dialogue with the Complainant and he told the Complainant that the police were there to help him. SO #2 observed a gas container on the Complainant’s lap and, when SO #2 asked the Complainant what was going on, the Complainant told him to “get the fuck out of here.” When WO #2 continued to attempt to speak with the Complainant and asked him to put the gas container down, the Complainant again repeated his demand that they leave his property; all four of the police officers present corroborated the evidence of the Complainant that he had not doused himself with gasoline at the time of police arrival. SO #2 asked the other police officers present to check for a garden hose.

WO #1 advised that as the Complainant was not responding well to SO#2, SO #1 took over and attempted to speak with the Complainant, and he did so for some 30 to 40 seconds while the others police officers discussed possible strategies by which to disarm the Complainant.

SO #1 advised that he asked the Complainant his name and the Complainant responded by telling the police officers to get out of here and that he was going to count to three; he then counted “one” and stood up, he counted “two” and lifted the gas container and lighter up to shoulder height, he counted “three” and the Complainant brought the gas container and the lighter together and he was then fully engulfed in flames; this was also observed by SO #2 and WO #1 and WO #2. All four of the police officers were consistent in that no officer entered the fenced backyard area prior to the Complainant setting himself on fire.

SO #2 then ran toward the Complainant and told him to get onto the ground and roll around; the Complainant then went to his hands and knees and began to crawl while SO #2 removed his police jacket and tried to smother the flames.

SO #2 observed the gas container melting beside the Complainant on the ground, and he kicked it out of the area, whereupon gas splashed on his boot and both his boot and uniform ignited, but those flames were quickly extinguished. SO #2 estimated that the Complainant was on fire for approximately one to one and one half minutes when the flames were completely extinguished.

WO #1 advised that he went to retrieve the garden hose but the water had been turned off and it did not assist; an undesignated police officer then entered the backyard with a fire extinguisher and the remaining fires in the yard were also extinguished. WO #2 then held the Complainant down on the ground, with his foot on his belt, until the fire department and Emergency Medical Services arrived and the Complainant was transported to hospital.

The Complainant confirmed the evidence of all four of the initial police officers present that no police officer was physically involved in his setting himself on fire or the resultant injuries to himself. While the Complainant appears to assign some blame to police in that it was their presence that caused him to become upset and therefore suffer his “impulsive accident”, it is clear that police officers were acting in the course of their duties when they responded to a 911 call requesting a well-being check at the Complainant’s residence based on the request of CW #1 and her valid concern that her husband was suicidal.

In the final analysis, whatever the reason behind the Complainant setting himself on fire, it is abundantly clear that there was no physical interaction with police, and very limited verbal interaction, before the Complainant set himself on fire and suffered his unfortunate severe injuries. Furthermore, it was due to the actions of the Complainant alone that he was set on fire, and no police officer had any hand in setting him on fire. On the contrary, I find that the police officers, but most specifically SO #2, were responsible for saving the Complainant’s life and that the actions of WO #2, in immediately running to the Complainant, despite his being engulfed in flames, and using his police jacket to douse the flames, were commendable and the result of very quick thinking and were carried out despite the risk to SO #2’s own safety.

On these facts, it is clear that there is no causation between the actions of police and the serious injuries to the Complainant nor is there any evidence upon which I can form any reasonable grounds to believe that any of the police officers who attended and attempted to dissuade the Complainant from taking his own life committed any criminal offence and therefore no charges will issue.

Date: March 26, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit