SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OOD-047

Warning:

This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.

Mandate of the SIU

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.

Information Restrictions

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.

Mandate Engaged

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 46-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 31, 2024, at approximately 8:16 p.m., the Peterborough Police Service (PPS) notified the SIU of the death of the Complainant.

According to the PPS, at 4:31 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) and the Witness Official (WO) attended a residence in Peterborough to attempt the execution of an arrest warrant. The address was a rural property in Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) jurisdiction. The police officers were in possession of a child pornography-related arrest warrant for the Complainant. The SO and the WO initially did a door knock, which resulted in no contact with the Complainant. As the police officers were about to leave, a civilian vehicle containing three people drove into the long driveway. The police officers spoke with the driver, the Civilian Witness (CW), who advised he owned the property and residence. The SO and the WO explained why they were there, and the CW advised that the Complainant’s vehicle was parked on the property. The police officers did not want to enter the residence, and they waited outside while the CW went into the residence to search for the Complainant. The CW came out and advised that the Complainant was dead in the basement. Officers went into the basement and located the Complainant, who had obvious injuries to his head and neck. A knife was observed near the Complainant’s head, and he moaned and twitched. Peterborough County - City Paramedics Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were notified and arrived on scene at 6:23 p.m. The paramedics heard respiratory sounds from the Complainant, so they transported him to the Peterborough Regional Health Centre (PRHC). At 7:28 p.m., the Complainant was pronounced deceased.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/01/31 at 9:39 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/01/31 at 11:45 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

46-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on February 1, 2024.

Subject Official

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Official

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on February 2, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a residence in Peterborough.

Physical Evidence

On February 1, 2024, at 1:41 a.m., a SIU forensic investigator arrived at the residence and met with SIU investigators, the coroner, and several OPP police officers. Given the information at the time, it was agreed that the SIU and the OPP would examine the scene.

The front door of the residence showed no signs of forced entry. On the floor in the basement was a large pooling of fluid suspected to be blood and biological waste. Close to the pooling was an opened package that would have contained a utility knife. Also, close by was a cell phone. Further into the area along the south wall was a wooden plank with projected staining suspected to be blood.

An OPP officer advised that the police officers first on scene had removed two edged weapons from the basement and secured them outside in a police vehicle. The OPP officer also advised that when he had secured the deceased for transport at the hospital, he affixed a seal to the body bag

At 2:23 a.m., the scene was photographed. Evidence collected included a cell phone, a package for a knife, and two suspected blood swabs.

At 2:57 a.m., the forensic investigator took possession of edged weapon evidence from the OPP.

At 5:50 a.m., the exhibits were secured at SIU Headquarters. These consisted of a cellular telephone, packaging for a knife, two suspected blood swabs, and two knives.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

PPS Communications Recordings

On January 31, 2024, the SO and the WO advised they were off at an address in Peterborough regarding the execution of an arrest warrant. The SO requested a licence plate check on a vehicle, which was registered to the CW.

An unknown police officer telephoned the dispatcher and advised that the SO and the WO were at a residence for the execution of an arrest warrant. The police officer told the dispatcher that the SO and the WO had not located the wanted person and that they would return the following day.

At 6:23 p.m., the dispatcher advised that the EMS and the OPP had been contacted.

At 6:28 p.m., the SO and the WO advised that they were entering the residence.

At 6:30 p.m., the EMS advised that their estimated time of arrival was five minutes.

At 6:33 p.m., the SO and the WO advised that there appeared to be fresh stab wounds to the body and a knife was beside the body.

At 6:35 p.m., the Peterborough Fire Service were on scene.

At 6:41 p.m., the OPP were on scene. The subject - the Complainant - was transported in the ambulance to hospital.

At 7:17 p.m., a PPS officer relieved the WO at the PRHC.

At 7:28 p.m., the Complainant was declared deceased.

At 7:44 p.m., a PPS sergeant advised that the OPP would take over the investigation.

