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 firearm suicide of a 26 year-old male on April 25, 2016 prior to his arrest for making death threats.

Notification of the SIU

The SIU was notified of the incident by Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) on April 25, 2016 at 10:23 p.m. The SIU was advised that earlier that day, the Complainant’s common-law wife went to the Bancroft OPP detachment and reported that the Complainant had assaulted her and threatened her with death. The OPP were also advised of the Complainant’s illicit drug use and his stash of firearms. The OPP obtained a Feeney warrant[1] and went to the Complainant’s home to arrest him. Due to the Complainant’s stash of firearms, the OPP deployed a Tactics and Rescue Unit (TRU) which blocked his driveway. Officers used various tactics to coax the Complainant out of his residence but he did not respond although he could be seen moving around the residence. The Complainant started to text his common-law wife while she was at the detachment, and negotiators were able to speak with the Complainant by phone. Shortly before 10:00 p.m., the Complainant said words to the effect of ‘this ends here” and TRU officers heard a loud bang coming from inside the residence. When the officers entered, they found the Complainant dead from an apparent gunshot wound to the head.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 7

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Complainant:

26-year-old male, deceased

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

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 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #7 Interviewed

WO #8 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #9 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #10 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #11 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #12 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed[2]

Subject Officer

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

Physical Evidence

A 19 inches Grizzly Mag Hogue Tamer 12 Gauge pump shotgun was found at the scene. The barrel was 8 1/4 inches. The weapon had pistol grips with a nylon sling. There was one spent Corral 12 gauge (70mm) 00 Buck red shotgun shell in the breech.

Recovered Text Messages

Text messages obtained from the Complainant’s and CW #3’s cell phones from April 25, 2016 revealed that the Complainant sent a number of messages throughout the day to CW #2 that he wanted her to return home, and expressed frustration that he was left at home alone, with no communications from her. Later in the afternoon, the Complainant expressed concern about the whereabouts of his son and wanting to speak with him. At 5:32 p.m., the Complainant started texting to tell his family that he loved them and he was sorry. At 8:27 p.m., the Complainant’s last text stated that he loved CW #2 and his son and he was not going to jail.

Expert evidence

The SIU obtained a Post Mortem Report indicating the cause of death as a gunshot wound to the head.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Notes of WO #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11 and 12, and
• Tele-warrant to enter dwelling-house.

On April 25, 2016, CW #2 went to the Bancroft OPP Detachment and reported that the Complainant had assaulted her and threatened her with death. Officers reviewed several text messages that the Complainant had sent to CW #2 that day, and obtained a telewarrant to enter his dwelling house in order to arrest him. TRU and negotiators were deployed to the residence. The SO, a crisis negotiator, attended the Bancroft detachment where he met with CW #2 and CW #3 and reviewed text messages that had been sent by the Complainant. The Complainant’s last message was received at 8:27 p.m., and stated that he loves CW #2 and his son and was not going to jail.

At approximately 8:40 p.m., the SO received a call from CW #3’s phone where the Complainant asked to speak with CW #2. The SO asked the Complainant to come out of the residence and meet the police officers waiting for him outside. The Complainant refused to come outside and insisted that he wanted to speak with CW #2. The Complainant asked the SO what charges he was facing and the SO told him that he would find out from the officers on the scene once he came out. The Complainant asked the SO to tell CW #2 that “he is sorry, that he loves them very much and that he is sad he could not see his son growing up.” The phone then went dead.

At 8:52 p.m. the TRU containment team reported hearing a loud bang emanating from within the residence. At 9:43 p.m., the front of the residence was cleared and the TRU was authorized to breach the back door. At 9:52 p.m., the TRU confirmed that the Complainant was found dead on a bunk in the residence. The cause of death was confirmed as a gunshot wound to the head.

Section 529(1), Criminal Code - Including authorization to enter in warrant of arrest

529 (1) A warrant to arrest or apprehend a person issued by a judge or justice under this or any other Act of Parliament may authorize a peace officer, subject to subsection (2), to enter a dwelling-house described in the warrant for the purpose of arresting or apprehending the person if the judge or justice is satisfied by information on oath in writing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is or will be present in the dwelling-house.

On the night of April 25, 2016, members of OPP were outside the Complainant’s residence in Bancroft attempting to negotiate with him, when the Complainant fatally shot himself. In my view, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in relation to the death of the Complainant for the reasons that follow.

