Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.

Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019

Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person.
• Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault.
• Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person.
• Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.
• Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.
• Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act

Pursuant to section 14 (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 that 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 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials;
• 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

Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may also have 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.

Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.

A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.

In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the death of a 39-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 22, 2023, at 2:35 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On December 22, 2023, at 12:16 a.m., the Complainant called the OPP to report a break and enter at her residence. OPP officers arrived at her address in Collingwood, and observed through a window as the Complainant held a knife to her throat. Officers believed the Complainant was suffering from a mental health episode. Officers then saw the Complainant cut her throat and they entered the residence. Life-saving measures were initiated but the Complainant was later pronounced deceased.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2023/12/22 at 3:25 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/12/22 at 4:00 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

39-year-old female; deceased; medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between December 22, 2023, and January 5, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between January 5 and 9, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the Complainant’s residence in Collingwood.

Physical Evidence

The scene was a residence in Collingwood. Access to the front and rear of the home was under OPP guard. The front door was split at the latch mechanism, with damage to the frame at the latch plate. The door had reportedly been breached by the initial responding officers to gain entry. The deceased was located inside the living area of the unit. A large kitchen knife with a black handle was on the floor close to the patio door, at the end of the living area. Shutters and blinds in the unit were closed.

The deceased had a large injury to the front neck and throat area. Medical debris was scattered on the floor and furniture nearby.

Photographs were taken to document the location and deceased.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPP Communications Recordings

On December 22, 2023, at 12:08 a.m., a 911 call was received by the OPP. The female caller – the Complainant – stated, “Hi there, I need police to my apartment [address provided] immediately. I have two men at my front door trying to get in.” The 911 call-taker asked about the location and the female caller replied, “Oh my God, it’s his ex-girlfriend.” The 911 call-taker confirmed the address and then asked about the men attempting to gain entry. The call was disconnected at that point.

Police communication personnel attempted call-backs to the telephone number with no answer. They contacted the cellular telephone company and obtained cellular telephone subscriber information for the Complainant, and an address in another city.[3]

Shortly after the call, OPP dispatched WO #2 to attend the scene. A request was made for additional officers and WO #1 and the SO were added to the call. The dispatcher provided the cellular telephone subscriber information to the attending officers.

At 12:17 a.m., the SO advised that when he arrived he spoke to a neighbour who advised the Complainant had slammed the door on them. The door was locked, and they had tried to make contact. WO #3 asked dispatch to call the Complainant and tell her that the police were at her door. The dispatcher replied that several calls had been made with no success.

At 12:21 a.m., the SO advised that he could see the Complainant through a window. She picked up and put down a golf club, paced back and forth, and seemed to be in a mental health situation. The SO updated over the radio that the Complainant was sitting on the couch holding the golf club. He could see the telephone ringing, but she did not pick up.

At 12:24 a.m., the SO advised that the Complainant closed the window shutter and he no longer had visibility inside the unit. WO #2 then transmitted that he could see the Complainant through the rear patio door as she sat on a couch. He then advised that the Complainant appeared at the front door with WO #1 and the SO.

At 12:28 a.m., WO #1 requested permission from WO #4 to gain entry and was told by WO #4 to standby. WO #2 advised that the Complainant still had the golf club in her hand and had been carrying it around for the last several minutes.

At 12:32 a.m., the SO stated that they had spoken with the Complainant, but she did not believe they were police. There was a large knife on the kitchen counter beside the golf club that she kept picking up. He advised that the officers were containing the residence. WO #2 updated at the same time that the Complainant had the knife in her hand.

At 12:34 a.m., the dispatcher advised that the communications sergeant was on the telephone with WO #4, who was on his way to the scene. WO #4 spoke with the sergeant and provided background to the event. WO #4 was one minute away and would assess the scene on his arrival.

WO #4 advised that he had arrived and was making an assessment. He spoke with the communications sergeant, who transmitted that he was monitoring the call and would give WO #4 a telephone call. The second telephone conversation between the communications sergeant and WO #4 began with a discussion of the incident. In the background, WO #2 advised that the Complainant had fallen to the ground. The sergeant advised if they were concerned for her welfare and there were exigent circumstances, then to go inside.

