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 April 6, 2007 at 0317 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) notified the SIU of the firearm death of Mr. Soun Saing. Notifying Officer reported that at about 0200 hrs, the HPS received a 911 call from the owner of M & J Billiards located at a location. The owner informed the dispatcher that a man had entered his business and struck him with an axe. Officers responded and the male suspect was located at the front of the business armed with a hatchet. The officers confronted the suspect and he dropped the hatchet. The male then armed himself with a “Rambo” style knife and approached the officers. Two officers discharged their firearms and Mr. Saing was struck. He was transported to the Hamilton General Hospital (HGH), where he was pronounced dead.

The investigation

On April 6, 2007 at 0317 hrs, seven investigators and three forensic identification technicians (FIT) were dispatched to the scene. At 0432 hrs, the SIU arrived on scene and began their investigation.

At 0545 hrs, Notifying Officer briefed the SIU. As a result of the information received, Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #2 were designated as subject officers. On April 6, 2007 at about 1200 hrs, both officers waived the protections afforded them by virtue of the provisions of the Police Services Act, were interviewed by the SIU and they provided copies of their duty notes.

The following civilian witnesses were interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (April 6, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (April 6, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (April 6, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #4 (April 6, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #5 (April 6, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #6 (April 6, 2007), and
  • Civilian Witness #7 (April 10, 2007)

The following Hamilton Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) personnel were interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Emergency Medical Personnel #1 (April, 10, 2007)
  • Emergency Medical Personnel #2 (April 10, 2007)
  • Emergency Medical Personnel #3 (April 10, 2007)
  • Emergency Medical Personnel #4 (April 10, 2007)
  • Emergency Medical Personnel #5 (April 10, 2007), and
  • Emergency Medical Personnel #6 (April 10, 2007)

The following Hamilton Fire Department personnel were interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Emergency Personnel #1 (April 12, 2007)
  • Emergency Personnel #2 (April 12, 2007), and
  • Emergency Personnel #3 (April 12, 2007)

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

  • Communications Tape, and
  • Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

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 either of the subject officers in this matter committed any criminal offence.

This is a troubling case not because it raises novel legal issues or presents complex evidentiary ones but simply because it is difficult to ascribe a motive to the actions of Mr. Saing. I have found it difficult to avoid the temptation to attempt to answer the question why did he do what he did that Good Friday morning rather than simply answering the questions what happened and does the evidence disclose reasonable grounds to believe that any officer committed a criminal offence? In respect of the last two questions the evidence is, in my view, clear and incontrovertible. It is the answer to the why question that continues to be elusive.

In the early morning hours of Good Friday April 6, 2007 Mr. Saing entered a second floor pool hall on Parkdale Road North in Hamilton. There, for no apparent reason and without any provocation, he attacked the proprietor with a hatchet (initially described as an axe). The evidence is clear and uncontradicted; Mr. Saing attacked this man swinging the hatchet at his victim 10 to 12 times. The proprietor of the store was able to grab Mr. Saing’s wrist and then call 911. The rest of the confrontation is audio recorded on the dispatch tape.

The proprietor, who by then was bleeding quite profusely from the wound to his forehead that Mr. Saing inflicted, described both what had just happened and what was transpiring in real time. He described Mr. Saing variously as stoned or high, weird and spaced out.

Those who saw Mr. Saing moments after he emerged from the pool hall would provide similar descriptions of his behaviour and demeanour.

On the 911 tape one can hear Mr. Saing’s voice yelling in the background. It is difficult to make out any words but the owner of the pool hall said that he could make out only some words and phrases such as, “family,” “can’t disturb the family” and “the world.” As Mr. Saing leaves the second floor pool hall you can hear on the tape a series of noises that sound like an object hitting a wall repeatedly. Confidential Witness Statement

The dispatch records show Mr. Saing leaving the billiard hall at 02:08:43. The records then show the first officers arriving at the scene at 02:09:19. At 02:11:00 officers at the scene requested a rush on the ambulance. The evidence, both documentary and testimonial, is that less than 30 seconds elapsed from the time the subject officers arrived at the scene to the time that they shot Mr. Saing.

Once Mr. Saing descended the stairs and emerged from the building, he approached a bar on the ground floor. Descriptions of his approach and activities there vary slightly from witness to witness but it appears that he attempted to gain access to the bar just as it was being closed at the end of the business day. The barkeeper became concerned about his actions at the door and told patrons to get away from the windows at the front of the bar once the police attended the scene. Those who saw Mr. Saing in the few seconds that he was outside of the building and just before the police arrived described him as dazed and lost and suspicious and agitated.

Once the police attended the scene the actions of Mr. Saing escalated and they did so quite quickly. The description of his actions comes not only from the subject officers but also from one of the patrons of the bar who was outside at the time. This evidence also is confirmed to an extent by the entrance wounds found at the autopsy and also just generally by the weight of the evidence gathered by the investigators in the course of this detailed probe.