The facts of this incident are clear and not in dispute. On April 25, 2016, at about 1:00 p.m., the Complainant’s common law partner, CW #2, contacted OPP to report that he had assaulted and threatened her with death on numerous occasions between December 2015 and April 2016. CW #2 warned police that the Complainant had a number of firearms in the residence where they lived together, and that he used prescription drugs and was in a highly unstable mental state. CW #2 reported that after she left their residence that morning to meet a friend, the Complainant sent repeated text messages wanting her to return home. CW #2 also reported that he called threatening to kill her if she did not return and this call was overheard by her friend, CW #3. CW #2 provided OPP with access to text messages the Complainant had sent her throughout the day. In particular at 5:15 p.m., the Complainant texted that he could not endure this again and wanted to talk before he was “gone.” Soon after, the Complainant sent another text stating that if he did not make it through this time, to tell his family he loved them.

At 6:54 p.m., OPP obtained a telewarrant pursuant to s. 529 of the Criminal Code to enter the dwelling house where the Complainant resided to arrest him. The TRU was deployed. A determination was made that the safest plan would be to contain the area surrounding the residence and make efforts to convince the Complainant to come out. At 8:06 p.m., a hostage negotiator drove an armoured response vehicle into the driveway of the Complainant’s residence and attempted to engage with him on the loud hailer. The Complainant did not respond. The TRU Critical Incident Scene Commander, WO #7, authorized the deployment of a flash bang but there was still no response from the Complainant.

At 8:25 p.m., the SO arrived at the Bancroft OPP detachment as dispatched and met with CW #2, her son and her friends. He reviewed the text messages sent by the Complainant that day. At about 8:30 p.m., the Complainant sent a text message that he loved CW #2 and his son, and was not going to jail. At 8:40 p.m., the SO spoke with the Complainant on the cell phone, after he called for CW #2. The Complainant was insistent that he wanted to speak with CW #2 before his cell phone battery died, which the SO denied hoping he could convince the Complainant to meet the police officers outside his residence instead. Before the call ended, the Complainant asked the SO to tell CW #2 that he loved them very much and that he was sad he would not see their son grow up. The SO tried to keep the Complainant talking but the phone went silent. This was the last conversation the SO had with the Complainant, and the Complainant sent no further texts.

At 8:52 p.m., the TRU containment team heard a loud bang emanating from the residence. At 8:55 p.m., WO #7 authorized the TRU team to breach the front door. With the assistance of a pole camera and K9 Unit, the TRU team entered the residence at 9:33 p.m. and cleared the front area. At 9:52 p.m., WO #7 was advised that the Complainant was found deceased. On April 27, 2016, a post-mortem examination was conducted and the cause of death was determined to be a gunshot wound to the head.

There is no basis to impugn the conduct of the SO or any other involved OPP members. The Complainant was the sole cause of his own death. He had expressed distress and despair in various text messages that day. Ultimately, he put a shotgun to his head while alone in his residence and pulled the trigger. Although the TRU team members surrounded the Complainant’s residence at the time, they did not enter until about 40 minutes after the fatal gunshot was fired, after strategically organizing their entry for safety reasons, not knowing what awaited them inside. Earlier that evening, the TRU team had made repeated attempts to communicate with the Complainant to no avail. The post-mortem examination confirmed that the Complainant died of a single gunshot wound to the head.

The SO was a trained crisis negotiator. He had one opportunity to speak with the Complainant on the phone about 20 minutes prior to the sound of the gunshot. Regrettably, the SO’s efforts to convince the Complainant to turn himself over to the officers positioned outside his residence were unsuccessful. The SO has a common law duty as a police officer to protect and preserve life. His apparent verbal attempts to resolve the incident by trying to convince the Complainant to present himself peacefully to the police was professional, well-intentioned and consistent with that duty.

Although the outcome of this incident was unfortunately tragic, the evidence in no way indicated that this was due to a lack of effort or level of care by any of the involved OPP officers. I am satisfied that the SO, and the other involved officers, conducted themselves professionally and exercised a level of care in their approach that fell well within the limits prescribed by the criminal law. Therefore, there are no grounds for proceeding with criminal charges and this case will be closed.

Date: August 9, 2017

Original signed by
Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] A warrant permitting officers to enter a residence to effect an arrest. [Back to text]
• 2) [2] Eleven WOs were not interviewed because their notes revealed that they had no direct involvement with the Complainant. [Back to text]