SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-PCI-328

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 serious injury of a 25-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 29, 2024, at 6:02 p.m. (EDT), the Red Lake Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Detachment contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 29, 2024, at 7:00 a.m.[2], the OPP were called to a lodge near Red Lake. A person, off his medication and consuming alcohol, had gone on a shooting spree. The individual, the Complainant, had fired off approximately 100 rounds before he holed up in a cabin. OPP emergency response units surrounded the cabin and attempted negotiations with the Complainant. At 1:04 p.m., the Complainant emerged from the cabin unarmed. He turned around and began to move back towards the cabin. At that time, the Subject Official (SO) released his police dog. The dog took the Complainant down before he could reach the door of the cabin, after which he was taken into custody. During the takedown, the Complainant suffered a dog bite wound to his right bicep. He was flown from the camp to the Red Lake Margaret Cochenour Memorial Hospital and, subsequently, transported to hospital in Thunder Bay.

On July 30, 2024, the OPP reported that the Complainant had to have the injury surgically repaired in Thunder Bay. He was also placed on a Mental Health Act form as he had threatened to shoot himself during the incident.

The scene was dealt with by the OPP as it was first believed that the dog bite injury would only require stiches to close.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/07/30 at 12:48 p.m. (EDT)

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/30 at 1:30 p.m. (EDT)

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

25-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on July 31, 2024.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on July 31, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Official / 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

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #7 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between August 21, 2024, and November 20, 2024.

Investigative Delay

SIU investigative delay was due to numerous factors, including the case load of assigned SIU investigators and arranging interviews with witnesses and counsel.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a lodge near Red Lake in the Unincorporated Territory in the District of Kenora, Ontario.

The lodge was accessible only by float plane.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Police Communications Recordings

On July 29, 2024, at 7:09 a.m.,[4] the CW called 911 and reported that the Complainant was at the lodge with a gun.

At 8:07 a.m., civilian (Civilian) #1 contacted police and reported she was concerned about her family and others at the camp. It was reported that the Complainant had broken into the lodge. Civilian #1 also advised there was no telephone service at the lodge, and that she was receiving information from people who had left the camp and were in the lake. Civilian #1 advised that the Complainant had pointed a gun at Civilian #2, and he had wrestled the gun away from him making good his escape. The Complainant then pulled a knife on him. Civilian #2 had taken his children and left the area.

At 8:33 a.m., Civilian #1 called again and advised shots had been fired.

At 8:35 a.m., Civilian #3 called 911 and reported that she was locked in a cabin. Civilian #3 advised that the Complainant was threatening suicide. The Complainant had punched something and had a cut hand. She was in the cabin with her husband.

At 8:38 a.m., Civilian #4 called police and reported that she had received a picture from the Complainant. The photograph showed a rifle, whiskey bottle, ammunition, and an injury to the Complainant’s arm. The Complainant had also advised in a text that he was in a standoff with police.

At 9:05 a.m., Civilian #5 called 911 to report that the Complainant was texting her at 4:00 a.m. She indicated that Civilian #5 was depressed, was in possession of rifles, was in a standoff with police, and wanted to end his life.

At 9:28 a.m., it was broadcast that Emergency Response Team (ERT) officers were attending the scene. Police negotiators were involved, and a police dog handler had been deployed. Further information indicated that most of the campers had left the site. The Complainant had indicated that he was going to be deceased by later this evening. The dispatcher advised that a friend had provided a photograph of the Complainant with a whiskey bottle and a gun. WO #5 broadcast that public safety was the utmost priority. It was noted that several people were still at the camp locked in their cabins, and the Complainant had a dog with him.

Another message was received by the OPP from a friend of the Complainant’s indicating that the Complainant would be in a standoff with the OPP when they arrived. The Complainant had reportedly indicated that he was not going to hurt any police unless they shot him first.

WO #5 broadcast a mission statement.

A police officer announced on the police tactical channel that the Complainant had fired a shot. The police officer believed the Complainant was shooting in their direction.

The Complainant was talking with Crisis Negotiators (CN) and seemingly calm. At one point, there was mention of a surrender plan. Information from the CNs indicated that the Complainant had put the gun down and was not threatening anyone at that time. The Complainant then advised that if police officers came to the front door, he would put a bullet in their chest. The SO, the dog handler, asked what the team was deciding. An unidentified ERT officer suggested to the SO that the dog be used to cut-off the Complainant if he left the building. The Complainant was then said to have fired off more rounds and had gone onto the roof of the lodge with a 12-gauge shotgun. The Complainant said he would not shoot police because he knew the consequences. He was drinking from a bottle of alcohol. The Complainant was said to have a machete on the right rear side of his belt. The Complainant came down off the roof and had a cell phone in his hand. He was talking on the phone, but officers could not hear the conversation because of noise coming from a generator. The Complainant was then said to have the shotgun to his chin still on the roof of the lodge.

Police indicated that the Complainant had dropped the machete and it had fallen away from him either on the roof or the ground.

Information came in from the CNs that the Complainant was now inside the lodge, and had said he had put his guns down. The CNs further advised that if any police officer came to the front door of the lodge, he would put a bullet in an officer’s chest. CNs advise that the Complainant sounded calm on the phone but indicated he would be dead later that night. The Complainant had also reiterated that he did not want police officers to come to the lodge.

The Complainant went back on the roof of the lodge with a bottle of liquor and yelled out that he would not shoot any police officers because he knew the consequences of doing so.

