SIU Director’s Report - Case # 15-OFD-059
Issued: October 8, 2015
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
Notification Date and Time: 04/02/2015 at 2230 hours
Notified By: Police
Overview
On Thursday, April 2, 2015, at 2230 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Waterloo Regional Police Service (WRPS) notified the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) that at 2121 hrs, an agitated Mr. Aaron Baker spoke to a 911 operator and told him/her he was going to commit suicide. He warned the operator that the “cops should bring guns not Tasers.” Mr. Baker claimed he was armed with a knife, and threatened to stab officers in the face, as well as EMS personnel and passing civilians. He intimated force would be required to disarm him. Mr. Baker‘s rant ended abruptly when he hung up. When two officers, including the subject officer, Subject Officer, arrived at a location, Mr. Baker confronted them at the front entrance, where he was subsequently shot and mortally wounded by Subject Officer.
The investigation
Response Type:
Attend Immediately
Date and Time Team Dispatched: 04/02/2015 at 2334 hours
Date and Time SIU Arrived on Scene: 04/03/2015 at 0036 hours
Number of SIU Investigator(s) assigned: 6
Number of SIU Forensic Investigator(s) assigned: 3
Complainant
Mr. Beau Aaron Baker N/A
Civilian Witnesses
Civilian Witness #1 Initial Interview: April 3, 2015
Civilian Witness #2 Initial Interview: April 3, 2015
Civilian Witness #3 Initial Interview: April 5, 2015
Civilian Witness #4 Initial Interview: April 5, 2015
Civilian Witness #5 Initial Interview: April 3, 2015
Civilian Witness #6 Initial Interview: April 3, 2015
Civilian Witness #7 Initial Interview: April 5, 2015
Civilian Witness #8 N/A (Information not relevant)
Civilian Witness #9 Initial Interview: April 3, 2015
Civilian Witness #10 Initial Interview: April 10, 2015
Civilian Witness #11 Initial Interview: April 12, 2015
Civilian Witness #12 Initial Interview: April 12, 2015
Civilian Witness #13 Initial Interview: April 12, 2015
Civilian Witness #14 Initial Interview: April 7, 2015
Civilian Witness #15 Initial Interview: April 15, 2015
Civilian Witness #16 Initial Interview: April 16, 2015
Civilian Witness #17 Initial Interview: April 16, 2015
Civilian Witness #18 Initial Interview: April 16, 2015
Civilian Witness #19 Initial Interview: April 16, 2015
Civilian Witness #20 Initial Interview: April 21, 2015
Civilian Witness #21 Initial Interview: May 31, 2015
Subject Officer
Subject Officer Initial Interview: April 24, 2015
Subject Officer provided a copy of his notebook entries.
Witness Officers
Witness Officer #1 Initial Interview: April 10, 2015
Witness Officer #2 Initial Interview: April 10, 2015
Witness Officer #3 Initial Interview: April 8, 2015
Witness Officer #4 Initial Interview: April 9, 2015
Witness Officer #5 Initial Interview: April 9, 2015
Witness Officer #6 Initial Interview: April 9, 2015
Witness Officer #7 Initial Interview: April 9, 2015
Witness Officer #8 Initial Interview: April 10, 2015
Witness Officer #9 Initial Interview: April 10, 2015
Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the WRPS:
- CAD Details WA----redacted
- Notes-Subject Officer
- Notes-Witness Officer #7
- Notes-Witness Officer #1
- Notes-Witness Officer #9
- Notes-Witness Officer #3
- Notes-Non Witness Officer
- Notes-Witness Officer #2
- Notes-Witness Officer #8
- Notes-Witness Officer #4
- Notes-Witness Officer #6
- Notes-Witness Officer #5
- Occurrence WA----redacted
- Occurrence WA----redacted
- Occurrence WA----redacted
- Occurrence WA----redacted
- Occurrence WA----redacted
- Occurrence WA----redacted
- Occurrence WA----redacted
- Occurrence WA----redacted
- Occurrence WA----redacted
- Occurrence WA----redacted – Subject Officer involved
- Occurrence WA----redacted
- Occurrence WA----redacted
- Occurrence WA----redacted
- Occurrence WA----redacted
- Occurrence WA----redacted – Sensitive Personal Information
- Occurrence WA----redacted
- Occurrence WA----redacted
- Occurrence WA----redacted
- Occurrence WA----redacted
- Occurrence WA----redacted
- Occurrence WA----redacted
- Occurrence WA----redacted
- Occurrence WA----redacted – Sensitive Personal Information; Subject Officer involved
- Occurrence WA----redacted – Sensitive Personal Information
- Occurrence WA----redacted – Sensitive Personal Information
- Occurrence WA----redacted
- Occurrence WA----redacted
- Procedure-Lethal Force Incidents
- Procedure-Mentally Ill, Developmentally Disabled, Emotionally Disturbed Persons
- Procedure-Use of Force
- Shift Schedule April 2, 2015, Subject and Witness Officers
- Statement by Subject Officer
- Use of Force Qualifications-Subject Officer, and
- WRPS Memorandum re Disclosure Apr 13
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
At about 2130 hours of April 2, 2015, Subject Officer fired seven rounds from his .40 calibre Glock pistol at Beau Baker. Mr. Baker was hit three times in the upper body/torso and also grazed in the left inner arm. One of the bullets entered the front of Mr. Baker’s left shoulder. Another struck his right arm and the fatal shot entered his mid-abdomen, just to the right of the centre line, and severed Mr. Baker’s aorta, penetrated his liver and lodged in his spine.
The shooting occurred just outside the front entrance of Mr. Baker’s apartment building at a location in Kitchener. Mr. Baker was taken from the scene to SMH and pronounced dead at about 2230 hours. He was 20 years old. For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied on reasonable grounds that Subject Officer was legally justified in discharging his weapon and that there are therefore no grounds for proceeding with charges in this case.
The SIU took statements from several civilians
Subject Officer, aware of this exchange, was the first officer to arrive at the scene. The officer parked his cruiser on the north side of the road and made his way on foot to the south sidewalk, positioning himself near the base of the concrete steps rising to the walkway leading to the front entrance of the apartment building. From that location, Subject Officer confronted Mr. Baker, who was standing on the landing next to the front entrance. When the officer asked what Mr. Baker was holding, Mr. Baker held up his right hand with the knife in it. Subject Officer drew his firearm and pointed it at Mr. Baker. He told Mr. Baker he was there to help, not hurt him, and ordered him to drop the knife and get down on the ground. He issued the same order on several occasions during the brief standoff. Mr. Baker failed to comply. Mr. Baker threatened to stab Subject Officer and moved toward the officer while brandishing the knife. Subject Officer backed up a step or two before firing his weapon. Mr. Baker fell to his knees and then onto his back following the gunfire. Subject Officer rushed up the walkway and, with the assistance of Witness Officer #8, who had taken up a position to Subject Officer’s right during the confrontation, rendered medical aid to Mr. Baker, applying pressure to stem the loss of blood and then CPR when it appeared Mr. Baker had lost vital signs. Paramedics, who were responding to the scene, quickly appeared and took over Mr. Baker’s care.
Sensitive Personal Information
It was reported that Mr. Baker was belligerent and hostile when he drank. That was true at the time of the events in question; he had consumed a substantial amount of alcohol during the day and Confidential Witness Statement. While Subject Officer seems to have understood he was dealing with a mentally ill individual, he would not have been aware of the full breadth and scope of Mr. Baker’s afflictions. Nevertheless, this background assists in contextualizing the events leading to Mr. Baker’s death.
Pursuant to section 34 of the Criminal Code, a person who acts to defend her- or himself (or another) from attack is legally justified in so doing if the conduct in question was reasonable in the circumstances. Subject Officer’s shooting of Mr. Baker, in my view, falls within the four corners of the provision. Subject Officer had good cause to draw his gun when Mr. Baker produced a knife and threatened the officer with it. By his words and conduct, Mr. Baker had demonstrated a willingness to use the knife to inflict harm on the officer, and the officer was entitled in the circumstances to ready himself to meet that threat. Withdrawal was not an option; Mr. Baker had also threatened to hurt others and the officer had to be concerned he might make good on those threats if given an opportunity. For similar reasons, Subject Officer thought about waiting for the arrival of a CEW in the hands of other officers but quickly, and wisely in my view, ruled that out in favour of a prompt intervention on his part. Reference to Confidential Witness Statements On the other hand, whether the officer did everything he could to resolve the situation peacefully, it is clear on the evidence that Subject Officer repeatedly asked Mr. Baker to drop the knife and get to the ground, and that Mr. Baker had ample opportunity to do so ahead of being shot. Importantly, the evidence also suggests strongly that Mr. Baker was shot after making a movement forward in the direction of the officer. While different witnesses describe the nature and extent of this movement differently, that Mr. Baker made a discernible movement toward Subject Officer is common ground among their accounts. For his part, the officer says Mr. Baker walked quickly in his direction and he was convinced he was about to be attacked when he discharged his firearm. While estimates among the witnesses vary, the evidence establishes that Mr. Baker was on the first or second landing from the entrance and that Subject Officer was on or near the sidewalk at the foot of the steps leading to the front entrance when the shots rang out, placing the parties, by general consensus, some ten to 20 feet (three to six metres) apart at the time of the shooting
In the final analysis, the officer says he fired his weapon believing it was necessary to ward off a knife attack from Mr. Baker. Confidential Witness Statement In the circumstances that prevailed at the time, I am satisfied that the officer’s apprehensions and his course of conduct were reasonable under section 34 of the Code, and that there are therefore no grounds to believe he committed a criminal offence.
Regrettably, this is yet another case in which the police service seemed to act in the immediate aftermath of the shooting as if this was their investigation when it ought to have been immediately clear that the incident was a matter for SIU investigation. For example, Witness Officer #2, detailed by Witness Officer #9 to conduct a canvass in the area for potential witnesses, interviewed a number of persons residing in the vicinity of the shooting ahead of the SIU, and Witness Officer #8, for reasons which remain unclear, picked up the knife from the scene and retained it in his/her possession until later turning it over to Witness Officer #3. I will be asking the chief of police to inquire into these apparent breaches of O. Reg. 267/10. In the absence of circumstances justifying what appear to be departures from established protocol, conduct of this nature does little to foster the public’s confidence in the independence of SIU investigations and, by extension and over time, the integrity of policing itself. As a result, I will be adding the following paragraph to the letter to the Chief:
Regrettably, conduct on the part of several officers in the immediate aftermath of the shooting may have breached the rules in place regarding SIU investigations. Though it should have been immediately clear after the shooting that the incident was a matter for SIU investigation, Witness Officer #2, detailed by Witness Officer #9 to conduct a canvass in the area for potential witnesses, interviewed a number of persons residing in the vicinity of the shooting ahead of the SIU, and Witness Officer #8, for reasons which remain unclear, picked up the knife from the scene and retained it in his/her possession until later turning it over to Witness Officer #3. The removal of the knife from the scene in this case has compromised the integrity of the investigation. In slightly different circumstances, it could also lead to a public loss of confidence in the legitimacy of the SIU’s conclusions. Such a result can cause a loss of faith in the even-handed administration of justice in this province and is in no one’s interest and will ultimately cause a loss of faith in the integrity of policing itself. In order to avoid a similar problem in the future, I would ask that you inquire into these matters to ensure future compliance with O.Reg 267/10 ss. 4 and 5 and, if necessary, to reinforce your protocol regarding SIU cases so that our agencies can work together to avoid similar issues moving forward.
Date: October 8, 2015
Original signed by
Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Footnotes
- footnote[3] Back to paragraph Twenty-one civilians in total and nine witness officers, although only one witness officer, Witness Officer #8, observed the shooting.
- footnote[4] Back to paragraph The physical evidence, i.e. bloodstaining, the presence of a snowbank described by the subject officer, support their estimates. However, Confidential Witness Statement . The subject officer stated that Mr. Baker was about ten feet away when he fired.