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 Saturday, May 12, 2007 at 0237 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) notified the SIU of Mr. Normand Jeanveau’s custody death.

It was reported that at 2355 hrs on May 11, 2007, the GSPS received a call from EMS asking for assistance at a location, Sudbury with an aggressive patient. Police were dispatched. EMS called the GSPS a second time and asked for an immediate response. Subject Officer #1 arrived, pepper sprayed Mr. Jeanveau and assisted EMS. Witness Officer #6 arrived and assisted EMS and Subject Officer #1 to get Mr. Jeanveau under control. Witness Officer #5 arrived and he/she was asked to place handcuffs on the patient as police and EMS had the patient physically controlled. Handcuffs were applied and Mr. Jeanveau went still and then vital signs absent (VSA). The handcuffs were removed, EMS attempted to resuscitate and Mr. Jeanveau was transported to St. Joseph’s Health Centre, Paris Street, Sudbury. At 0029 hrs, Dr. Doctor pronounced death.

The investigation

On Saturday, May 12, 2007 at 0300 hrs, the SIU dispatched four investigators and two forensic investigators (FI) to Sudbury. The investigators arrived on scene at 0850 hrs.

The FI’s photographed and measured the scene and seized exhibits.

Notifying Officer of the GSPS met with the SIU at 1020 hrs. As a result of the information received, Subject Officer #1 and Witness Officer #6 were designated as the subject officers. On June 20, 2007, Witness Officer #6 was re-designated as a witness officer. Subject Officer #1 exercised his/her right to silence and refused to be interviewed by the SIU.

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

  • Witness Officer #1 (May 12, 2007)
  • Witness Officer #2 (May 12, 2007)
  • Witness Officer #3 (May 12, 2007)
  • Witness Officer #4 (May 12, 2007)
  • Witness Officer #5 (May 13, 2007)
  • Witness Officer #6 (June 25, 2007)
  • Witness Officer #7 (May 12, 2007, August 1, 2007) and
  • Witness Officer #8 (August 1, 2007)

The following civilian witnesses were interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (May 12, 2007, June 18, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (May 16, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (May 16, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #4 (May 16, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #5 (May 16, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #6 (May 16, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #7 (May 17, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #8 (May 17, 2007), and
  • Civilian Witness #9 (June 26, 2007)

Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents:

  • the GSPS Event Chronology
  • the GSPS Officer Line Up Sheet
  • the GSPS Subject Profile for Normand Jeanveau
  • the GSPS Taser Sign Out Log Sheet
  • the GSPS policy for ‘Police Response To Persons Who Are Emotionally Disturbed Or Have A Mental Illness Or A Developmental Disability’
  • the GSPS policy for ‘Arrest’
  • the GSPS policy for ‘Prisoner Care And Control’
  • the GSPS audio CD for the 911 call and their radio communications
  • the Ministry of Health (MOH) audio CD for their radio communications
  • the MOH Ambulance Call Report
  • the Sudbury Regional Hospital’s Emergency Physician’s Report
  • the Centre of Forensic Sciences Reports (2)
  • the witness statement and officer notes of Witness Officer #5
  • the officer notes of Witness Officer #6
  • the witness statement and officer notes of Witness Officer #9
  • the witness statement and officer notes of Witness Officer #10
  • the witness statement and officer notes of Witness Officer #8
  • the witness statement and officer notes of Witness Officer #1
  • the witness statement and officer notes of Witness Officer #11
  • the witness statement and officer notes of Witness Officer #12
  • the witness statement and officer notes of Witness Officer #3
  • the witness statement and officer notes of Witness Officer #13
  • the witness statement and officer notes of Witness Officer #14
  • the witness statement and officer notes of Witness Officer #2
  • the witness statement and officer notes of Witness Officer #15
  • the witness statement and officer notes of Witness Officer #7
  • the witness statement and officer notes of Witness Officer #4
  • the inter office correspondence of Civilian Witness #9, and
  • the pathologist’s report of Dr. Doctor

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

In my view there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the officers involved in this incident committed any criminal offence. The subject officer in this case attended to assist paramedics who were dealing with a man in medical distress who was resisting their efforts to assist him. The paramedics were in the residence in answer to a 911 call made by a person. The patient was an adult male who suffered from various physical ailments.

The subject officer was the first on the scene and with the assistance of the paramedics was able, with considerable effort, to wrestle the patient to the floor. The struggle continued and during it many other officers attended and assisted. It was not long after their efforts to handcuff this man’s hands behind his back were successful that he vomited, went limp and lost all vital signs.

The man was immediately given emergency medical attention. Those efforts were unsuccessful.

In determining whether the amount of force used in this case was unreasonable I have considered all the available evidence including the number of officers and EMS personnel it took to control this man to the extent that they were able to secure his hands behind his back with handcuffs. I realize that positional asphyxia is a phenomenon that must be considered in respect of anyone restrained in a prone position particularly those who, like this man, appear to have had breathing difficulties even before the exertion associated with the struggle with the police and the use of pepper spray.

In any event, there appears to have been little option for those dealing with this man but to hold him in a prone position during the struggle. There was no other realistic choice given the nature of the struggle. No doubt all those in attendance, police and paramedics alike were alive to this risk and appear to have acted on the obvious medical distress this man was in as soon as it became manifest.

The cause of this man’s death remains undetermined and the final resolution of that issue will be left to other processes. Insofar as the criminal law analysis of this evidence is concerned, I do not believe that the evidence discloses reasonable grounds to believe that the force used here was unreasonable or criminally excessive. Some force was obviously necessary for the officers to bring this struggle to an end and open hand techniques together with the application of pepper spray were the only use of force options to which resort was made. The tragic outcome of this incident does not dictate that the force used was criminally unreasonable. An analysis of the evidence leads me to just the opposite conclusion.

I end noting the delay in finalizing this Report. There was significant delay while we awaited the receipt of reports from the CFS and the post-mortem report from the pathologist. Indeed it was not until February 27, 2008 that we received the post-mortem report, putting us in a position to complete our work. Paul Cormier, this Unit’s Executive Officer, and I have recently met with representatives of the CFS and the Office of the Chief Coroner to discuss these delays (as they are not restricted to this case only). I am pleased that it appears we have agreed to a process that will decrease the magnitude of the delays we have experienced in receiving these types of reports.

Date: March 20, 2008

Original signed by

James L. Cornish
Director
Special Investigations Unit