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 sustained by a 27-year-old man during his interaction with police on April 17, 2017.

Notification of the SIU

On April 17, 2017 at 5:10 p.m., the Windsor Police Service (WPS) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s custody injury.

WPS advised that officers responded to a barricaded person at a residence in Windsor, at 2:50 p.m. today. At 4:10 p.m., the Complainant came out with several stab wounds to his right thigh. The Complainant was taken to the hospital in Windsor.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

SIU Forensic Investigators responded to the scene and identified and preserved evidence. They documented the relevant scene associated with the incident by way of notes, photography, videography, sketches and measurements.

Complainant

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

Civilian witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

Additionally, the notes from four other, non-designated officers, and prepared statements from three other, non-designated officers, were received and reviewed.

Subject officers

SO Declined interview, as is the subject officer’s legal right. Notes and a prepared statement were received and reviewed.

During the afternoon of April 17, 2017, the Complainant advised CW #1 that he was going to kill himself. He then stabbed himself in the thigh twice. CW #1 called 911, and the SO, WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3 responded to the scene. Initially, the Complainant was reluctant to open his apartment door to the officers. Through repeated negotiations and communications between the officers, the Complainant, and CW #1, however, the Complainant opened the door and allowed paramedics to treat his self-inflicted injuries. He was then transported to the hospital, where his wounds were sutured. The Complainant was formed under the Mental Health Act (MHA)[1] and kept for assessment.

The scene

The scene was on the 4^th floor of an apartment building in Windsor, Ontario. There was blood staining on the hallway carpet leading to, and in front of, the Complainant’s door and medical debris (packaging) opposite this door. Two articles of clothing, which were heavily blood stained, and discarded blue nitrile gloves, rested on the carpet in front of the door. Two sheets of white paper also rested on the hallway floor. These documents were prescription receipts, dated several days earlier, for medication issued to the Complainant.

There was no visible damage to the door or the locking mechanism. The tiled flooring in the foyer was covered with dried and drying blood. Numerous blood transfer footprints were visible in areas leading to and from the front door area. A black folding knife was fully extended and resting on the floor near a partially opened door (laundry room). There were numerous banking documents and pill packages (five) on a glass table in the living room.

Blood transfer footprints led to and from an open balcony door. Blood transfer footprints also led to and from the living room and the ensuite bathroom next to the master bedroom. There were no apparent notes or documents visible suggesting that the Complainant wanted to do harm to himself or others. No other blood covered knives or sharp instruments were visible or located.

Scene diagram

Physical evidence

The knife seized by the SIU at the scene:

Video/audio/photographic evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence, but was not able to locate any.

Communications recordings

The relevant communications recordings made on April 17, 2017, from 2:50:20 p.m. to 4:19:20 p.m. revealed the following:

• At 2:50:20 p.m., the dispatcher dispatched a call for a suicidal man [now determined to be the Complainant] at an apartment building in Windsor. The information provided was that the Complainant contacted his father to advise he cut himself and was going to commit suicide
• At 2:53:22 p.m., WO #3 informed the dispatcher he was on scene
• At 2:56:23 p.m., WO #1 advised the dispatcher he was on scene
• At 2:59:59 p.m., WO #3 reported to the dispatcher that he could hear the Complainant talking inside his apartment
• At 3:00:47 p.m., WO #3 requested that the SO bring up the master key to the Complainant’s apartment
• At 3:04:01 p.m., the dispatcher informed WO #3 that the key holder was on his way to the fourth floor
• At 3:06:47 p.m., WO #3 asked the dispatcher to contact CW #1 to determine if the Complainant had cut himself
• At 3:07:08 p.m., WO #3 reported to the dispatcher that he had knocked on the Complainant’s apartment door and the Complainant was refusing to exit his apartment
• At 3:14:00 p.m., WO #3 informed the dispatcher that he heard the Complainant from inside the apartment. The Complainant had a weapon in his hand and was willing to defend himself if the police entered
• At 3:17:26 p.m., the dispatcher informed the police officers on scene that CW #1 was contacted and it was learned the Complainant had stabbed himself
• At 3:28:08 p.m., WO #3 reported to the dispatcher that the Complainant was acting irrationally. He stated that the Complainant told him if police entered the apartment there would be “combat”
• At 3:45:59 p.m., the Complainant communicated to the police officers on scene that “he was going to die right here right now”
• At 4:09:29 p.m., a police officer informed the dispatcher that paramedics were needed on the fourth floor and they had contact with the Complainant
• At 4:10:40 p.m., police units on scene advised the dispatcher that paramedics were with the Complainant, and
• The recording ended at 4:19:20 p.m.

