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, June 22, 2011, at 1150 hrs, Notifying Officer of the City of Kawartha Lakes Police Service (CKLPS) notified the SIU of Mr. Cory Armstrong’s firearm death. Notifying Officer reported that on June 22, 2011, at 1121 hrs, officers of the Peterborough- Lakefield Community Police (PLCPS) Emergency Response Team (ERT) conducted a Controlled Drug and Substance Act (CDSA) warrant at a location, Lindsay. A firearm was also known to be at that dwelling. CKLPS were responsible for the policing of Lindsay and officers of that service, surrounded the house as the search warrant was executed.

When the ERT officers entered a location, gunfire was exchanged between the officers and an unknown man. That man is now known to be Mr. Corey Armstrong. As a result of that gunfire, Mr. Armstrong died. A post-mortem took place at the Coroner’s morgue on June 23, 2011.

A member of the ERT, Witness Officer #1, was shot in the leg and the arm during the exchange of gunfire.

The investigation

On June 22, 2011, eight investigators and five forensic investigators (FIs) were assigned. The SIU arrived on scene at 1300 hrs, the same day, and immediately commenced an investigation. The incident area was forensically examined and police equipment was obtained. A canvass of the area was conducted and witnesses were interviewed. The Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) examined exhibits for ballistics and blood evidence.

ERT officers Subject Officer #1, Subject Officer #2, Subject Officer #3 and Subject Officer #4 were designated as subject officers. On September 12, 2011, they participated in interviews and supplied copies of their duty notes.

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

  • Witness Officer #1 (July 8, 2011)
  • Witness Officer #2 (June 23, 2011)
  • Witness Officer #3 (June 23, 2011)
  • Witness Officer #4 (June 23, 2011)
  • Witness Officer #5 (June 23, 2011)
  • Witness Officer #6 (June 23, 2011), and
  • Witness Officer #7 (June 23, 2011)

The following CKLPS officers were designated as witness officers: Witness Officer #8, Witness Officer #9, Witness Officer #10 and Witness Officer #11. They supplied their duty notes and after a review of their notes, they were not interviewed.

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

  • Witness Officer #12 (June 22, 2011); and
  • Witness Officer #13 (June 23, 2011).

The following civilian witnesses were interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (June 23, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (June 23, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (June 22, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #4 (June 23, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #5 (June 30, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #6 (June 30, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #7 (June 23, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #8 (June 4, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #9 (June 24, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #10 (June 22, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #11 (June 30, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #12 (June 22, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #13 (June 22, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #14 (June 23, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #15 (June 30, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #16 (June 22, 2011), and
  • Civilian Witness #17 (June 30, 2011)

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

  • Police policies regarding Major Incident Command, Tactical Units, Control and
  • Containment and Use of Force
  • Assigned weapons log
  • Use of force training records
  • Occurrence report
  • Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD) record
  • Duty roster, and
  • Communications recording

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

  • CAD
  • Sensitive Personal Information
  • Duty roster
  • Officer’s positioning Report
  • Occurrence reports
  • Report of Witness Officer #10
  • Police policies regarding Search of Premises:
  • Search warrant, and
  • Communications recording

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 the named subject officers, Subject Officer #1, Subject Officer #2, Subject Officer #3 and/or Subject Officer #4, committed a criminal offence in relation to the firearms death of Mr. Armstrong. All of the subject officers were members of the Emergency Response Team (ERT) of the Peterborough-Lakefield Community Police Service (PLCPS), and were assisting members of the Kawartha Lakes Police Service (KLPS) in the execution of a drug warrant at a location in Lindsay on June 22, 2011. The police had information that drugs were being dealt from this residence. As well, they were informed that there were two firearms in the premises.

At 1120 hrs, ten members of the ERT lined up at the front door of a location. The Team breached the door with a battering ram and one member threw a distraction device into the house. They entered, announced their presence and the fact of the search warrant, and began dispersing throughout the house in an attempt to secure it.

As the officers entered, they encountered Mr. Cory Armstrong in the hallway in the area of the back bedroom. One of the witness officers, Witness Officer #1, saw Mr. Armstrong running towards him with a gun in his hand. He was shouting as he was running and firing at the officers. Witness Officer #1 felt himself being hit in the upper right hand shoulder causing him to fall down. The visibility in the house was poor because no lights were on and the presence of smoke from the discharged distraction device.

All subject officers provided the SIU investigators with their notes and submitted to interviews. Through these statements, the post-mortem examination and forensic identification of the bullet projectiles, it was determined that the four subject officers had fired rounds at the decedent, Mr. Armstrong. All told, there were twenty-one gunshot wounds to the decedent’s head, torso and extremities. The cause of death was noted on the autopsy report as ‘multiple gunshot wounds.’

The subsequent investigation found that Mr. Armstrong was in possession of a .45 calibre semi- automatic handgun, and had fired in the direction of Witness Officer #1 three times. Two of the projectiles discharged in the direction of the officer and the third one jammed in the breech. While it is not possible to source the bullet that entered Witness Officer #1’s shoulder because it exited through his back and could not be located, it is likely that Mr. Armstrong fired this potentially lethal shot at the witness officer.

The subject officers were in the process of executing a facially valid search warrant on the premises in question. Accordingly, they had the lawful authority to be in the residence occupied in part by Mr. Armstrong. In my view, the subject officers were justified in discharging their firearms multiple times at Mr. Armstrong; the decedent represented an imminent threat to all members of ERT, and in particular Witness Officer #1, because he was shooting and advancing on the officer. All of the subject officers had a reasonable apprehension of either their own death or grievous bodily harm under ss. 34(2) of the Criminal Code or the immediate and serious injury of another officer under s. 27 of the Code such that they were justified in using lethal force against Mr. Armstrong, leading to his death. Therefore, I cannot form reasonable grounds to believe that the subject officers committed a criminal offence in the circumstances of this case.

I intend to add the following to the Chief’s letter:

As you will see from the attached appendix, a number of witness officers refused to answer a question in their SIU interviews, an apparent breach of s. 8 of O.Reg 267/10 to the Police Services Act.

Date: October 25, 2011

Ian Scott

Director

Special Investigations Unit