OPP Communications Recordings

On January 31, 2024, at 6:22 p.m., the OPP Communications Branch received a call from the PPS Communications Branch requesting assistance at a residence in the Peterborough area regarding a sudden death investigation. The PPS dispatcher advised that they had Criminal Investigation Bureau units on scene, and they had come across the sudden death.

At 6:27 p.m., an OPP unit was dispatched regarding a sudden death. The OPP unit later advised that EMS was transporting the deceased.

The OPP unit advised that PPS were still on scene and there had a been a stabbing.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following materials from the PPS and OPP between February 1 and 20, 2024:

  • Incident Response Training (Use of Force) Policy (PPS);
  • Arrest Policy (PPS);
  • Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report (PPS);
  • Communications recordings (PPS);
  • Notes - the WO (PPS);
  • Notes - the SO (PPS);
  • Media Releases (PPS);
  • Involved Officers List (PPS);
  • History with the Complainant (PPS);
  • Arrest Warrant (PPS);
  • CAD Report (OPP);
  • Communications recordings (OPP);
  • Involved Officers Report (OPP);
  • Photographs (OPP);
  • Sudden Death Report (OPP); and
  • Supplementary Report (OPP).

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources:

  • Ambulance Call Report, received February 6, 2024; and
  • Preliminary Cause of Death Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service, received February 2, 2024.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with a police and civilian witness, gives rise to the following scenario. As was her legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU. She did authorize the release of her notes.

In the afternoon of January 31, 2024, the SO and her partner, the WO, both members of the PPS Internet Child Exploitation Unit, attended a residence situated in Peterborough. They were there to execute an arrest warrant on the Complainant on charges of child pornography. The Complainant did not own the residence but was known to frequent the address. The officers knocked on the front door. Receiving no response, they were about to depart when the property owner showed up at the scene.

The CW, the owner, arrived at the address and offered to enter the house to see if the Complainant was there. He did so and located the Complainant in the basement. He was lying unconscious in a pool of blood. Believing the Complainant was deceased, he exited the house and told the officers what he had seen.

The SO and the WO contacted dispatch to request the attendance of paramedics and the OPP, which police service had jurisdiction in the area. They entered the residence and cautiously searched for the Complainant. They had information that he was in the basement but were reluctant to descend not knowing how or why the Complainant had come to his injuries. They called-out from the top of the stairs and eventually made their way down. There they found the Complainant twitching. There were two knives nearby.

Paramedics and firefighters attended the scene and rendered aid to the Complainant. He was transported to hospital and later pronounced deceased at 7:28 p.m.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to ‘Incised Wound (Cut) of the Neck’.

Relevant Legislation

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.

Analysis and Director’s Decision

The Complainant passed away on January 31, 2024, in Peterborough. He had been discovered with catastrophic injuries by police officers and, accordingly, the SIU were notified of the incident. An investigation was initiated naming the SO 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, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. In my view, there was not.

The SO and the WO were lawfully placed and engaged in the execution of their duties throughout the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s discovery. They had a warrant for his arrest and were within their rights in attending at the scene to take him into custody.

Once the Complainant was located and it became apparent that he was in medical crisis, the SO and the WO comported themselves with due care and regard for his health and well-being. They did what they could in the circumstances, namely, ensured that paramedics were contacted immediately and then made their way to the basement. While neither officer descended to the basement immediately, I am satisfied that they acted with necessary dispatch. They were right to be concerned about what they were walking into in the basement, and were wise to approach the scene deliberately and with caution. Once they were satisfied that the threat level was manageable, they entered the basement and located the Complainant. Moments later, the paramedics were on scene.

On the aforementioned-record, I am satisfied that neither the SO nor the WO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: May 22, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

  • 1) Unless otherwise specified, the information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s finding of facts following its investigation. [Back to text]
  • 2) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]

Note:

The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.