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 49-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 7, 2024, at 5:09 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 7, 2024, at 2:25 a.m., OPP officers were called to a domestic disturbance at a residence on an island on Nepewassi Lake, which was only accessible via watercraft. The OPP officers arrested the Civilian Witness (CW) and brought him onboard their fully marked vessel. The officers transported him to the mainland shore, where they completed all necessary documentation for release. At approximately 4:30 a.m., the OPP officers travelled to the island with the CW on their vessel to release him. Approximately 200 to 300 metres from shore, the OPP vessel collided with a vessel operated by the Complainant. The Complainant’s vessel had no navigational lights activated. The OPP vessel had its full navigational lights activated. The OPP officers pulled the unconscious Complainant aboard their vessel. They brought the Complainant to the mainland shore and docked at a boat launch. Paramedic services transported the Complainant to Health Sciences North (HSN) in Sudbury. She was on life-support at the time and expected to succumb to her injuries.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/06/07 at 5:27 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/06/07 at 12:10 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on June 7, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on July 22, 2024.

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on June 14, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on Nepewassi Lake, Ontario.

Physical Evidence

On June 7, 2024, at 12:10 p.m., a SIU forensic investigator attended the boat launch at Nepewassi Lake. The scene was controlled by the OPP Collision Reconstruction Team. The OPP marine vessel and the vessel operated by the Complainant were tethered to the dock. There was a tarp covering the Complainant’s vessel to preserve evidence from rain. Photographs were taken of both vessels in the water. Both vessels were removed from the water for further examination and photographs.

The OPP vessel was a Harbercraft model Nahanni 1725. The vessel also said “Police” in black letters on the starboard side with the OPP logo. There was a Garmin model Global Positioning System (GPS) system onboard.

The vessel operated by the Complainant was a utility boat. The vessel measured 4.3 metres in length. The port side and bow were heavily damaged. The port side of the vessel was folded inwards. There was damage to the rear seat. There was no backrest associated with the seat. The floor of the vessel had various items strewn about such as a fabric cooler, sandals, a gas canister, and empty alcohol containers. There was a small flashlight at the stern of the vessel, which was turned on and emitted faint light. There was a motor attached to the stern of the vessel. There were dark brown strands of hair embedded in the handle of the motor. There was a small droplet of potential blood located to the right of the flashlight.

The SIU forensic investigator boarded an OPP vessel and was taken to the approximate site of the collision with the OPP Collision Reconstruction Team. The location was determined from the Garmin GPS unit on the OPP vessel involved in the collision. A search was conducted of the shoreline near the collision site to search for debris and none was located.

At 5:16 p.m., the SIU forensic investigator attended HSN. The Complainant had been pronounced deceased. Photographs were taken of the Complainant’s body. Hospital staff placed the body in a body bag, which the SIU forensic investigator sealed for continuity.

At 6:18 p.m., the SIU forensic investigator arrived at the OPP Nipissing West Detachment garage where both vessels had been moved for storage. Additional photographs were taken of the vessels with a focus on the underside of the OPP vessel. There were paint transfer marks along the entire underside of the OPP vessel.

The SIU forensic investigator collected the following exhibits of evidence from the Complainant’s vessel: multiple empty alcoholic beverage cans, a black flashlight, a swab of suspected blood located at the stern, and hair samples from the handle of the motor.

A black fibrous material was also collected from the starboard underside of the OPP vessel.

On June 10, 2024, at 8:20 p.m., a SIU forensic investigator participated in a collision re-enactment conducted by the OPP Collision Reconstruction Team. The purpose was to gather evidence of the environmental conditions at the same approximate time of the incident on June 7, 2024. The moon was recorded to be at 2.2 percent luminosity on the day of the collision and at 19.5 percent luminosity at the time of the re-enactment. Even though the moon had a brighter luminosity at the time of the re-enactment, the SIU forensic investigator was unable to see past the bow of the OPP vessel due to the darkness.

An aluminum vessel of similar size and model was used to simulate the vessel operated by the Complainant, which was manned by an OPP marine operator. The vessel was anchored at the location of the collision, which was determined from the GPS unit on the OPP vessel at the time of collision. The simulation vessel had all of its equipment deactivated to simulate the conditions between the OPP vessel and the Complainant’s vessel.

The OPP vessel travelled a path which placed it ten metres to the side of the simulation vessel. It travelled at the same speed recorded by the GPS unit on the OPP vessel. The angle of elevation of the bow of the OPP vessel was recorded to be 12.5 degrees. The simulation vessel was not observable by the SIU forensic investigator, who was situated in the OPP vessel for the simulation, until the OPP vessel was perpendicular to the simulation vessel.

The re-enactment was recorded and disclosed to the SIU.[2]

Expert Evidence

OPP Collision Reconstruction Report

The Complainant’s vessel was measured to be 4.3 metres in length with a width of 1.7 metres across. The helm (operator) consisted of a flat bench seat with cushion, a tiller handle from the outboard motor and other control mechanisms. The vessel was not equipped with a light system. There was a small black LED flashlight located at the stern with a weak light on. There were two life jackets on the floor of the vessel, which were in poor condition. There were no GPS data available for the Complainant’s vessel.

