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 October 29, 2005 at 1300 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Thunder Bay Police Service (TBPS) notified the SIU of the firearm death of Mr. Michael Kolisnyk, which had occurred that day at approximately 1135 hrs at an outdoor strip mall in Thunder Bay. Notifying Officer reported that officers responded to a call regarding a man (Mr. Kolisnyk) brandishing a handgun. They located Mr. Kolisnyk, along with a female passenger, driving an SUV. The SUV pulled into a strip mall where three police cruisers attempted to “box” it in. The SUV moved back and forth ramming the cruisers. At least three shots were fired at Mr. Kolisnyk, striking him three times. He died a short time after arrival at the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (TBRHSC).

Sensitive Personal Information

The investigation

Five SIU Investigators and two SIU Forensic Identification Technicians (FIT) were sent to investigate, arriving at the scene on October 29, 2005 at 1510 hrs. The scene was photographed and videotaped. A Total Station diagram was also completed and is included as part of this report.

Scene diagram

The scene is a strip mall parking lot situated at the southwest corner of the intersection of Dawson Road and Regina Avenue. The mall is set back from Dawson Road, with a gas station at the southeast of the mall parking lot. A pizzeria, pet food store and food mart primarily occupy the mall. There were numerous vehicles in the parking lot.

The eight primary vehicles involved were six marked TBPS police cruisers, one unmarked TBPS police cruiser and the deceased’s 1996 black, GMC Jimmy. All of the vehicles were on the east side of the parking lot with the exception of one marked police cruiser, which was situated at the north side of Regina Avenue, across from the mall. The 1996 GMC Jimmy had extensive damage to the front and three holes in the lower portion of the windshield near the driver’s side. One projectile went through the windshield and struck the steering wheel. One projectile was located in the steering wheel arm, at approximately the centre. One projectile penetrated the first layer of Mr. Kolisnyk’s jean jacket and was lodged there, on the right side. One copper jacket was located on the floor mat of the SUV. Numerous hypodermic needles and numerous articles of clothing were located in the vehicle. There appeared to be no other projectile strikes to the vehicle.

There was damage to three marked TPBS police cruisers as follows: one had extensive front end damage, slightly to the right, indicative of a head on strike, another cruiser had relatively minor damage to the left front corner and the third cruiser (the one situated behind the SUV) had minor right front damage.

The weapon in Mr. Kolisnyk’s possession was an air pistol (or pellet gun), a Baretta Gardone, Model 92FS, 4.5 calibre. It was not loaded. Civilian witnesses believed the gun to be real. TBPS officers believed it was a real gun, as it looked similar to their police issue Baretta.

SIU FIT examined five officers’ firearms and magazines, which revealed entire magazines filled (i.e. 11 bullets) and one round in the breach. Subject Officer’s weapon was a Baretta Model 96D, .40 calibre with eight rounds in the magazine and one round in the breach (i.e. three rounds short of full). SIU FIT examined the uniforms belonging to five involved TBPS officers and noted that some of the uniforms had blood transfer stains. Shell cases were located at the front of, beside and at the trunk of Subject Officer’s marked police cruiser.

One submission was made by the SIU to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS), seeking a toxicological analysis of Mr. Kolisnyk’s blood.

Ten TBPS officers were designated as witness officers. All of the following were interviewed on the dates noted and provided memo book notes:

  • Witness Officer #1 (October 31, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #2 (October 31, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #3 (October 31, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #4 (October 31, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #5 (October 31, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #6 (November 1, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #7 (November 1, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #8 (November 1, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #9 (November 1, 2005), and
  • Witness Officer #10 (November 1, 2005)

Based on limited information obtained from TBPS and the subsequent weapons examination conducted by SIU FIT, Subject Officer was designated as a subject officer. He refused to be interviewed by the SIU; however, through his counsel, Subject Officer submitted a Will Say Statement on November 2, 2005 regarding his involvement in the incident.

SIU investigators interviewed the following civilian witnesses:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (October 30, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (October 30, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (October 30, 3005)
  • Civilian Witness #4 (October 30, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #5 (October 30, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #6 (October 30, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #7 (October 30, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #8 (October 31, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #9 (October 31, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #10 (October 31, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #11 (October 31, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #12 (October 31, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #13 (November 1, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #14 (November 1, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #15 (November 1, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #16 (November 1, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #17 (November 1, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #18 (November 1, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #19 (November 2, 2005), and
  • Civilian Witness #20 (November 16, 2005)

TBPS provided the following materials, which were reviewed by SIU investigators:

