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, June 22, 2009, at 2140 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Ontario Provinical Police (OPP) notified the SIU of a firearm death that occurred at 2030 hrs that evening. Notifying Officer reported that a salesman knocked on Mr. Minty’s door and Mr. Minty assaulted him. Subject Officer was assigned to investigate the assault. When the officer atttended Mr. Minty’s residence at a location in Elmvale, Mr. Minty came at Subject Officer with a knife and was fatally shot. At the time of the SIU notification, Subject Officer was taken to Collingwood Hospital with unknown injuries. No further information was available.

The investigation

Four SIU investigators and three forensic investigators (FI) were dispatched with two investigators arriving at 2300 hrs. The FI photographed, videotaped and measured the scene and prepared scale diagrams. The SIU investigators conducted a canvass of the scene and as a result located and interviewed several civilian witnesses. The subject officer’s clothing, duty belt and weapon were seized and the incident scene was held until the post mortem was completed.

The SIU Affected Persons Coordinator (APC) became involved in this incident Sensitive Personal Information . Subject Officer was designated as subject officer on June 23, 2009. He did not consent to the release of his memo book entries in relation to this incident. However he did consent to an interview with the SIU on September 4, 2009.

According to information from Non-Witness Officer, Witness Officer #1 and Witness Officer #2 were designated as witness officers on June 23, 2009. They were not interviewed until June 26, 2009 due to vacation. During the course of this investigation, three more officers were designated as witness officers. They supplied copies of their notes and were interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Witness Officer #1 (June 26, 2009)
  • Witness Officer #2 (June 26, 2009)
  • Witness Officer #3 (July 16, 2009)
  • Witness Officer #4 (July 6, 2009), and
  • Witness Officer #5 (July 6, 2009)

SIU investigators received and reviewed the following materials from the OPP:

  • Memo book entries of all witness officers
  • Subject Officer’s Use of Force certification
  • Copies of civilian witness statements
  • Compact disc of 911 call and radio transmission recordings
  • Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) printouts
  • Crime Scene Control Register for June 22, 2009 concurrently to June 23, 2009
  • Occurrence Summary and Supplementary Occurrence Reports relevant to the incident
  • Shift Schedule/Duty Roster
  • Policy and Procedures (2:42) Use of Force
  • Policy and Procedures (2.50) Member Note Taking, and
  • Copy of OPP Field Guidelines regarding the SIU Notification Process

Confidential Witness Statement

The following civilian witnesses were interviewed on the dates indicated;

  • Civilian Witness #1 (June 23, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (June 23, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (June 23, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #4 (June 24, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #5 (June 24, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #6 (June 26, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #7 (June 25, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #8 (June 23, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #9 (June 24, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #10 (June 29, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #11 (June 26, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #12 (July 16, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #13 (June 26, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #14 (June 23, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #15 (June 25, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #16 (June 25, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #17 (August 25, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #18 (August 25, 2009), and
  • Civilian Witness #19 (September 18, 2009)

The following County of Simcoe Emergency Medical Service (CSEMS) Personnel were interviewed on June 23, 2009:

  • Emergency Medical Personnel #1
  • Emergency Medical Personnel #2, and
  • Emergency Medical Personnel #3

The following Springwater Township Volunteer Fire Fighters were interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Emergency Personnel #1 (July 20, 2009)
  • Emergency Personnel #2 (July 20, 2009)
  • Emergency Personnel #3 (July 21, 2009)
  • Emergency Personnel #4 (July 21, 2009)
  • Emergency Personnel #5 (July 21, 2009)
  • Emergency Personnel #6 (July 21, 2009)
  • Emergency Personnel #7 (July 21, 2009), and
  • Emergency Personnel #8 (July 21, 2009)

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

In my view, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the named subject officer, Subject Officer, committed a criminal offence in relation to the firearms death of the decedent, Mr. Minty. In the evening of June 22, 2009, the subject officer was dispatched to a call at a location in Elmvale. Earlier, a door to door salesman named Civilian Witness #1 had been assaulted by Mr. Minty at that residence. Civilian Witness #1 was attempting to sell water heaters in the area, along with an associate named Civilian Witness #2. As Subject Officer approached, Mr. Minty was standing near the residence’s carport. He began walking quickly toward the subject officer. He had a knife in his right hand and was walking toward the subject officer. Confidential Witness Statements . The subject officer was instructing Mr. Minty to either drop his weapon or put the weapon down. Instead of complying, the decedent charged at Subject Officer with his arm extended and the knife pointing at the officer. Mr. Minty continued to gain ground on the subject officer and not heed his instructions to drop his weapon. The subject officer discharged his firearm five times at Mr. Minty, causing him to fall to the ground. Subject Officer approached Mr. Minty, kicked the knife away from him, and began to apply CPR. Confidential Witness Statement Mr. Minty was pronounced dead at 2104 hrs. A subsequent post mortem attributed the cause of death to multiple gunshot wounds.

Later, a closed utility knife was found at the scene. According to the subject officer, Mr. Minty closed the knife with his left hand after he had been shot and while lying on the ground. Subject Officer kicked it away from him.

I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the civilian witnesses Confidential Witness Statements . I am of the view that the subject officer may rely upon ss. 34(2) of the Criminal Code which provides justification for the use of lethal force in these circumstances; he had a reasonable apprehension of imminent death or grievous bodily harm from which he could not escape because Mr. Minty was attacking him with a knife and not complying with his demands to drop his weapon. Accordingly, I am of the view that the lethal force used was not excessive.

I intend to add the following to the Commissioner’s letter:

There are a number of s. 11 issues I would like to bring to your attention. First, there is an issue of delayed notification in this incident in apparent breach of s. 3 of O.Reg 673/98. This shooting incident occurred at approximately 2017 hrs on June 22, 2009. The OPPA was notified at 2049 hrs, and an association representative was on scene at approximately 2100 hrs. Further, according to the notes of Witness Officer #3, a media spokesperson was already en route at 2125 hrs. However, the SIU was not notified until 2140 hrs, approximately one and one half hours after the incident and after the OPPA and the media representative were notified.

Second, Witness Officer #3 took statements from the two most material civilian witnesses, Civilian Witness #1 and Civilian Witness #2, in apparent breach of s. 5. of O.Reg 673/98 making the SIU the lead investigator.

Finally, Witness Officer #1 instructed all witness officers not to write up their notes until they spoke to counsel, a counsel who has a professional duty to share information among his clients. This would appear to be a prima facie breach of s. 6 of the same regulation.

You have made it clear that you do not intend to respond to my letters pointing out these apparent breaches of the regulations to the Police Services Act. I intend to continue documenting these issues in my letters to your office and my reports to the Attorney General.

Original signed by

Ian Scott

Director

Special Investigations Unit

Date: October 14, 2009