The Harbercraft vessel was measured to be 5.18 metres in length with a width of 2.08 metres across. The outboard motor was operated by a steering wheel at the helm. There were three different types of lights on the vessel: all-round white light on a 1.20 metres-high pole, a starboard side light (green) and a port side light (red) on a 30-centimetre pole. The navigational lights were illuminated on arrival when the vessel was examined.

The Harbercraft vessel was equipped with a Garmin GPS, which was operational upon examination. The data were extracted and analysed. The vessel left the vicinity of the dock and increased speed from 4.0 km/h to 41.4 km/h,[3] at which time the vessel slowed. The vessel continued to slow and conducted a left-hand turn back towards the start. It remained at a standstill for a period, then slowly returned to the dock at slow speed.

The collision analysis determined the first point of contact between the two vessels was when the Harbercraft keel, a strong structural point, contacted the port side rub rail, a weaker structural point, of the Complainant’s vessel. The force pushed the rub rail towards the port side which exposed the dark hull of the Complainant’s vessel to the underbelly of the Harbercraft as it began to override part of the Complainant’s vessel. This resulted in the paint transfer to the underbelly of the Harbercraft as the port side of the Complainant’s vessel’s hull folded inwards.

It was concluded the Harbercraft travelled in an eastward direction as the Complainant’s vessel travelled in a westward direction on Nepewassi Lake.

SIU Peer Review of OPP Collision Reconstruction Report

On September 4, 2024, a SIU Collision Reconstructionist peer reviewed the OPP Collision Reconstruction Report. It was noted that the flashlight wielded by the Complainant as a substitution for proper navigational lighting was absent from the re-enactment conducted by the OPP. It remained unclear whether she held the flashlight in her hand as she operated her vessel or if it rested at the bottom of the vessel as she travelled. If it rested at the bottom of the vessel, the side panelling of her vessel and perhaps her body could have obstructed some of the light that would have been cast out on the water from the vessel. An experiment with lights meters was conducted in the SIU Forensic Identification Lab to determine the brightness of the flashlight, producing inconclusive results.

Further, the right of way of the marine vessels was not addressed. The OPP vessel approached the Complainant’s vessel from the port side (red light side) and therefore would have been obligated to yield the right of way. Since the Complainant’s vessel was not equipped with proper navigational lights, it was impossible for the OPP officers to identify the need to yield the right of way.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[4]

Text Messages from the Complainant’s Family Member

On June 7, 2024, the SIU received screenshots of text messages between the Complainant and a family member.

On June 6, 2024, at 9:57 p.m., the Complainant texted that the CW had called the police.

At 11:07 p.m., the Complainant said she had been contacted by the police and they were on their way.

On June 7, 2024, at 12:17 a.m., the Complainant said the CW had turned off the power and her phone battery was nearly depleted.

At 12:29 a.m., the Complainant said, “They are making me leave I have no choice.” She said, “No idea they just [the Complainant] away in cuffs and left told me nothing and I am sitting in the dark with no idea.”

Text Messages from the CW

On June 7, 2024, the SIU received screenshots of text messages from the CW. The text messages were sent by the Complainant to the CW.

On June 7, 2024, at 1:33 a.m., the Complainant said, “I am still sitting here in the dark wtf cops told me nothing and y’all just left what am I supposed to do now.”

At 1:41 a.m., she said, “What am I supposed to do?” and, “If you get messages, I’ll bail ou ot for wtv reason like why did you all just leave and tell me nothing or why.”

At 2:02 a.m., she said, “Do I come get you?”

Audio File – The WO

On June 12, 2024, the SIU received an audio file from the OPP. The audio file was recorded by the WO on his personal cell phone.

On June 7, 2024, the SO and the WO spoke with a woman - the Complainant. She said the CW had backhanded her twice. She said she had retreated when the CW followed her. She said she pushed him, and he fell down the stairs.

The SO explained the OPP officers would bring the CW to the boat launch and then bring him back to the property. The SO explained the OPP officers would then take her to the boat launch and transport her home. The SO told her to get dressed for when they returned to get her. She said she could not see anything because her phone battery was depleted and there was no power. The WO told her to stay inside and await their return. He asked her if she had any questions, and she did not.

When the CW was arrested, he confirmed the power was off. The SO explained the same plan to the CW as he had explained to the Complainant. The OPP officers searched his residence for firearms and ammunition.

At 31 minutes and six seconds of the audio file, the SO told the CW to “put this on” [now known to be a life jacket]. The WO said, “Pushing off,” and a boat motor activated.

At 39 minutes and eight seconds of the audio file, the SO said he was glad they had left their lights on [now known to be OPP vehicle lights on shore]. The boat motor quieted.

