Explanatory note

The Ontario Government is releasing past SIU Director Reports (submitted to the Attorney General prior to May 2017) that include fatalities involving a firearm, physical altercation, and/or use of conducted energy weapon, or other extensive police interaction that did not result in a criminal charge.

Justice Michael H. Tulloch made recommendations about the release of past SIU Director Reports in the Report of the Independent Police Oversight Review, released on April 6, 2017.

Justice Tulloch explained that since past reports were not originally drafted for public release they may have to be edited substantially to protect sensitive information. He took into account that confidentiality assurances were given to various witnesses during the course of SIU investigations, and recommended that some information be redacted in the interests of privacy, safety, and security.

As recommended by Justice Tulloch, this explanatory note is being provided to assist the reader’s understanding of why certain information is redacted in these reports. Notes have also been inserted throughout the reports to help describe the nature of the information that was redacted and why it was redacted.

Law enforcement and personal privacy information considerations

Consistent with Justice Tulloch’s recommendations and guided by section 14 of the Freedom of Information and Protection to Privacy Act (FIPPA) (relating to law enforcement information), portions of these reports have been removed to protect:

  • confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by the SIU
  • information whose release could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding
  • witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation, provided to the SIU in confidence

Consistent with Justice Tulloch’s recommendations and guided by section 21 of FIPPA (relating to personal privacy information), personal information, including sensitive personal information, has also been redacted, except that which is necessary to explain the rationale for the Director’s decision. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

  • subject officer name(s)
  • witness officer name(s)
  • civilian witness name(s)
  • location information
  • other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation, including in relation to children
  • witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation, provided to the SIU in confidence

Personal health information

Information related to the personal health of individuals that is unrelated to the Director’s decision (taking into consideration the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004) has been redacted.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may have also been excluded from these reports 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.

Director’s report

Notification of the SIU

On Monday, January 16, 2006 at 0335 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Peel Regional Police Service (PRPS) notified the SIU of the firearm death of 20-year-old Mr. Rajesh Owaan, and the wounding by gunfire of ----redacted-year-old Mr. Jagdeep Singh. Notifying Officer reported that at 0138 hrs, members of the PRPS went to a farmhouse located at a location in Caledon to execute a search warrant to seize 450 pounds of marihuana. Mr. Owaan and Mr. Singh were armed. Mr. Owaan and Mr. Singh were shot. Mr. Owaan died and Mr. Singh was taken to hospital.

The investigation

At about 0538 hrs, five SIU investigators and four forensic identification technicians (FIT) began arriving at the address to begin a comprehensive investigation. The SIU investigators interviewed a number of civilian and police witnesses. The SIU FIT collected many items of evidentiary value, including clothing, biological samples, eight

5.56 mm spent cartridge shell cases, one 12 gauge spent shell case, one .380 calibre spent shell case, one .380 live bullet, a box of live ammunition (.380 and .22 calibre) a .380 calibre semi-automatic handgun, a Crossman air rifle, two spent projectiles, along with other sundry items. The SIU FIT measured and mapped the shooting site in the living room of the address.

The following officers were designated as witness officers, interviewed on the dates noted and provided copies of their notebook entries:

  • Witness Officer #1 (February 2, 2006)
  • Witness Officer #2 (notes only)
  • Witness Officer #3 (January 25, 2006)
  • Witness Officer #4 (January 25, 2006)
  • Witness Officer #5 (January 25, 2006), and
  • Witness Officer #6 (January 25, 2006)

The following officers were designated as subject officers, were interviewed on the dates noted but did not provide copies of their notes:

  • Subject Officer #1 (February 2, 2006), and
  • Subject Officer #2 (February 2, 2006)

The SIU received and reviewed the following items from the PRPS:

  • Copy of the PRPS Occurrence Report
  • Copy of the face pages of the search warrant
  • List of the names of the Tactical Officers sent to the incident
  • PRPS exhibit log
  • Email of PRPS forensic identification seizures
  • Copy of six PRPS Occurrence Reports related to the incident
  • Computer Aid Dispatch (CAD) for incident
  • Sensitive Personal Information
  • Three PRPS scene continuity logs
  • Statement of Civilian Witness #3 and Person Known to Civilian Witness #3
  • PRPS Tactical Unit Operational Plan
  • PRPS Procedure for Containment, Tactical and Hostage Rescue, and
  • PRPS Procedure for Criminal Investigations

The SIU interviewed the following civilian witnesses:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (January 21, 2006)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (January 21, 2006)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (January 16, 2006)
  • Civilian Witness #4 (January 27, 2006)
  • Civilian Witness #5 (January 16, 2006)
  • Civilian Witness #6 (January 16, 2006)
  • Civilian Witness #7 (January 16, 2006)
  • Civilian Witness #8 (January 16, 2006)
  • Civilian Witness #9 (January 21, 2006)
  • Civilian Witness #10 (January 27, 2006, and
  • Mr. Jagdeep Singh (January 16 and 19, 2006)

Witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence (Law Enforcement and Privacy Considerations)

Director’s decision under s. 113(7) of the Police Services Act

There are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the officers involved in this incident committed any criminal offence.

This is a prime example of a situation where officers prepared for a dangerous entry into a residence and the danger materialized.

The search team entered armed and ready to face deadly force. They encountered deadly force and they met it appropriately.

The entry into these premises was lawful, having been executed according to a facially valid warrant. Soon upon entering into the living room of the residence, the officers confronted an armed Mr. Owaan. They ordered Mr. Owaan to drop his handgun (an illegal gun from Arizona) and instead of complying, he leveled the gun at the officers. They fired. Two shots were fired from a rifle and one from a shotgun. Even though Mr. Owaan was struck he refused or failed to drop his weapon and appeared to be in the process of clearing a jam. Six further rifle shots were fired and Mr. Owaan fell to the floor. He died of gun shot wounds to the chest.

It was not until after this lethal confrontation was over that officers noticed Mr. Singh secreted nearby Mr. Owaan. Mr. Singh had obviously been hit by some of the shots. Fortunately the wounds he received were to his legs. Those wounds were successfully treated by paramedics at the scene (who were there in case the high risk entry resulted in injuries) and then at the hospital.

It was only after the house was secured that the officers noticed that Mr. Owaan had fired a shot at the officers before they fired at him. They fired reasonably fearing a real and present danger of serious bodily harm or death. In fact that danger was far more real than they realized.

Date: April 10, 2006

James L. Cornish

Director

Special Investigations Unit