  • Communications CD
  • Original 911 Call Report
  • Event Chronology
  • General Occurrence and Supplementary Reports
  • Information regarding vehicles at the scene/Ontario license plate checks
  • Uniform Patrol Duty Roster
  • Witness Register and copies of witness statements
  • Business Canvass Information
  • Communications Centre Duty Report
  • Subject officer posting and training history
  • Media statement issued by TBPS
  • Thunder Bay Subject Profile and Charges
  • Police Incident List
  • Thunder Bay Police Service Record of Convictions for Mr. Kolisnyk
  • Offence Record Report
  • Warrant for Arrest
  • Photos and contact information for Mr. Kolisnyk
  • Legend for Scene Survey
  • VHS videotape of scene
  • Scene photos
  • Motor Vehicle Accident Reports
  • Fail to Stop Report, and
  • Contents of a suitcase belonging to Mr. Kolisnyk as provided to TBPS from Civilian Witness #20

Director’s Decision under s. 113(7) of the Police Services Act

There are no reasonable grounds to believe that the subject officer committed any criminal offence in this case. Indeed the evidence satisfies me that all the officers dealing with this incident tried to resolve this incident without firing a shot; however, Mr. Kolisnyk’s conduct left the officers with no other reasonable course of action.

On October 29, 2005 just before noon, a paranoid and delusional Mr. Kolisnyk stopped a citizen at random in Thunder Bay, believing the man to be a police officer. Mr. Kolisnyk said that he just wanted a bit more time with his female passenger and then he (this randomly selected citizen) could take Mr. Kolisnyk in. The man was mystified and also troubled not only by what was said but also by the fact that Mr. Kolisnyk had a gun in the vehicle with him. Mr. Kolisnyk had a long history of trouble with the law, dating back to 1972. Sensitive Personal Information ] He had been prohibited from possessing a firearm until February 18, 2014. Up to the time that he stopped this citizen at random, Mr. Kolisnyk had been on a long binge of cocaine use and was apparently reacting badly to having just injected himself with a quantity of cocaine.

The citizen called 911 as soon as Mr. Kolisnyk drove off and the police immediately reacted to the troubling information he provided. A number of officers searched for the vehicle described by the 911 caller. When they found it the officers converged. Mr. Kolisnyk foiled the first attempt the police made to affect a high-risk take down by driving around the officers who were trying to block him in. They continued to pursue him and finally boxed him in on a parking lot for a small commercial mall.

This Unit secured the statements of many people who witnessed the incident in this parking lot. As is to be expected, the accounts vary in respect of certain particulars but certain aspects of the statements are common to all or virtually all witnesses. Variations in detail could be attributable to a myriad of factors such as: differences in position at the time of the incident; differences in powers or recollection or retelling; differences in reaction to sudden, uncommon and traumatic events, to name but a few. In any event, I am satisfied that Mr. Kolisnyk represented a real or reasonably perceived threat to the lives of the officers and the civilians (including his passenger) and the officers were justified in reacting to that threat with lethal force.

Mr. Kolisnyk sped into this parking lot in an effort to elude the police. Some officers swung into the lot by another entrance to cut him off. He rammed their cars head on. Sometime either before or during the shooting that was to follow, Mr. Kolisnyk reversed his vehicle into the cruiser that was parked behind him, boxing him in.

The witness accounts vary as to what Mr. Kolisnyk was doing inside the SUV from the time he was stopped until the time he was shot. Based upon a consideration of the totality of the evidence I believe that he grabbed the replica Baretta handgun (which was in fact a pellet gun) and brandished it about inside the vehicle. Some witnesses interpreted these movements as aimless fanning while others (and these are the majority) interpreted his actions as deliberate pointing. Indeed even before the officers had the SUV trapped, one of the officers broadcast that the man in this SUV was pointing the gun at his passenger. I believe that Mr. Kolisnyk pointed the gun at the officers who had positioned themselves in front of the SUV and he failed to comply with their repeated pleas to put the gun down and give up. The gun he was brandishing was identical in appearance to the service pistols the officers had and there was absolutely no way of knowing that it was a pellet gun.

The officers all were in fear for their own safety, for the safety of the passenger and for the other civilians in the area. They reacted to what was, in my view, a reasonable fear with reasonable force, which in this case unfortunately was lethal force.

The officers then descended on the SUV and secured Mr. Kolisnyk and then tried to save his life, as did the EMS personnel who also attended the scene. Some of the officers were injured in this incident and the subject officer was shaken by the magnitude of the events that had so quickly unfolded. One civilian witness said, “All officers, five, were noticeably shaken (or surprised at the suddenness and potential death they faced).”

On a final note, the matter of an officer surreptitiously audio taping the interview between the SIU and a civilian witness will be raised with the Chief of Police and left with him for action.

Date: December 16, 2005

James L. Cornish
Director
Special Investigations Unit