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 April 27, 2012, at 0830 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of the gunshot death of 53 year old Deceased 40 minutes earlier after a protracted stand-off at a lodge in Chatsworth, Grey County.

Overview

Notifying Officer reported that officers were searching for Deceased on the evening of April 26, 2012, after he allegedly threatened local residents with a handgun. Deceased initially eluded capture and fled into the woods. He surfaced a few kilometres from the original scene and entered the garage on a property owned by a person.

Once in the garage, Deceased armed himself with a shotgun and hundreds of rounds of shotgun ammunition. The firearm and ammunition was the property of a person and had been left in the garage unsecured. During the night, Deceased disregarded police commands to surrender and fired dozens of rounds at the officers occupying the perimeter of the property.

He eventually emerged from the garage and advanced toward some of the officers. A member of the OPP Tactical Rescue Unit (TRU) returned fire, striking Deceased once in the chest, causing immediate death.

The investigation

On April 27, 2012, five SIU investigators and four SIU forensic investigators (FIs) initiated an investigation in Chatsworth, arriving at the scene within three hours of being dispatched. The scene was meticulously measured, photographed and a diagram prepared. The area was canvassed and civilian witnesses were identified and interviewed. The SIU requested, received and reviewed the following documents and materials from the OPP:

  • The notebook entries of all witness officers
  • The CAD Report
  • The Event Chronology
  • One DVD containing recordings of the OPP dispatch phone line
  • One DVD of the 911 call-taker recording
  • One thumb-drive containing audio recordings of conversations of the TRU Team members
  • Copy of a scene diagram drawn by a person
  • One DVD of photographs taken from the white board in the OPP command post
  • One DVD of the TRU training course standards
  • One DVD of photographs taken by Witness Officer #2
  • Scene photographs taken by Non-Witness Officer
  • One DVD containing video of the scene by Non-Witness Officer
  • Civilian and police witness list, and
  • The OPP command-post Operation Log

Witness officers were designated on April 27, 2012, and interviewed on the dates as follows:

  • Witness Officer #1 (April 30, 2012)
  • Witness Officer #2 (May 1, 2012)
  • Witness Officer #3 (May 1, 2012)
  • Witness Officer #4 (May 1, 2012)
  • Witness Officer #5 (April 30, 2012)
  • Witness Officer #6 (April 30, 2012)
  • Witness Officer #7 (May 1, 2012), and
  • Witness Officer #8 (May 1, 2012)

Although designated and interviewed, the evidence of Witness Officer #8, Witness Officer #5, Witness Officer #6 and Witness Officer #4 was corroborated by others and is not included in the ensuing summaries

The subject officer, Subject Officer, was interviewed on May 23, 2012.

These civilian witnesses were interviewed on the dates as follows:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (May 2, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (May 2, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (May 1, 2012), and
  • Civilian Witness #4 (May 1, 2012)

Although the following civilian witnesses were interviewed by the SIU, their evidence either corroborated that of another witness or did not advance the investigation:

  • Civilian Witness #5 (May 2, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #6 (April 28, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #7 (April 28, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #8 (April 28, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #9 (April 28, 2012), and
  • Civilian Witness #10 (May 2, 2012)

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 firearm death of Deceased on April 27, 2012. The subject officer provided his notes and a voluntary statement to the SIU investigators, the contents of which square with all other information gathered in this investigation. In particular, there were contemporaneous audio recordings of conversations with TRU team members during the incident and an OPP command post operation log, the contents of which provide a reasonably full picture of this dramatic event.

The subject officer was a member of the Tactics and Rescue Unit and was dispatched to a barricaded suspect call at a location, Chatsworth, in Grey County on April 26, 2012. He was briefed that the decedent was wanted on a warrant for uttering death threats, weapons dangerous and breach of his bail conditions, and was barricaded in a large garage on the premises. He was further informed that Deceased had access to a shotgun with many rounds of ammunition and a small calibre rifle, both weapons having been stored in the garage by its owner. Deceased was also seen to be carrying a handgun before he entered the garage.

Subject Officer and his partner, Witness Officer #7, took up a position behind the garage and at a higher elevation than the front doors to it. The subject officer had a C8 rifle and Witness Officer #7 was armed with less than lethal weaponry including a shotgun designed to shoot beanbag rounds and an ARWEN antiriot weapon capable of discharging plastic baton rounds.

At approximately 7:00 p.m., the subject officer first saw Deceased when he emerged from the garage man door and fired a shotgun round into the air. An hour later, at around 8:00 p.m., he emerged again and fired a shotgun round and a handgun round at the OPP Armoured Rescue Vehicle (‘ARV’) which was positioned in the driveway outside of the garage. It has the appearance of a small tank and is heavily fortified. He then fired five or six more shotgun rounds at the ARV.

At 9:45 p.m., the subject officers moved to a more wooded area. At around 10:30 p.m. the subject officer heard Deceased start one of the motorized vehicles in the garage and open the garage door. The ARV moved closed to the garage door to block his egress from the building. Deceased fired numerous rounds at the ARV and closed the door.

At around 1:45 a.m. the next day, Deceased threw out a portable telephone that the OPP had attempted to utilize to make contact with him.

For a few hours there was relative calm. However, shortly before 6:00 a.m. when it was still dark, Deceased left the garage armed with a shotgun. He began moving towards the stone steps beside the garage in the direction of the subject officer and his partner. The two officers moved forward and took cover behind a tree as the decedent ascended the stone steps. The subject officer trained his C8 rifle and Witness Officer #7 his/her shotgun on Deceased. Witness Officer #7 ordered him to drop his weapon and both officers illuminated the suspect with flashlights attached to the end of their weapons. Instead of complying with the officer’s demand, Deceased raised his shotgun in the direction of the two officers. Witness Officer #7 discharged a beanbag round but it did not seem to have any effect. Deceased began advancing toward the officers with the barrel of his shotgun held in a shooting position. The subject officer discharged two rounds from his C8 rifle while Witness Officer #7 discharged more beanbag rounds. At this point, Deceased was approximately ten metres from the officers. Deceased turned around, ran down the stone steps and back into the garage through the man door. He collapsed still in possession of his shotgun and died at that location. A post- mortem examination conducted on April 30, 2012 determined the cause of death to be a single gunshot wound to the chest.

In my view, the use of lethal force by the subject officer leading to the death of Deceased was justified in law. The decedent had proved himself to be a lethal threat to many officers at the incident scene when he discharged multiple rounds from the shotgun over a prolonged period of time and refused to surrender. The SIU forensic investigation later concluded he discharged up to 80 shotgun rounds. When Deceased left the garage under the cover of darkness and armed with the shotgun, the subject officer could reasonably conclude that he represented an imminent threat to himself and his partner, Witness Officer #7, if he threatened either of them with his weapon. The two officers gave Deceased an opportunity to drop his weapon. Instead of so doing, he raised his shotgun in an aggressive manner towards the two officers. Given Deceased’s prior conduct, in my view, the subject officer had a reasonable belief that this action represented an imminent and lethal threat to both himself and his partner when he raised his shotgun in their direction. Accordingly, the subject officer’s use of lethal force leading to Deceased’s death was justified in these circumstances.

Date: June 26, 2012

Ian Scott
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Appendix

All officers complied with OPP policies in regards to notebook entries and none sought counsel prior to their writing.