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the WPS

• Communications recordings
• Computer Aided Dispatch
• Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) for the Complainant
• Notes of WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3
• Notes from four non-designated officers
• Prepared Statements from the SO, WO #1 and WO #2
• Prepared Statements from three non-designated officers, and
• WPS Call Hardcopy

On April 17^th, 2017, a 911 call was received by the Windsor Police Service (WPS) from CW #1 at 2:50:20 p.m. requesting that police attend an apartment in the City of Windsor to assist the Complainant. The SO, WO #1, WO #2, and WO #3 all attended in response to the call. The Complainant was eventually taken to hospital where he was treated for two knife wounds to his thigh.

During the course of this investigation, three civilian witnesses, including the Complainant, and three police witnesses were interviewed. The SO declined to be interviewed, as was his legal right, but provided his memorandum book notes for review. Investigators also had access to the memorandum notebooks for all witness officers, as well as the communications recordings. There is no dispute as to the facts.

On April 17^th, 2017, the Complainant stabbed himself twice in the right thigh while on the phone to CW #1, after having sent a text message threatening to kill himself. CW #1 immediately called for the police, who arrived at the residence of the Complainant shortly thereafter. CW#1 was still on the telephone with the Complainant and when he heard the police knock at the door and could hear the police negotiating with the Complainant and repeatedly attempting to reassure him that they were just there for his wellbeing and to help; the police spoke to the Complainant for about two hours before they were able to gain entry into the apartment. Throughout the interaction, all civilian witnesses, including the Complainant, described the police contact as calm, not shouting, and attempting to gain the Complainant’s trust.

In response to the original call, WO #1 and WO #3 initially attended the scene and attempted to get the Complainant to open the door to them so that they could see if he was injured and/or needed some assistance. After obtaining the master key, the officers attempted to open the door but it was immediately slammed shut and the dead bolt was engaged by the Complainant from within the apartment. Communications recordings confirm that emergency medical and fire services were called for by police officers on scene to assist the Complainant, should the need arise, and two police shields were requested, which were brought to the scene by WO #2. Following the arrival of the SO, and after lengthy negotiations and ongoing communications between CW #1, by telephone, and the Complainant, from the other side of the door, the Complainant eventually unlocked and opened the door and officers quickly entered and brought him out. The Complainant was then tended to by paramedics and transported by ambulance to hospital where he was discovered to have two self-inflicted wounds to his right thigh, which were sutured.

On the evidence before me, all of which is confirmed not only by the three civilian witnesses, but also by the communications recordings, and is consistent with the evidence of all witness police officers, it is clear that the Complainant’s injuries were caused by his own hand and no fault lies with any of the WPS officers who attended to assist, negotiate and encourage the Complainant to accept the help that was on offer and to care for his injuries. The steps taken by both the initial attending officers and the SO thereafter appear to have been fully considered, took into account all possible eventualities and were crucial in bringing this matter to a successful conclusion. It is clear on the evidence that the calm and reassuring tone of all negotiations with the Complainant was what eventually convinced him to open the door and accept the help being held out to him, and to avoid a tragic end. It is of note that the Complainant had no complaint of his interaction with police, advising that he was treated well, while the statements of CW #1 and CW #2 are also lacking in any complaint or criticism of police behaviour.

In the final analysis, I am satisfied for the foregoing reasons that the Complainant’s apprehension and the manner in which it was carried out were lawful notwithstanding the injuries which he suffered, which were found not only to have been self-inflicted but to have occurred prior to any interaction with police. Furthermore, I have no hesitation in finding on this record that the actions exercised by the officers not only fell within the limits prescribed by the criminal law, but that the officers exhibited good judgment, patience and professionalism throughout and their actions were critical in bringing this matter to a successful conclusion. I also find that the actions of all of the responding officers were in compliance with police policies and best practices with respect to the treatment of persons in mental health crises and were commendable. As such, there is absolutely no basis for the laying of criminal charges here and no charges will issue.

Date: January 9, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] A Form 1 under the MHA allows a physician to hold an individual in a psychiatric facility for up to 72 hours to undergo a psychiatric assessment. [Back to text]