At about one hour and 47 minutes into the audio recording, the Complainant came off the roof of the lodge and entered the building with the shotgun over his shoulder. The CNs advised he was going in the building to get a lighter for a cigarette. The Complainant then came out of the lodge onto the front deck with only a cell phone in his hand, and started to walk towards the water. It was noted that he was not armed. Yelling was then heard telling the Complainant to get down on the ground. A police officer subsequently advised that first-aid was being administered because of a dog bite.

Crisis Negotiator Recording

The recording was two hours and 39 minutes long, starting at 10:16 a.m.

The CNs were captured attempting to have the Complainant surrender after he took over a camp with several firearms.

At two hours and 36 minutes, the Complainant advised he was having a Bud Light beer. He described all the weapons inside the lodge and advised that he had a case of beer. Using his phone’s camera, the Complainant showed the CN that his arm was bleeding. The CN asked what occurred, and the Complainant said he had punched a glass cabinet.

At about two hours and 37 minutes, the Complainant walked out of the lodge towards the water showing the CN on video all the shotgun shells on the ground he had fired.

At two hours and 38 minutes, the Complainant was arrested. A police officer using the Complainant’s phone told the CN he was in custody.

The recording ended at 1:08 p.m.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between July 29, 2024, and August 20, 2024.

  • Names, badge numbers and roles of involved police officers;
  • Name, contact information and statements of civilian witnesses;
  • Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
  • General, Supplementary and Arrest Reports;
  • Communications recordings;
  • OPP forensic photographs and reports;
  • Mission and Immediate Action Plan Reports;
  • Incident scribe notes;
  • In-car camera footage;
  • Involved police dog training records;
  • Duty notes - WO #6;
  • Duty notes - WO #2;
  • Duty notes - WO #1;
  • Duty notes - WO #3;
  • Duty notes - WO #4; and
  • Duty notes - WO #7.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre on August 20, 2024.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police witnesses, 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 July 29, 2024, the Complainant took possession of a shotgun kept on the grounds of a camp near Red Lake. Depressed and intent on ending his life, the Complainant had decided he would fire rounds indiscriminately from the main building.

Following calls by those staying at the lodge, OPP began dispatching ERT members to the lodge. They flew into the area and then took a boat across a lake to the lodge. By that time, most of the camp’s patrons had evacuated the site. The team of officers, including the SO and his police dog cautiously approached the camp. They could hear gunfire.

The Complainant was firing rounds from his shotgun out from inside the main building and from the building roof, occasionally stopping to acquire more ammunition. Most of the rounds appeared be heading over the lake, but some were discharged in the vicinity of the officers. The Complainant was reached by OPP negotiators by phone. On one or more occasions, he threatened to shoot OPP officers.

The ERT officers surrounded the main building, and watched and heard the Complainant firing scores of rounds over a number of hours. Shortly after 1:00 p.m., the Complainant exited onto the front porch of the building. He had a phone in his right hand to his ear, but otherwise seemed unarmed. When the Complainant began to walk away from the building towards the lake, the ERT offices decided to act. They emerged from their positions of cover near the building and approached the Complainant from behind. The idea was to prevent him being able to return to the building. The SO was among the officers in this formation. He released his dog, and the dog ran at the Complainant and bit into him.

With the dog still latched onto the Complainant, the ERT officers arrived and took hold of the Complainant. The dog was released and the Complainant was handcuffed behind the back. Officers began applying first-aid to the lacerations caused by the police dog to the Complainant’s left shoulder.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and treated for serious dog-bite inflicted injuries to his left tricep.

Relevant Legislation

Section 25(1), Criminal Code - Protection of Persons Acting Under Authority

25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

Analysis and Director’s Decision

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by OPP officers on July 29, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation 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 arrest and injuries.

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.

The SO and the rest of the ERT officers were acting within the scope of their duties when, the Complainant, having walked away from the camp seemingly unarmed, they seized the opportunity to take him into custody. The Complainant’s conduct with the shotgun had rendered him subject to a variety of serious criminal offences.

I am also satisfied that the use of the police dog by the SO amounted to lawful force. The SO had witnessed firsthand the Complainant’s reckless use of a shotgun over a protracted period of time. They were also aware that the Complainant had access to other weapons and firearms maintained at the camp. In the circumstances, it made sense to deploy the dog from a distance to attempt to temporarily incapacitate the Complainant before physically engaging him. Though the Complainant was not observed with the shotgun he had fired, the officers could not discount the possibility of other weapons being on his person. The use of the dog would mitigate the risk of the Complainant being able to access those weapons. There is some conflict in the evidence with respect to the whether the Complainant had positioned himself on the ground and effectively surrendered when the dog was deployed, or whether he was still on his feet. In the final analysis, however, I do not believe that conflict is of any moment. Given his previous behaviour over several hours, the officers had good cause to want to approach the Complainant with extreme caution given the distinct possibility that he remained armed and was still a threat.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.[5] The file is closed.

Date: November 26, 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) Unless otherwise denoted, all time in this report are Central Daylight Time (CDT). [Back to text]
  • 3) 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]
  • 4) The times in this section of the report are denoted in EDT. [Back to text]
  • 5) I also considered whether the use of the dog attracted liability based in criminal negligence and decided that it did not. Though the dog inflicted serious injuries in this case, injuries of this nature are always a possibility when a police dog is deployed. The question is whether the dog acted outside of its training, and, if so, whether there was any reason to believe that the dog would do so in this case. A review of the dog’s training records provided to the SIU did not raise any red flags of this nature. [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.