I believe that when the officers arrived Mr. Saing quickly shifted his attention to them. He approached them, contrary to their demands to stop, first with the hatchet (which was held in a fashion evincing an intent to use it as a weapon) and then drawing a knife from his jacket. In the very short time available to them the officers considered other use of force options and each independently, and in my view reasonably, ruled out any others as being viable options. Mr. Saing rapidly approached one officer with the hatchet held up, in a manner such that it could be used to deliver a blow. I pause to note that he had just moments before delivered just such a blow or blows to the owner of the pool hall and that fact was known to these officers. Furthermore the knife was drawn and brandished in a fashion that communicated a clear threat to the officers.

Although the distance estimates vary, the evidence is clear that the officers did not shoot until Mr. Saing had significantly closed the gap between himself and them. Indeed, as the officers are trained, they attempted to increase the space between themselves and Mr. Saing by moving away from him but this effort unfortunately had little or no effect as Mr. Saing closed on them quickly. He moved towards one officer and then suddenly turned his attention to the other and commenced his approach when both officers fired. There were six spent cartridge cases found at the scene and each of the subject officers fired their weapons. Mr. Saing was struck three times: two bullets entered his torso on the right side under his arm (providing support for the evidence that indicates that Mr. Saing was holding his weapons up in a menacing fashion) and one bullet hit a wallet in his shirt and was stopped short of entering his body by a coin.

Based upon the totality of the evidence collected in the course of this investigation I believe that the officers reasonably interpreted the actions of Mr. Saing as a clear and immediate threat to their lives. Nothing that they did or said was successful in de- escalating the situation. I therefore conclude that the use of deadly force was regrettably necessary in this situation and that there is no reasonable basis to conclude that either officer committed any criminal offence in this case.

Let me address an issue that was raised in the local press in Hamilton. Distraught family members were quoted as saying that there was no reason for the officers to “shoot to kill” Mr. Saing, that they could have and should have simply shot his hands, thus presumably removing the weapons from those hands. Such a view of what is reasonable or even possible reflects a lack of understanding of the nature of these dangerous and dynamic situations and about the capabilities of human beings (even trained ones) to reliably direct their fire in such incidents. It has been my experience (which has been reinforced by some training) that it is virtually impossible to direct fire with such precision in cases where the involved parties are changing positions and the emotions of all involved are high. Time after time in firearms cases, even trained shooters miss their mark. This is especially so in respect of handgun fire. Indeed my experience is validated by the facts of this case. Of the six shots these officers fired at relatively close range, three totally missed even though the shots were aimed at the largest target the assailant provided – his torso. It is quite likely (in fact in my view quite probable) that had the officers attempted to shoot Mr. Saing’s hands they would have missed and one of the officers would have suffered serious injuries or worse.

Found in Mr. Saing’s possession were a number of items that may well provide some clue as to the reason for his actions this fateful morning. At the very least I believe that the consideration of the totality of these items supports an inference that Mr. Saing was quite troubled that morning and his thought patterns were anything but normal. In addition to the hatchet and knife found at the shooting scene, a second knife (of a similar description to the other one) was found concealed in his jacket. Indeed his jacket had two nylon sheaths for knives sewn in – one on the right side and one on the left. The knife located in his jacket was in a handmade wooden scabbard. Each of the knives had

wooden handles and each had crucifixes hand drawn on them in pen. The knives each had wooden handles and each had crucifixes hand drawn on them in pen. The knives each had 16 cm by 2.8 cm blades. Also in this man’s jacket were found two pouches – one containing a slingshot and the other containing small rocks that could be used as ammunition for the slingshot. Also found in his jacket was a small Bible. Attached to his shirt above his left breast was a hand made copper badge. The badge was fastened to his shirt by a wire (acting like a safety pin). The badge was hand tooled and had a crucifix tooled onto it above the words “Holy King.” Although the reason for Mr. Saing’s behaviour this Good Friday morning may never be known, perhaps these items provide some insight on that issue.

I close by drawing to your attention the fact that the HPShas time and again shown itself to be open to the civilian oversight conducted by the SIU. We have come to expect to receive full and prompt cooperation from the HPSwhenever we are involved in an investigation relating to them. This case was no exception. This incident occurred at approximately 2:10 a.m. on April 6, 2007. The SIU was notified at 3:17 a.m. and investigators were dispatched immediately with the first one arriving at the scene at 4:32 a.m. At 12:00 noon, both subject officers waived the rights afforded to them under the Police Services Act and consented to interviews with the SIU. It is in large part due to this prompt and complete cooperation that we were able to complete this investigation into this tragic incident in this short period of time.

Date: April 30, 2007

James L. Cornish

Director

Special Investigations Unit