WO #2 then stated in the background that the knife had blood on it. WO #4 advised, “Knock the door guys. She’s cutting her throat.” WO #4 was heard breathing deeply and stated, “She’s cutting her throat, knock the door.” Noises could be heard like strikes against a door, then multiple officers stated, “Police,” five times and, “Drop the knife.” WO #4 confirmed that the knife had been located and he requested emergency medical services (EMS), stating that the Complainant had cut her throat.

The telephone line remained open while numerous officers were heard attending to the Complainant. Shortly thereafter, WO #4 asked, “What’s your name?” The Complainant provided her first name. There was no further verbal communication from the Complainant. The officers stated numerous times, “Hang on,” and other words of encouragement. At one point, a male officer told the Complainant to squeeze his hand. WO #4 asked for the ETA of EMS on several occasions. The officers indicated that they were applying pressure to a large cut to the Complainant’s throat.

At 12:42 a.m., WO #2 requested that EMS expedite and noted that the Complainant had cut her throat. Officers updated that a cruiser with emergency lights was waiting for EMS at the entrance, adding that the Complainant was bleeding heavily.

At 12:52 a.m., EMS was with the Complainant. One minute later, WO #2 advised that it was a possible death.

The remaining radio transmissions included notifications, additional units attending, requests for telephone communications, and logistics for scene security.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following materials from the OPP between January 2, 2024, and January 8, 2024:

• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
• General Occurrence;
• List of Involved Officers;
• Notes – WO #1;
• Notes – WO #2;
• Notes – WO #3;
• Notes – WO #4; and
• Communications recordings.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on December 27, 2023:

• The Complainant’s medical records from Collingwood General and Marine Hospital.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or release a copy of his notes.

In the early morning of December 22, 2023, OPP officers with the Collingwood Detachment were dispatched to a home in Collingwood. The resident of the address, the Complainant, had called police to report two men attempting to enter her home through the front door.

Officers arrived at the scene within minutes of the call. The SO and WO #1 approached the front door. They knocked and rang the doorbell to contact the Complainant. The Complainant was unresponsive. The officers called-out that they were the police and there to help. The Complainant spoke up and stated they were not the police. She told them not to enter her home. Another officer – WO #2 – took up a position by the rear patio doors. From that location, he observed the Complainant picking up and putting down a golf club. He continued to watch and eventually saw the Complainant pick up a knife from the kitchen counter. The officer radioed what he was seeing. About ten minutes later, the Complainant took a seat on the living room sofa still in possession of the knife. Shortly, she fell to the floor beside the sofa and proceeded to cut the front of her neck with the knife.

WO #2 announced that the Complainant had cut her throat. WO #4, standing with WO #2, ran to the front of the residence and directed that officers break through the door. The SO kicked the door in and officers entered.

The Complainant was face-down on the floor in front of the sofa and bleeding from her neck wound. Officers applied pressure to the wound and comforted the Complainant while they waited for an ambulance.

Paramedics attended the scene and took over the Complainant’s care. At 1:13 a.m., they stopped life-saving measures and the Complainant was pronounced deceased.

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to ‘incision of neck’.

Sections 219 and 220, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Death

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) 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

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

The Complainant passed away in her home on December 22, 2023, of a self-inflicted wound. As OPP officers were present around the home at the time of the wound, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The SO was identified as the subject official. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s death.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 220 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the SO, or the other attending officers, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. In my view, there was not.

The SO was lawfully placed and in the execution of his duties throughout the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s death. Having been dispatched to an apparent break and enter in progress, the officer was obliged to attend the scene to do what he reasonably could to prevent harm from coming to the Complainant.

Once at the scene, I am satisfied that the SO and his colleagues comported themselves with dure care and regard for the Complainant’s safety throughout the incident. The officers seem to have quickly realized that there was, in fact, no attempted break-in and that, instead, they were dealing with a person in distress. They attempted to win the Complainant’s confidence by assuring her they were there to help. Regrettably, the Complainant was of unsound mind at the time and could not be persuaded to let the officers inside. The moment they became aware that the Complainant had cut herself, the SO breached the front door and the officers entered. Despite their efforts to treat the Complainant, she could not be saved. Whether the officers should have forced their way into the home sooner than they did is arguable. WO #2 had observed her holding the knife for a period of time before she used it to cut herself. The question of whether exigent circumstances exist to justify a warrantless entry into a home is not always clear. In the case at hand, the Complainant had not expressed any suicidal ideations but had expressly told the officers not to enter her home. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officers were remiss with respect to when they entered the residence.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: April 18, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit