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 47-year-old male who died in his residence at approximately 4:00 a.m. on June 21, 2016 while interacting with members of the Windsor Police Service (WPS).

Notification of the SIU

On June 21, 2016, at 7:05 a.m., WPS notified the SIU of a death that occurred that morning.

WPS reported that at 4:08 a.m., WPS received a call from the Civilian Witness (CW) reporting that his roommate, the Complainant, was going “berserk” at their residence and locked the CW out of the residence. The CW reported to police that he heard explosions and the house was on fire.

The first police officer on scene, the SO, reported that the home was fully engulfed in flames. The SO made voice contact with the Complainant, who refused to leave the residence and ultimately perished in the fire.

The Complainant was taken to hospital where he was pronounced dead. The scene was secured and the Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM) was notified.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

SIU Forensic Investigators responded and processed the scene. With assistance from the OFM, they documented the relevant scenes associated with the incident by way of notes and photography. The Forensic Investigators attended and recorded the post-mortem examination.

Complainant

47-year-old male, medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

In addition, the SIU received notes from four other non-designated WPS officers in relation to their role in this incident.

Subject officers

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

The scene

Windsor Fire and Rescue Service (WFRS) report

The WFRS report indicated that they were notified at 4:08 a.m. Firefighters arrived at the scene by 4:19 a.m. and the Complainant was located on the second level at 4:30 a.m.

OFM Report

The OFM report was received by the SIU on December 19, 2016. The OFM investigation corroborated the SIU findings that the responding police officers discovered a developing fire within the garage and house and attempted to convince “Person #1”, now known to be the Complainant, to leave the structure.

The OFM investigator found there were two separate and distinct areas of origin of the fire. One area was at the back of the garage. The other was in the laundry/washroom in the basement of the house.

The OFM investigator further opined that the ignition source of the fires was “the intentional application of an open flame to combustible material or a volatile liquid.”

The OFM investigation concluded that the “separate and distinct fires will be classified as incendiary.”

Expert evidence

Post-mortem report

A post-mortem examination was conducted on June 22, 2016. The report of the post-mortem examination was received by the SIU on November 25, 2016.

The report indicated that the Complainant had extensive second and third degree burns, mostly to the face/head, neck, arms, posterior torso, and patchy around the legs. There were no other significant injuries to the body.

Toxicological analysis revealed toxic/near-fatal carboxyhemoglobin saturation levels in blood samples. The other significant toxicological finding was presence of oxycodone in concentrations that have been associated with fatalities. In addition, cocaine and its metabolite, benzoylecgonine, were detected in keeping with recent cocaine administration, with an overlap between concentrations causing death and those attributed to recreational use.

The Toxicology Report indicated an ethanol concentration of 51 mg/100 mL.

The forensic pathologist concluded that the cause of death was attributed to fire effects (smoke inhalation and burns) with acute oxycodone and cocaine toxicity as a significant contributing factor to death.

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

911 call recording

The 911 call recording captured the CW reporting that the Complainant was going to burn the house down. He provided the Complainant’s name and reported hearing explosions in the garage and the smoke alarm. The CW then reported seeing smoke emanating from the garage and said he believed the Complainant was in the garage.

The CW also reported that the Complainant told him that he had lost his job that day.

Later in the call, the CW reported seeing fire in the kitchen as well and flames emanating from the house.

Toward the end of the call the CW reported seeing the police arriving.

Communication recording

The dispatcher was heard on the communications recording dispatching police officers to a call regarding a male (now known to be the Complainant) “going berserk” who locked the CW out of the residence. As police officers responded, the dispatcher provided updated information. In one transmission, the dispatcher advised that the Complainant was still in the garage. In later transmissions, she advised that there was a breezeway between the garage and house and that the CW advised that there was too much smoke to see whether the Complainant moved from the garage to the house.

In another transmission a male police officer, believed to be the SO, reported, “I can hear him but this thing is fully engulfed. He’s still inside.” The dispatcher responded that she was notifying the fire department. The police officer then said that he could not get in the garage and that they needed help to extricate the Complainant.

At 4:41:33 a.m., it was reported that EMS were preparing to take the Complainant to the hospital with a police vehicle following.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Detailed Call Summary
• General Occurrence
• notes from WO #1 and WO #2
• notes from four other non-designated police officers
• Complainant Hardcopy
• Supervisory Report from the SO
• Supplementary (Initial Officer) Report
• Supplementary Reports from WO # 1, WO #2, and four other non-designated police officers, and
• CW Witness Statement

On June 21^st, 2016, at 4:07:48 a.m., the CW called 911 and advised that his roommate, the Complainant, was going berserk and was threatening to set his house on fire. Over the course of the call, the CW relayed initially hearing the sound of something exploding in the garage, then smoke coming from the garage and finally that the house was on fire. He also advised that the Complainant had lost his job that day.

The SO responded to the call at 4:09 a.m. and arrived at the scene to find the garage engulfed with flames. The CW told the SO that the Complainant was in the garage. As a result, the SO yelled through the garage door to the Complainant to come out, however the Complainant refused.

