SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-PCD-254

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 66-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 15, 2024, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of the death of the Complainant.

According to the OPP, at 9:35 a.m., the OPP received a call from a friend of the Complainant reporting that he was suicidal. While the OPP were attempting to locate the Complainant, they received a second call, this time from CW #2. CW #2 reported that the Complainant was suicidal and had access to firearms. She also advised of his employment and mental health history. Officers from the Napanee OPP Detachment were dispatched to a residence in Shannonville, and arrived at 10:14 a.m. They parked out on the roadway due to the terrain. Since the Complainant suffered from mental health issues and had access to firearms, the operational plan was to contact him and ask that he exit the home. The Subject Official (SO) called the Complainant’s cell and he answered. The SO advised that people were concerned for him. The Complainant hung up. This was quickly followed by a single gunshot. The OPP deployed a drone to check the property and found the Complainant outside of the residence with a gunshot wound to the head. A rifle was beside him.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/06/15 at 12:39 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/06/15 at 3:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

66-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between June 15 and June 27, 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

The witness officials were interviewed on June 25, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around properties situated in Shannonville.

Physical Evidence

The scene was examined by SIU forensic investigators on June 15, 2024, from 6:40 p.m. The scene was documented, photographed and processed for exhibits.

The following exhibits were collected during the scene forensic examination:

  • Exhibit #1 - Empty .25 calibre casing removed from rifle;
  • Exhibit #2 - Empty .25 calibre casing collected from top of box cover;
  • Exhibit #3 - Empty .25 calibre casing collected from top of box cover;
  • Exhibit #4 - Empty .25 calibre casing collected from top of box cover;
  • Exhibit #5 - Empty .25 calibre casing collected from top of box cover;
  • Exhibit #6 - Empty .25 calibre casing collected from top of box cover; and
  • Exhibit #7 - "Browning" .25 calibre bolt action rifle.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The SO

On June 15, 2024, at 10:18:24 a.m., the SO was travelling to the scene. He attempted to contact the Complainant and advised that he was not answering the phone. Police were on the roadway outside the property.

The SO facilitated scene containment and waited for a drone to assist in searching the property. WO #2 subsequently located the Complainant on the ground while checking a neighbour’s residence.

BWC Footage - WO #2

WO #2 responded to the call. The officer put on his heavy vest overtop his BWC, obscuring the footage.

On June 15, 2024, at 10:52:19 a.m., WO #2 was moving and appeared to locate the Complainant on the ground. WO #2 advised over the police radio that he had located the Complainant with a gunshot wound to the head.

Police Communications Recordings – 911

On June 15, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., two 911 calls were placed to the OPP requesting assistance at an address in Shannonville. The callers – CW #5 and CW #2 - expressed their concern for the Complainant’s safety. It was noted that the Complainant had access to firearms.

Police Communications Recordings – Radio

On June 15, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., WO #1 was dispatched to an address in Shannonville for a wellness check. WO #1 was advised that the Complainant had sent text messages to a friend suggesting he was going to commit suicide by shooting himself.

The SO and WO #3 responded to the call.

The SO asked the dispatcher if there was a crisis worker in the detachment, and was advised that the person started shift at 10:00 a.m.

WO #3 and WO #1 were first to arrive on scene. At the time of arrival, the dispatcher provided information about the Complainant’s family.

WO #3 advised that he had just spoken with a nearby neighbour who had seen the Complainant a few minutes prior. The officer advised that the Complainant was not in a good mental health condition.

The officers arrived on scene and put on their hard body armour before entering the property.

The SO was advised over the radio that CW #2 was talking to the Complainant on the phone. The SO asked the dispatcher to ask CW #2 to hang up so he could talk to the Complainant. It was hoped that he could meet police at the driveway entrance to the property. The SO asked if the dispatcher had an update on how the conversation was going with CW #2. The dispatcher advised that the Complainant was distraught. The SO suggested that CW #2 continue to speak with the Complainant until police could move closer towards the residence.

The SO advised that he had called the Complainant and he answered. The SO identified himself to the Complainant, after which one gunshot was heard.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between June 17, 2024, and to June 21, 2024.

  • General / Supplementary Reports;
  • Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
  • Communications recordings;
  • BWC footage; and
  • Notes - WO #2 WO #3 and WO #1.

Records Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service on June 17, 2024.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

In the morning of June 15, 2024, OPP officers were dispatched to a rural address in Shannonville to check on the Complainant’s wellbeing. Individuals had called police to report that the Complainant was suicidal. The callers noted that the Complainant had access to firearms and suffered from a mental health condition.

WO #3 and WO #1 were the first to arrive in the area at about 10:00 a.m. They would eventually position their cruisers in front of the address, using their vehicles as cover while waiting for additional police personnel to arrive.

The SO arrived on scene. The plan was to contact the Complainant and encourage him to walk up the driveway and give himself up. The SO reached the Complainant on the phone, at which time a gunshot was heard.

The Complainant had used a rifle to shoot himself in the head while on a neighbouring property. He was located by an OPP officer searching the area at about 10:50 a.m.

Cause of Death

At autopsy, the pathologist was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to a single gunshot wound to the head.

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 took his own life in Shannonville on June 15, 2024, with the use of a rifle. As OPP officers were present in the vicinity at the time to check on his welfare, 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, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. There was not.

The SO and other police personnel on scene at the time of the shooting were lawfully placed and in the execution of their duties. Aware that the Complainant was planning to harm himself, the officers were duty-bound to do what they reasonably could to prevent that harm from materializing.

I am also satisfied that in their short time at the scene, the SO and the other officers comported themselves with due care and regard for public safety, including the Complainant’s wellbeing. As the Complainant had access to firearms, the officers were wise to first contain the scene by positioning their cruisers by the driveway to the property. For the same reason, they were also wise to refrain from entering onto the property before attempting to negotiate a peaceful resolution of the situation with the Complainant. Regrettably, those negotiations never had an opportunity to work – at first contact with police over the phone, the Complainant shot himself. On this record, there is no question of any want of care on the part of the police playing a role in the Complainant’s death.

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

Date: October 11, 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 findings of fact 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.