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 April 3, 2017.

Notification of the SIU

On April 3, 2017, at 11:50 p.m., the Kingston Police Service (KPS) notified the SIU of the firearm death of the Complainant.

KPS reported that on Monday April 3, 2017, at about 3:15 p.m., the Complainant went to the residence of his ex-girlfriend (ex-Girlfriend), armed with a shotgun. While at her residence he discharged several shots and assaulted the ex-Girlfriend. He then fled from her residence in his vehicle and returned to his residence and barricaded himself inside.

At about 4:00 p.m., KPS police officers contained the residence, evacuated surrounding units and attempted to negotiate with the Complainant. At about 10:25 p.m., a single shot was heard from inside the residence. A short time later, the Complainant was found inside his residence with what appeared to be a self-inflicted fatal gunshot wound.

The on scene incident commander was the Subject Officer (SO). There were numerous KPS police officers involved in containing the area as well as a KPS Emergency Response Unit (ERU).

The scene was held and a coroner attended the scene.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

SIU Forensic Investigators responded to the scene and identified and preserved evidence. They documented the relevant scenes associated with the incident by way of notes, photography, videography, sketches and measurements. The Forensic Investigators attended and recorded the post-mortem examination and assisted in making submissions to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS).

Complainant:

52-year-old male, deceased

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

Police Employee Witnesses

PEW Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed[1]

Witness Officers

WO #1 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Interviewed

WO #7 Interviewed

WO #8 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #9 Interviewed

WO #10 Interviewed

WO #11 Interviewed

WO #12 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #13 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

Additionally, the notes and a prepared statement from one other non-designated officer were received and reviewed.

Subject Officers

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed.

During the afternoon of April 3, 2017, the Complainant saw his ex-Girlfriend walking on the street in Kingston. He was subject to a court order that he not have any communication with her, resulting from domestic related charges arising less than a month earlier.

The Complainant got out of his vehicle carrying a sawed-off shotgun and assaulted his ex-Girlfriend with the butt end of the shotgun to her face area, and then forced her into his vehicle. The ex-Girlfriend was able to jump out of the passenger side of the vehicle and ran. The Complainant fired two slug rounds from the shotgun at his ex-Girlfriend, narrowly missing her both times. He then fled the area in his vehicle. Witnesses were able to obtain the vehicle plate information and, within minutes, KPS police officers located the Complainant’s vehicle parked, unoccupied, in the parking lot of his residence.

The area surrounding the Complainant’s townhouse was contained by KPS police officers, and members of the KPS ERU were called in for a barricaded person armed with a firearm. A command post was set up with the SO as the incident commander, and WO #7 started negotiations with the Complainant on his cellphone. The Complainant told WO #7 that he had been up the night before because ten guys had been chasing him and he blamed his ex-Girlfriend as being responsible. He also told WO #7 that he hid out for the night and then went home in the morning where he sawed off the barrel and stock of a shotgun and went hunting for his ex-Girlfriend. The Complainant told WO #7 that he was trying to kill his ex-Girlfriend, shot at her, and thought he had killed her.

A throw phone box was deployed through a breached window at the front of the Complainant’s townhome. A distractionary device was also deployed at the front of the Complainant’s unit, along with voice commands through a loud hailer.

The Complainant sat on the couch in the living room area of his unit, removed a sawed-off shotgun from under some clothing on a sofa, tucked the shotgun under his arm and descended the stairs to the basement. He then came back up the stairs, sat on the couch still carrying the shotgun, and spoke with WO #7 on the throw phone telephone. The Complainant told WO #7 that he was not going back to jail and it was not going to end that way.

At 10:18 p.m., the Complainant abruptly hung up the throw phone telephone, got up from the couch with the shotgun in his hands, walked towards the stairway leading up to the second floor of the unit, and ascended the stairs. He was not seen again and witnesses heard a muffled sound believed to be a gunshot.

KPS ERU members entered the unit at 11:22 p.m. and found the Complainant lying on the floor of the bathroom, on the second floor, with a single gunshot wound to the chest area. A sawed-off shotgun was found on the floor near him. The Complainant was declared dead at the scene.

The Scene

The incident took place at the Complainant’s residence in Kingston. The residential complex is a block of row housing consisting of multi-level units. Entry to the unit is through the front door and leads into the living room area. There is a set of stairs leading up to an upstairs landing consisting of a bedroom at the rear of the residence and a bathroom at the top of the stairs to the left. The Complainant was found fully clothed and laying supine inside the bathroom on the floor. His head was near the bathtub and his feet near the open doorway. A single gunshot entrance wound was clearly visible to his left upper chest area. Components of a shotgun shell (wadding and cup) were found in the bathtub and a hole was observed in the tiled wall at the back of the bathtub. A flattened shotgun slug embedded in the bathroom wall was recovered. A bolt-action sawed-off shotgun was found on the floor just outside the bathroom doorway at the top of the stairs. The shotgun had been moved away from the Complainant’s body by a KPS ERU member, for safety reasons, upon entry.

In the front bedroom, on the top level of the townhome, an Anti-Riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN)[3] projectile was found on the top of a dresser near the window. An indentation was observed on the wall opposite the window, which aligned with the hole in the window, and appeared to have been caused by the ARWEN projectile.

In the kitchen area, located in the lower level of the townhome, a black jacket with traces of blood on it was observed on the back of a kitchen chair.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

Weapon

The weapon used by the Complainant was examined at the SIU on Saturday, April 8, 2017. The firearm is a Lakefield-Mossberg Model L395K 12 gauge bolt action shotgun. The barrel length was measured at 295 mm. The weapon had been modified by the barrel and stock being cut down. Overall length and barrel length classify this weapon as a prohibited firearm. Below is a photo of the firearm.

Forensic Evidence

Biological samples obtained during the post-mortem examination were submitted to the CFS for analysis.

The toxicology results were received by the SIU on November 28, 2017. The toxicology report indicated that the complainant had methamphetamine, amphetamine, and ethanol in his body in recreational amounts.

Expert Evidence

Post-Mortem Report

The Complainant was pronounced dead at the scene by the Coroner at 12:10 a.m. on Tuesday April 4, 2017.

On Wednesday April 5, 2017, a Forensic Pathologist performed an autopsy on the Complainant. Upon completion of the post-mortem examination, the Forensic Pathologist gave the cause of death as “Perforating shotgun wound to the chest.” There was one round exit wound in the back. X-rays of the chest showed two or three minute metal fragments, but no birdshot or buckshot pellets. The overall pattern of the injury was characteristic of a shotgun slug. No other significant injuries were identified. There was no contributing natural disease identified.

The final post-mortem report was received by the SIU on November 28, 2017. The post-mortem report confirmed a “perforating contact range shotgun wound to the chest” as the sole cause of death.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence. KPS provided the audio and video from the KPS throw phone. The SIU also received copies of the text messages between the Complainant and CW #1.

Throw Phone Video Analysis[3]

On Monday April 3, 2017, at 7:59 p.m. [9:02 p.m.], the throw phone is deployed by members of the KPS ERU through a breached front bay window into the living room area of the Complainant’s residence.

At 8:48 p.m. [9:51 p.m.], the Complainant is seen moving around inside his residence in the living room area.

At 8:53 p.m. [9:56 p.m.], after being directed to pick up the telephone inside the throw phone box, the Complainant picks up the telephone and commences a conversation with negotiators.

At 8:56 p.m. [9:59 p.m.], the Complainant hangs up the telephone, gets up from the couch and is seen tucking a sawed-off shotgun under his arm. The Complainant is observed talking on the telephone several more times and leaving the living room area to attend the basement area still carrying the shotgun with him.

At 9:01 p.m. [10:04 p.m.], the Complainant picks up the telephone and is seen talking with negotiators.

At 9:14 p.m. [10:17 p.m.], the Complainant abruptly hangs up the telephone, remains seated for a moment, then gets up from the couch, the sawed-off shotgun in his hands. He walks towards the stairway leading to the second floor of the residence and ascends the stairs. The Complainant is not seen again on the video.

At 10:22 p.m. [11:25 p.m.], KPS ERU members are seen entering the living room area and ascending the stairs to the second floor.

At no time prior to the entry of the KPS ERU members at 10:22 p.m. [11:25 p.m.] were any KPS police officers or anyone else observed inside the Complainant’s residence.

Mobile Phone Text Messages

Text messages between the Complainant and CW #1 were reviewed and corroborate the statement of CW #1, and supporting documentation.

On Monday April 3, 2017, at time stamp 3:49 p.m., the Complainant sent a text message to CW #1 stating, “Oh ya, I shot [the ex-Girlfriend] in the head.” At 3:52 p.m., the Complainant sent a further text message stating, “Oh ya….I shot [the ex-Girlfriend] in the head twice… thought you should know… I’m next.” At 3:55 p.m., the Complainant sent a text message stating, “Anyways…the cops are here now…got to go… love to take one them” and “oh the crowd forms.”