WO #2 and WO #1 arrived on scene and began breaking windows while yelling to the Complainant to exit. WO #2 and WO #1 kicked open the front door to the house and entered, but were forced to retreat because of the smoke and extreme heat.

The WFRS was notified of the fire at 4:08 a.m. They immediately responded, arriving at 4:19 a.m. At 4:30 a.m., they located the Complainant in a tub on the second level of the home. The Complainant was observed to have severe burns and was not breathing. He was transported to the hospital where he was pronounced dead.

The SO, WO #1 and WO #2 had to be treated at hospital for smoke inhalation.

A post-mortem examination was conducted and the cause of death was attributed to smoke inhalation and burns with acute oxycodone and cocaine toxicity as a significant contributing factor.

On June 21^st, 2016, a call was received by the 911 dispatcher of the WPS at 4:07:48 a.m. advising that the Complainant was inside his residence in the City of Windsor and was going berserk and was threatening to set his house on fire. The SO, a police officer from WPS, responded to the call and the Complainant was eventually removed from the home and transported by ambulance to hospital where he was pronounced dead.

Although the SO declined to be interviewed by SIU investigators, he did provide a copy of his notebook entries for review; those entries, in combination with statements provided by the CW and two witness officers along with the post-mortem report, the OFM’s report and the 911 call and communications recordings have allowed a fairly accurate sequence of events to be compiled.

On June 21^st, 2016, after completing work at 3:30 a.m., the CW returned to his residence in the city of Windsor where he discovered that the Complainant had locked him out of the house. When he attempted to enter, the Complainant yelled at him, “Get out of here,” and, “I fucked up. I’ve done it. I’m lighting it up,” and the CW observed the Complainant to douse the cabinets with lighter fluid and flick lit matches at them. The Complainant also advised the CW that he had been fired from his job that day. The CW then called 911 and outlined his concerns over the Complainant’s behaviour. Over the course of the call, the CW relayed initially hearing the sound of something exploding in the garage, then smoke coming from the garage and finally that the house was on fire.

The SO provided two reports with respect to this occurrence, a Supervisory Report as well as a report to the OFM; both of these reports were made available to the SIU and revealed that the SO initially heard the call for unknown trouble at 4:08 a.m. and responded, arriving at the residence at 4:09 a.m. On his arrival, both the garage and the house were engulfed in flames and the CW told him that the Complainant was in the garage. As a result, the SO yelled through the garage door to the Complainant that he was police and urged the Complainant to come out, to which the Complainant responded, “Fuck off”. The SO continued to try to force open the garage door while pleading with the Complainant to exit the garage, with the same response.

At that point, WO #2 and WO #1 arrived and the SO asked them if they had any tools in their cruisers that he could use to break into the garage; when he was unable to locate anything, he returned to the house where WO #2 and WO #1 were breaking windows while yelling to the Complainant to exit.

WO #2 and WO #1 both advised that after breaking the windows and calling to anyone inside, they kicked open the front door to the house and entered, but were forced to retreat by the smoke and extreme heat. WO #1 also heard the SO screaming for the Complainant to get out while attempting to break into the garage. Each of the three officers had to be treated at hospital later for smoke inhalation.

The communications recordings revealed that, at one point, the dispatcher relayed information to officers that the Complainant was still inside the garage. She later relayed that there was a breezeway between the garage and the house and that the CW was unable to confirm, due to smoke, if the Complainant was still in the garage or had moved into the house.

The WFRS indicated that they had been notified of the fire at 4:08 a.m. They immediately responded, arriving at 4:19 a.m. and eventually located the Complainant on the second level in a washroom at the rear of the house at 4:30 a.m. Upon discovery, the Complainant was observed to have severe burns and was not breathing. He was transported to hospital where he was pronounced dead.

Upon post-mortem examination, it was revealed that the Complainant had extensive second and third degree burns but no other significant injuries to his body. Additionally, a toxicology report revealed that the Complainant had consumed oxycodone in a concentration that has been associated with fatalities, as well as cocaine and alcohol. The cause of death was attributed to smoke inhalation and burns with acute oxycodone and cocaine toxicity as a significant contributing factor.

It is obvious in these circumstances that the Complainant’s death was caused by his own actions and without intervention by any police officers. In fact, on all of the evidence, it is clear that officers did all that they could to attempt to save the Complainant from his own self-destructive actions. The Complainant’s death occurred despite the significant rescue attempts by all three police officers, and not because of them, and due primarily to the Complainant’s determination to take his own life.

On that basis, it seems trite to say that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any criminal offence has been committed by any officer involved with the Complainant. It is clear that they went into the home without personal protective gear and risked their safety despite the hazards in an attempt to save the Complainant’s life. These officers went over and above their duties by entering the house to try and save the Complainant’s life and should be commended for their efforts to save the complainant, despite the unfortunate outcome. In the final analysis, there is no basis for the laying of criminal charges.

Date: August 18, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit