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 Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 0200 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) notified the SIU of Mr. Marcel Tranchemontagne’s firearm death. Notifying Officer reported that on Tuesday, December 29, 2010 at 0110 hrs, Mr. Tranchemontagne called the GSPS and advised that he had just stabbed a man to death at his residence. The police responded to Mr. Tranchemontagne’s residence at a location. On their arrival, Mr. Tranchemontagne confronted two officers while holding a knife. Both officers fired their service pistols and Mr. Tranchemontagne was arrested and taken to the Sudbury Regional Hospital (SRH) where he was treated and he succumbed to his firearm injuries. The body of another man was found deceased inside Mr. Tranchemontagne’s apartment.

The investigation

On Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 0215 hrs, four investigators and two forensic investigators (FIs) were assigned. The SIU arrived on scene at 0530 hrs, the same day and they immediately began an investigation. The incident area was forensically examined and police equipment was obtained. A canvass of the area was conducted and witnesses were interviewed. On Thursday, December 30, 2010, a third SIU FI was assigned to assist with bloodstain pattern analysis.

Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #2 were designated as subject officers. They declined to participate in an interview or provide the SIU with a copy of their memo book notes.

The following were designated as witness officers. They supplied their notes and were interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Witness Officer #1 (December 29, 2010)
  • Witness Officer #2 (December 29, 2010)
  • Witness Officer #3 (December 30, 2010)
  • Witness Officer #4 (December 29, 2010)
  • Witness Officer #5 (December 29, 2010), and
  • Witness Officer #6 (December 30, 2010)

Witness Officer #7 was also designated. After reviewing his notes, he was not interviewed.

The following civilian witnesses were interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (December 29, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (December 29, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (December 30, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #4 (December 30, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #5 (January 4, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #6 (January 4, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #7 (January 4, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #8 (January 4, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #9 (January 4, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #10 (January 4, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #11 (January 4, 2011), and
  • Civilian Witness #12 (January 4, 2011)

The SIU received and reviewed the following materials from the GSPS:

  • Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD) records
  • Communications recording
  • Video of the scene
  • Duty roster
  • Use of Force procedure
  • Investigative canvass forms
  • Defensive tactics record for Subject Officer #2 and Subject Officer #1
  • Subject profile of Mr. Tranchemontagne and Affected Person
  • Photographs and street map of a location
  • Photograph of Affected Person and Mr. Tranchemontagne
  • Computer checks of [Affected Person]and Mr. Tranchemontagne
  • Will say statement of Witness Officer #5
  • Will say statement of Witness Officer #1
  • Will say statement of Witness Officer #2
  • Will say statement of Witness Officer #7
  • Will say statement of Witness Officer #3
  • Will say statement of Witness Officer #6
  • Will say statement of Witness Officer #4
  • Will say statement of Non-Witness Officer #1
  • Will say statement of Non-Witness Officer #2
  • Will say statement of Non-Witness Officer #3
  • Will say statement of Non-Witness Officer #4
  • Will say statement of Non-Witness Officer #5
  • Will say statement of Non-Witness Officer #6
  • Will say statement of Non-Witness Officer #7
  • Will say statement of Non-Witness Officer #8
  • Will say statement of Non-Witness Officer #9
  • Will say statement of Non-Witness Officer #10
  • Will say statement of Non-Witness Officer #11, and
  • Will say statement of Non-Witness Officer #12

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

The investigation by this Unit has been completed, the file has been closed and no further action is contemplated. In my view, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the named subject officers, Subject Officer #1 and/or Subject Officer #2, committed a criminal offence in relation to the firearms death of Mr. Marcel Tranchemontagne, on December 29, 2010. In the early hours of that day, the two subject officers were dispatched to a location, after receiving information that its occupant, Mr. Tranchemontagne, had stabbed his roommate. Shortly thereafter, he was fatally shot by the two subject officers. While neither subject officer gave a statement to the SIU, and there were no surviving witnesses to the shooting, the decedent was speaking to a 911 operator up to the moment he was shot. This taped conversation, as well as the post-mortem autopsy, forensic identification and ballistics analysis of the scene leads me to the following conclusions.

The two subject officers entered the building by breaking a window in its front door. They descended a few stairs to the outside door of the decedent’s basement apartment and ordered Mr. Tranchemontagne to open the door. After he refused to do so, they kicked it open. As the subject officers entered a small ante room to the apartment, they saw Mr. Tranchemontagne either seated in or near a chair close to the doorway. In one hand, he had a telephone and the other he was holding knife. He was talking to the 911 operator and refusing to put the knife down. As the subject officers entered the apartment’s ante room, one of them commanded him to drop the knife. The following excerpt from the 911 tape captures the salient moment:

Operator: Did you put the knife down?

Tranchemontagne: No.

Operator: Put the knife down. It is important that you do that.

Unknown Officer: Drop the knife. Drop the knife.

Sounds of several gunshots fired close together.

Unknown Officer: Drop the knife. Drop the knife.

From this excerpt, it is clear that Mr. Tranchemontagne was armed with a knife as the subject officers first encountered him, was ordered to drop it, and was shot while still holding it. Indeed, a knife was later found near the decedent’s body. Also in the living room area on a sofa was the lifeless body of Affected Person.

The ballistics analysis supports the conclusion that the subject officers discharged their handguns six times in total; Subject Officer #1 four times and Subject Officer #2 twice. Four of those rounds struck Mr. Tranchemontagne. Two of the bullets caused fatal injuries to Mr. Tranchemontagne and both of those followed a downward trajectory in his body. These trajectories as well as related blood spatter analysis suggest that Mr. Tranchemontagne was facing the subject officers when he was shot and likely either rising from a chair or angled forward while sitting on the chair. The distance between the firing pistols and the decedent was approximately two metres.

The subject officers had the lawful authority to enter the apartment by virtue of the exigent circumstances that were present – they had been informed that its occupant had stabbed a man. At that point, the subject officers did not know if the apartment’s occupant continued to represent a threat to others. Once they entered, they were confronted by an armed individual at close quarters who refused to drop his knife. While his movements at the point of discharge are not entirely clear, it is likely that he was either rising from a chair or angling his body towards the subject officers, thereby increasing the subject officers’ perception of him as an imminent threat. Under s. 34(2) of the Criminal Code the subject officers had the lawful authority to use lethal force due to their reasonably held view that he represented an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm to them. Accordingly, no criminal liability may attach to their actions that caused the unfortunate death of Mr. Tranchemontagne.

Date: May 4, 2011

Ian Scott

Director

Special Investigations Unit