Communications Recordings

The communication recordings and 911 calls of the event on Monday, April 3, 2017, leading up to the death of the Complainant are consistent with the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) call printouts received from KPS and the radio/throw phone communications. This data was reviewed and corroborated the statements of the involved SO and witness officers.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• 911 Recording Explanation
• Communications recordings
• CAD call printouts
• Civilian Witness List for Incident with the ex-girlfriend
• Civilian Witness List for Incident at the Complainant’s residence
• Duty Roster
• General Occurrence Report - Incident with the ex-girlfriend
• General Occurrence Report - Incident at the Complainant’s residence
• Scenes of Crime Officer (SOCO) photos for Incident with the ex-Girlfriend and Incident at the Complainant’s residence
• Audio / video from KPS throw phone
• KPS audio interviews (6 witnesses)
• KPS video interview of the ex-Girlfriend
• KPS Witness Statement – non-designated civilian witness
• Supplementary Memos from two KPS officers regarding scenes and scene management
• Mobile Data Terminal Logs (3:10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. - April 3, 2017)
• Notes and Report Re Missing Audio
• Notes of WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5, WO #6, WO #7, WO #8, WO #9, WO #10, WO #11, WO #12 and WO #13
• Notes of the PEW
• Notes and prepared statement of a non-designated officer
• Procedure - Armed Persons, Barricaded Persons and Hostage Situations
• Procedure - Response to Major Incidents
• Procedure - Emergency Response Unit
• Procedure - Incident Command
• Procedure - Use of Force
• Procedure - Procedures and Protocols, and
• Scene Control Log (from the Complainant’s residence)

Section 145(3), Criminal Code - Failure to comply with condition of undertaking or recognizance

(3) Every person who is at large on an undertaking or recognizance given to or entered into before a justice or judge and is bound to comply with a condition of that undertaking or recognizance, and every person who is bound to comply with a direction under subsection 515(12) or 522(2.1) or an order under subsection 516(2), and who fails, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on them, to comply with the condition, direction or order is guilty of

1. an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
2. an offence punishable on summary conviction

Section 239, Criminal Code - Attempt to commit murder

239 (1) Every person who attempts by any means to commit murder is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

1. if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
   1. in the case of a first offence, five years, and
   2. in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years
   3. (a.1)in any other case 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

Sections 265(1) and 266, Criminal Code - Assault

265 (1) A person commits an assault when

1. without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly
2. he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
3. while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs

266 Every one who commits an assault is guilty of

1. an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
2. an offence punishable on summary conviction

On March 10, 2017, the Complainant was charged with a number of offences alleging domestic violence against his ex-Girlfriend. He was released on a recognizance which included conditions that he not have any contact with his ex-Girlfriend nor was he to be within 50 metres of anyplace where she was located.

On April 3, 2017, at 3:14:20 p.m., the first of several 911 calls was received reporting that a male was beating a female on the street in the City of Kingston and that the male was armed with a shotgun and was trying to force the female into his motor vehicle; the licence plate was provided to the dispatcher. The registered owner of the vehicle was checked by police and found to be the Complainant; the female was identified as his ex-Girlfriend. One caller indicated that two gunshots had been heard; the weapon was described as a sawed-off shotgun.

Police obtained the address of the Complainant from his vehicle registration and, through his cell phone, were able to confirm that he was at his address following the above incident on the street with his ex-Girlfriend.

Commencing at 3:45 p.m., CW #1 received a number of text messages from the Complainant including the following: at 3:49 p.m., “Oh ya … I shot [the ex-Girlfriend] in the head twice … thought you should know … I’m next”, and at 3:55 p.m. “Anyways, the cops are here now … got to go … love to take one them”. The Complainant also advised two other civilian witnesses that he had struck the ex-Girlfriend in the head with the butt of a gun and that the police would be coming soon and that “it was over”.

During the course of this investigation, five civilian witnesses were interviewed, including three that were present in the area of the Complainant’s residence at the time of the interaction between police and the Complainant. Investigators also had access to the video from the throw phone which was recording inside of the Complainant’s unit throughout the police standoff, the communications recordings, the 911 call recordings and the memorandum notes of fourteen police officers involved in the interaction. Six police officers, including the SO, were interviewed by investigators. There is no dispute as to the facts.

The SO was notified at 3:14 p.m. that he would be required to attend the Complainant’s residence in his capacity as Incident Commander as there had been a home invasion where shots were fired and that the Complainant had fled the area in his motor vehicle. The motor vehicle of the Complainant had been located in the parking lot of his residence and, though he himself had not been located, his cell phone number was obtained and triangulated, confirming that the phone was inside his townhouse unit. The SO and his unit attended at the residential complex and set up a temporary command unit until the mobile command vehicle arrived, at which point the team was deployed inside the command post. Thereafter, communication was established with the Complainant through WO #7, who offered his assistance as a negotiator. WO #7 was notified by the dispatcher that the Complainant had called 911 and, again, the location of his cell phone was confirmed as being inside his townhouse unit. WO #7 spoke to the Complainant on his mobile phone and described the Complainant as sounding very intoxicated. The Complainant confirmed to WO #7 that he had sawed-off the barrel and stock of a shotgun and had gone hunting for his ex-Girlfriend, that he was trying to kill her and that he had shot at her and believed he had killed her.

