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 April 4, 2005 at 0243 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Owen Sound Police Service (OSPS) notified the SIU that 49-year-old Mark Orser had died while in OSPS custody. It was Notifying Officer’s understanding that on April 3, 2005 at approximately 1800 hrs, the local detoxification centre had notified the OSPS and requested that they remove an unruly Mr. Orser, who had been admitted to the facility two days earlier. As a consequence, the OSPS went to the centre and arrested Mr. Orser on an outstanding warrant, and subsequently lodged him in a cell. At approximately 0123 hrs on April 4, during a routine cell check, Mr. Orser was seen sleeping. At 0135 hrs, the Subject Officer checked on Mr. Orser once again and found him to be breathless. Resuscitation attempts began immediately. Mr. Orser was rushed to a nearby hospital where he died a short time later.

The investigation

At 0253 hrs the same date, four SIU investigators and two SIU Forensic Identification Technicians (FIT) were dispatched to Owen Sound and arrived in the city within two hours. The SIU FIT videotaped and photographed the cell in which Mr. Orser had been lodged and later attended his post mortem examination. The SIU investigators liaised with the OSPS and over the next several days, conducted a series of interviews that focused on Mr. Orser’s activities in the days leading up to his death.

Based on the preliminary SIU investigation, Subject Officer was designated as a subject officer. On April 5, 2005 Subject Officer was interviewed by the SIU.

Additionally, the following members of the OSPS were designated as witness officers:

  • Witness Officer #1
  • Witness Officer #2
  • Witness Officer #3
  • Witness Officer #4
  • Witness Officer #5
  • Witness Officer #6
  • Witness Officer #7
  • Witness Officer #8

On April 4 and 5, 2005 all eight members were interviewed by the SIU, and where applicable, turned over their personal notes.

Upon request, the OSPS provided the SIU with the following items:

  • A copy of the Communication tape surrounding the incident
  • Cell Videotape
  • Arrest Documentation for Mr. Orser, and
  • Regulation-OSPS regarding prisoners

During the SIU probe, the following civilians witnesses were interviewed on April 4, 5, 22, and 28:

  • Civilian Witness #1
  • Civilian Witness #2
  • Civilian Witness #3
  • Civilian Witness #4
  • Civilian Witness #5
  • Civilian Witness #6
  • Civilian Witness #7
  • Civilian Witness #8
  • Civilian Witness #9

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

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

This case was significantly delayed whilst this Unit awaited the report on the post mortem conducted on this man. The results were not definitive in respect of what caused his death but the pathologist presumes that the man died of cardiac arrhythmia and heart failure.

It is sufficient for my purposes to say that the evidence satisfies me that, whatever the actual cause of this man’s death may have been, no officer caused or contributed to his death. Furthermore the investigation satisfies me that there was no want of care on the part of the OSPS in their monitoring of this man while he was in their care, custody and control.

Date: September 27, 2005

Original signed by

James L. Cornish
Director
Special Investigations Unit