OPP Collision Re-enactment Videos

On August 9, 2024, the SIU received the two collision re-enactment videos from the OPP. One video was recorded from a camera mounted to the OPP vessel and another video was recorded from a camera mounted on the vessel used to simulate the Complainant’s vessel. Both videos showed complete darkness. The simulation vessel could not be detected in the darkness on the video recorded from the OPP vessel as it approached the simulation vessel. The OPP vessel could be detected as it approached the simulation vessel on the video recorded from the simulation vessel.

Radio Communications /Phone Calls

On August 23, 2024, the SIU received radio communications and phone calls from the OPP. The radio transmissions were not time or date-stamped. Time-stamps were taken from the Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report.[5]

On June 6, 2024, at 9:43 p.m., a man [the CW] called the OPP communications centre and requested to have [the Complainant] removed from the property. He advised she had consumed too much alcohol and had become violent. He said she pushed him down some stairs. The CW told the operator he was at a property on Nepewassi Lake, which could only be accessed by boat. The Complainant could be heard in the background as she argued with the CW. She stated she was on the phone with a family member and asked if he had called the police. She reported that the CW had hit her in the face and asked whether he told the police he had hit her. The CW advised he had three beers throughout the entire day.

On June 7, 2024, at 12:33 a.m., the SO advised the OPP vessel was on the water.

At 12:53, the SO and the WO arrived at the property.

At 1:03 a.m., a police officer advised the CW was in custody.

At 1:37 a.m., a police officer advised they were at the boat launch.

At 2:25 a.m., the SO made a radio transmission and requested an additional marine vessel was needed because there had been a collision with another boat.

At 2:27 a.m., there was a request to expedite paramedic services.

At 2:30 a.m., the SO said the other marine unit was not required.

At 2:35 a.m., the SO advised there were no injuries to OPP personnel. He said the Complainant was injured.

At 2:41 a.m., the SO said the Complainant had a four-inch laceration to her forehead, which bled. A bandage and direct pressure were applied to the wound. The Complainant was breathing but unresponsive when spoken to. The SO asked if an Ornge air ambulance was available. The dispatcher advised the Ornge air ambulance was out of service for the evening.

At 3:00 a.m., paramedic services arrived at the scene.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between June 8, 2024, and August 16, 2024:

• General Occurrence Report;
• CAD Reports;
• GPS data;
• Notes – the WO;
• Notes – the SO;
• Scene photographs;
• Collision re-enactment videos;
• Audio file – the WO;
• Communications recordings;
• Reconstruction Report;
• Marine Collision Report; and
• Marine Standard Operating Procedures.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between June 7, 2024, and July 29, 2024:

• Text messages from the Complainant’s family member;
• Text messages from the CW; and
• The Complainant’s medical records from HSN.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the SO, and a police and non-police eyewitness, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the early morning of June 7, 2024, the SO arrived by police boat at a property on Nepewassi Lake. With him was the WO. The officers were responding to the address – only accessible by boat – following a call about a domestic disturbance between the Complainant and the CW. Reportedly, the pair – both intoxicated – had fought with each other.

The SO and the WO arrived at the property at about 1:00 a.m. Following an investigation, the officers decided to arrest the CW for assault and took him into custody without incident. The Complainant was told that the CW would be taken a distance away to the OPP boat launch on the mainland to be processed, after which he would be released and returned. She was to remain at the property and await the return of the officers, who would transport her to shore on their arrival.[6]

Having processed and released the CW on an undertaking, he and the officers were on the OPP boat returning to the property when the vessel struck another boat. The SO stopped the OPP vessel and returned to the site of the collision. They observed an aluminum boat in the water, its engine turned off. The boat belonged to the CW. An unconscious Complainant was in the boat. The time was about 2:25 a.m.

The Complainant was brought on board the OPP vessel and taken to shore. Paramedics attended and transported her to hospital in Sudbury. She was diagnosed with polytrauma, including severe traumatic brain injury. At 2:00 p.m., the Complainant was pronounced deceased.

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.

Section 320.13, Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Death

320.13 (1) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public.

(3) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public and, as a result, causes the death of another person.

The Complainant passed away on June 7, 2024, from grievous injuries incurred in a boat collision on Nepewassi Lake. As an OPP marine vessel was involved in the collision, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The SO – the operator of the OPP vessel – 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 collision and the Complainant’s death.

The offences that arise for consideration are dangerous operation of a vessel causing death and criminal negligence causing death contrary to sections 320.13(3) and 220 of the Criminal Code, respectively. The former is premised, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. The latter captures more 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.

I am satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety while engaged in the exercise of his duties in the time leading to the collision. Having lawfully arrested and then released the CW, he and the WO were on their way to return him home and retrieve the Complainant, as they had said they would do. The SO, an experienced marine vessel operator with the OPP, had his navigational lights on and was proceeding safely by all accounts when the collision happened. Regrettably, the boat in which the Complainant was in did not have any navigational lights and ought not have been in the water at that time of night. It would appear on the evidence, both testimonial and forensic (including a re-enactment of the incident), that the Complainant’s vessel was simply not visible until it was too late. After the collision, the officers acted with dispatch in rendering first-aid and arranging for medical care. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.

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

Date: September 19, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit