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 Thursday, February 7, 2013, at 1602 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of Mr. Parro’s firearm death. On February 7, 2013, at about 1550 hrs, an officer tried to stop a vehicle for impaired driving on Kirkfield Road. Both vehicles collided and the officer got out on foot. The male driver, now known to be Mr. Parro, drove towards the officer. The officer discharged his firearm and the male fled on foot. The male was found a short time later with vital signs absent (VSA).

The investigation

On Thursday, February 7, 2013, six SIU investigators and three forensic investigators (FIs) were assigned this investigation. The SIU arrived on scene at 1730 hrs. Witnesses were interviewed and the scene was examined, photographed and documented.

On February 7, 2013, Subject Officer was designated as a subject officer. Subject Officer agreed to be interviewed by the SIU on February 22, 2013. On the morning of the anticipated interview, the SIU was advised that Subject Officer would not participate in an interview, however Subject Officer did provide the SIU with a copy of his notes.

The following officers were designated as witness officers and interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Witness Officer #1 (February 8, 2013)
  • Witness Officer #2 (February 8, 2013)
  • Witness Officer #3 (February 8, 2013)
  • Witness Officer #4 (February 8, 2013)
  • Witness Officer #5 (February 8, 2013)
  • Witness Officer #6 (February 8, 2013)
  • Witness Officer #7 (February 27, 2013)
  • Witness Officer #8 (February 26, 2013)

The following officers’ notes were reviewed with no interview conducted:

  • Witness Officer #9
  • Witness Officer #10
  • Witness Officer #11
  • Witness Officer #12
  • Witness Officer #13
  • Witness Officer #14
  • Witness Officer #15
  • Witness Officer #16

The following civilian witnesses were interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (February 8, 2013)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (February 11, 2013)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (February 11, 2013)
  • Civilian Witness #4 (February 8, 2013)
  • Civilian Witness #5 (February 8, 2013)
  • Civilian Witness #6 (February 8, 2013)
  • Civilian Witness #7 (February 7, 2013)
  • Civilian Witness #8 (February 11, 2013)
  • Civilian Witness #9 (February 7, 2013)
  • Civilian Witness #10 (February 15, 2013)
  • Civilian Witness #11 (February 21, 2013)
  • Civilian Witness #12 (February 21, 2013)
  • Civilian Witness #13 (March 1, 2013)
  • Civilian Witness #14 (March 1, 2013)

The SIU received and reviewed the following from the OPP:

  • Communications tape
  • CAD
  • Vehicle maintenance records for the subject officer’s cruiser
  • Duty Roster
  • Scene log
  • Car assignments for involved officers
  • Civilian witness list
  • Police witness list
  • Involved officers notes
  • Pursuit driving policy
  • Use of force policy
  • Sensitive Personal Information
  • Training records for subject officer, Subject Officer, and
  • Copy of vehicle pursuit report

Confidential 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

The investigation by this Unit has been completed, the file has been closed and no further action is contemplated. In the afternoon of February 7th, the decedent was driving a 2003 GMC Sierra pickup truck in the Kawartha Lakes area. A number of other drivers contacted the police with their observations of the pickup truck’s erratic driving. The subject officer was driving a marked police cruiser alone in the vicinity and responded to the call. He caught up to the pickup truck as it was going northbound on Kirkfield Road. Mr. Parro continued to drive in a dangerous and erratic manner. Mr. Parro stopped his truck in the southbound lane of Kirkfield Road and the subject officer stopped his cruiser behind the truck, also on the southbound side. Mr. Parro then began backing up directly at the subject officer’s cruiser. Subject Officer also began backing up in an attempt to avoid a collision with Mr. Parro’s pickup. Mr. Parro stopped his vehicle, reversed direction, and began to drive northbound. The subject officer also stopped his vehicle and attempted to drive forward. Unfortunately, his cruiser stalled. He managed to restart his vehicle, and was planning to drive forward when he saw that the pickup had again come to a stop and was reversing. The truck gained speed and was heading directly at the subject officer’s cruiser. Subject Officer exited his cruiser, and moved to the front driver’s side area, unholstering his police issued handgun in the process. Mr. Parro struck the front of the cruiser, causing extensive damage to its front end and pushing the cruiser some distance backward. At this point, the subject officer was slightly ahead and on the driver’s side of Mr. Parro’s pickup truck. Mr. Parro placed his truck in forward drive and began to accelerate. The subject officer discharged his firearm seven times at the driver, the first two shots being discharged before Mr. Parro passed him, and the rest as the truck’s driver was either parallel to him or just passed him. Four bullets struck the decedent, two in the right arm, one in the lower left side and one in the left side of the neck. The pickup truck veered to the right and went into a field on the east side of the roadway, accelerating along the way. It came to a halt in the field as a result of extensive damage to it. Mr. Parro was pronounced deceased at the scene.

In my view, the subject officer was justified in his use of lethal force in these circumstances. Mr. Parro had already made two concerted attempts to strike Subject Officer’s vehicle with the back of his pickup truck. Immediately after the second attempt, the subject officer was standing outside of his cruiser slightly ahead of the deceased’s vehicle on the driver’s side. In this position, the subject officer could have reasonably concluded Mr. Parro was trying to run him over when he accelerated forward. The fact that some of the firearm discharges took place after the front of the pickup truck had already passed the subject officer does not in my view detract from the officer’s subjective view of imminent danger; other bullet trajectories and locations of the bullet casings strongly suggest that the subject officer’s first two discharges took place at a moment when Mr. Parro could have steered his pickup truck directly at the subject officer. Given the two previous attempts to ram Subject Officer’s police cruiser, I am of the view that the officer had a reasonable apprehension of imminent death or serious bodily harm at the critical moment when Mr. Parro accelerated. Accordingly, he had the lawful authority to use lethal force in these circumstances.

Date: April 25, 2013

Ian Scott
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Appendix A

All of the involved officers completed their notebook entries without issue or contention.