WO #10, the senior team leader of the ERU, was placed in charge of an entry team and secured the inner perimeter around the Complainant’s unit; several other townhouse units in close proximity were evacuated for safety reasons.

WO #6, the officer in charge of the ERU for KPS, arrived at the Complainant’s residence at 4:03 p.m. and authorized the deployment of a throw phone with audio and video recording capabilities inside the Complainant’s unit; the living room window was breached and ERU members threw the phone inside the townhouse. A loud hailer was used to try to get the Complainant to use the throw phone but there was no response from inside the unit.

At 9:35 p.m., a distractionary device was deployed outside on the front lawn of the Complainant’s unit and shortly thereafter the Complainant was seen moving around in the living room area by way of the live feed from the throw phone box. At 9:53 p.m., a loud hailer was used again to get the Complainant’s attention and provide instructions on the use of the throw phone. At 9:56 p.m., the Complainant eventually picked up the throw phone box and the telephone inside and spoke again with WO #7.

WO #6 continued to monitor the Complainant’s movements by way of the video on the throw phone and observed the Complainant get up from the couch where he had been seated, walk downstairs and then return shortly thereafter, at 10:04 p.m., with a sawed-off shotgun. The Complainant sat back down on the couch and continued to speak with WO #7. At 10:17 p.m., the Complainant told WO #7 that this was his last day and he had to go to the bathroom and he suddenly ended the conversation, got up with the shotgun in his hand, and walked towards the stairwell. Seconds later, at approximately 10:18 p.m., a loud noise was heard which was believed to have been a gun shot from inside the Complainant’s unit. The loud hailer was again used to try and contact the Complainant, but there was no response.

Although there was a concern at that point that the Complainant may have committed suicide, the team deployed further precautionary measures including the use of the ARWEN and a throw bot. At 10:23 p.m., two ARWEN rounds were fired towards the second floor window, but there was neither movement nor any verbal response. The throw bot was set up but malfunctioned.

At 10:55 p.m., the decision was made to enter the unit and the front door was breached and the ERU entered and found the Complainant lying on the bathroom floor with a single gunshot wound to the chest; the sawed-off shotgun was found in close proximity on the floor beside him.

The independent civilian witnesses present in the area, as well as the video from the throw phone, all confirmed that no police officer entered the home of the Complainant prior to the one shotgun report, and no police weapons were fired, other than the ARWEN. The components of the shotgun shell found in the bathtub and the flattened shotgun slug embedded in the bathroom wall confirmed that the Complainant was shot with the shotgun.

A post mortem conducted on the Complainant confirmed the cause of death as a “perforating shotgun wound to the chest”.

At the time that police officers attended the home of the Complainant, they had reasonable grounds to believe that he had committed various offences contrary to the Criminal Code including offences of attempted murder, assault and breaching various of his court ordered conditions by having made contact with his ex-Girlfriend. As such, they were duty bound to locate and apprehend the Complainant before there was any further violence; the Complainant remained a danger as long as he was at large and in possession of a firearm. The Complainant was tracked through his cell phone and his motor vehicle to his home address.

Although not contained in the information available to police at the time that they were surrounding the Complainant’s residence, the Complainant’s text messages appear to confirm that the Complainant believed that he had either killed or seriously injured his ex-Girlfriend and that he was going to go back to jail if apprehended. His texts, which read “Oh ya … I shot [the ex-Girlfriend] in the head twice … thought you should know … I’m next” and “Anyways, the cops are here now … got to go … love to take one (of) them” and his comment that “it was over” appear to confirm that very early on, prior even to the arrival of police, the Complainant had determined that he was going to end his own life, rather than be arrested and return to jail. This is further confirmed by his his comment to WO#7 that this was his last day, just before he went upstairs and shot himself.

Armed with the knowledge that the Complainant was in possession of a firearm which he had already discharged against another person earlier that day, the senior officers tasked with commanding a team of police officers to bring this incident to an end could not take a 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. His text message, which was read after the fact, indicating that he would love to take one of the police officers with him is positive confirmation that the many precautions taken by police were not only prudent, but absolutely necessary to ensure the safety of the police officers and members of the public.

It is clear that the Complainant took his own life without any intervention by the police. It is confirmed, both by the throw phone video and the three independent witnesses, that no police officer entered the Complainant’s home, nor were any firearms discharged by police officers, prior to the fatal gunshot by the Complainant’s own hand. It would be speculative to assume, had police officers acted with less caution and more quickly, that his life could have been saved at the risk of the loss of other human life, but it was ultimately the Complainant who decided that he should end his own life rather than be arrested and taken to jail. Despite the tragic loss of life, the police officers 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. As such, there are no reasonable grounds here for the laying of criminal charges.

Date: December 5, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] The PEW was the scribe for the SO. [Back to text]
• 3) [Back to text]
• 3) [Back to text]