Mandate of the SIU

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving police officers where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. The Unit’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation. If, after an investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the officer. Alternatively, in all cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director does not lay criminal charges but files a report with the Attorney General communicating the results of an investigation.

Information restrictions

Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act (“FIPPA”)

Pursuant to section 14 of FIPPA (i.e., law enforcement), certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

  • Confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by law enforcement agencies; and
  • 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.

Pursuant to section 21 of FIPPA (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this document. 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
  • witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence and
  • other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation

Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (“PHIPA”)

Pursuant to PHIPA, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may have also been excluded from this report 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.

Mandate engaged

The Unit’s investigative jurisdiction is limited to those incidents where there is a serious injury (including sexual assault allegations) or death in cases involving the police.

“Serious injuries” shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. “Serious Injury” shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault. Where a prolonged delay is likely before the seriousness of the injury can be assessed, the Unit should be notified so that it can monitor the situation and decide on the extent of its involvement.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injury sustained by a 40-year-old man when he was shot by an officer on March 2, 2017.

The investigation

Notification of the SIU

On March 2, 2017, at 3:10 a.m., the Waterloo Regional Police Service (WRPS) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s firearm injury.

WRPS reported that on March 2, 2017, at 12:16 a.m., the Subject Officer (SO) conducted a vehicle stop, on Lilac Street near Ottawa Street, in Kitchener. After interacting with the Complainant, the police officer discharged his firearm striking the Complainant in the abdomen.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and underwent surgery. The SO returned to the police station.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 6

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

SIU Forensic Investigators responded to the scene and identified and preserved evidence. They documented the relevant scenes associated with the incident by way of notes, photography, videography, sketches and measurements. The Forensic Investigators made submissions to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS).

Complainant

40-year-old male interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

CW #7 Interviewed

CW #8 Interviewed

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

WO #5 Interviewed

WO #6 Not interviewed, but notes and prepared statement received and reviewed

WO #7 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #8 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #9 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #10 Not interviewed, but notes and prepared statement received and reviewed

WO #11 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #12 Not interviewed, but notes and prepared statement received and reviewed

WO #13 Not interviewed, but notes and prepared statement received and reviewed

WO #14 Not interviewed, but notes and prepared statement received and reviewed

Subject officers

SO Declined interview, as is the subject officer’s legal right. Notes and prepared statement received and reviewed.

Incident narrative

Shortly after midnight on March 2, 2017, the Complainant was operating his motor vehicle after consuming alcohol. CW #3 observed the Complainant driving all over the road and running a red light, and called 911.

The SO was in the area and responded to the call. He located the Complainant’s Pontiac on Ottawa Street, activated his emergency lights, and directed the Complainant to pull over.

The Complainant turned onto Lilac Street and stopped his vehicle. The SO followed and parked his cruiser a few metres behind the Complainant. The Complainant immediately got out of his vehicle, approached the SO’s cruiser, and began arguing with the SO about the reason for the stop. The Complainant then grabbed the SO’s vest and tried to pull him out of the cruiser, prompting the SO to deploy his Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) at the Complainant. While struggling with the Complainant, the SO was himself subjected to the electrical current of the CEW, and dropped it on the roadway. The Complainant then picked up the CEW and pointed it towards the SO as he exited the cruiser. The SO ran around the cruiser to the passenger side, drew his pistol, and shot the Complainant once in the abdomen. The Complainant was then disarmed and arrested.

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called and transported the Complainant to the hospital. Surgery was performed and it was determined that the projectile had entered at the right quadrant under the Complainant’s right rib cage, travelled through the Complainant’s intestines, and ended up lodged behind his spine. There were also fractures of the L4 and L5 vertebrae.

Evidence

The scene

The scene is the area of Ottawa Street and Lilac Street in Kitchener. Lilac Street runs east from Ottawa Street. The area was cordoned off with police tape. There are overhead lights that illuminate the area. Four vehicles were within the scene as follows:

Vehicle 1 – A grey Pontiac. This vehicle was orientated in an easterly direction on the south side of Lilac Street. The driver’s window was in the down position. The vehicle had no rear bumper, with the rear plate held on with zip ties.

Vehicle 2 – A Ford Taurus. The vehicle was a marked cruiser displaying graphics as designed by the WRPS. This vehicle was orientated in an easterly direction on Lilac Street and was behind and to the left of the Pontiac (Vehicle 1).

Vehicle 3 – A Ford Taurus. This vehicle was a marked police supervisor vehicle displaying graphics as designed by the WRPS. This vehicle was orientated in an easterly direction on Lilac Street and was to the left (north) of Vehicle 2.

Vehicle 4 – A white Ford SUV. This vehicle was a marked Kitchener by-law vehicle. This vehicle was orientated in an easterly direction and located behind Vehicle 2.

Located on the roadway at the left side of Vehicle 2 were a deployed CEW wire and two probes. The wire was stretched from the front left of the vehicle to the driver’s door. A CEW blast door was located to the left of the police vehicle. A second CEW blast door was located to the right of the right front of Vehicle # 3. An area of blood staining was located on the roadway at the rear of Vehicle # 1.

Scene diagram

scene diagram

Physical evidence

The SO’s Firearm and CEW

The SO’s firearm was a Glock 22 .40 caliber, semi-automatic pistol, which contained one cartridge in the chamber and 13 cartridges in the magazine. The other two magazines were examined and they contained 15 cartridges each.

The SO’s CEW was a TASER Model X2. The CEW had obviously been fired as the left cartridge (cartridge one) was empty of probes and had very short pieces of TASER wire hanging from the cartridge:

Seq # Local Time [DD:MM:YYYY hh:mm:ss] Event [Type] Cartridge Info [Bay: length in feet/status] Duration [Seconds] Batt Remaining [%]
1534 02 Mar 00:21:10 2017 00:21:10 Trigger C1: Deployed 5 58
1535 02 Mar 00:21:15 Trigger C1: Deployed 5 58

Complainant’s Utterances at Subsequent Court Appearance

Summary of Court Remand Teleconference on March 3, 2017

The Justice of the Peace (JP) read the charge to the Complainant of attempting to disarm the SO. The Complainant told the court he was pleading not guilty.

The Complainant told the JP that he was just arguing with the police officer about why he was pulled over. The police officer stunned the Complainant with his stun gun so he took the firearm from the police officer and the police officer shot him.

Forensic Evidence

On March 21, 2017, the SIU made the following submissions to CFS:

  1. Glock Model 22 .40 calibre pistol, with a request to check for safety standards, trigger pull, and for distance determination examination, and
  2. Swab taken from all the rough surfaces of the CEW with a request to check for comparison to the Complainant’s DNA

The CFS report dated April 6, 2017 concluded “No DNA profile suitable for comparison”.

Video/audio/photographic evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence. WRPS provided video footage from a drone camera that was utilized at the scene, and CW #2 provided photos.

Communications recordings

CW #3 called a 911 dispatcher and reported a grey coloured Pontiac, with the rear bumper missing, was all over the road and it was probably a drunk driver. Only one person was in the vehicle and it went through a red light at Queen Street.

The SO said he was on Highland Avenue and volunteered to take the call. The dispatcher confirmed the suspect vehicle was on Highland Avenue. The SO broadcast that the Pontiac had just passed him on Ottawa Street and it was passing Mill Street. The vehicle then turned down a side street south of Courtland Avenue.

The SO requested EMS and told the dispatcher that someone had a gunshot wound to his right abdomen. WO #3 arrived and told the dispatcher the injured man identified himself as the Complainant. WO #3 told the dispatcher he was not sure if it was made clear to communications that the injured person’s gunshot wound was as a result of police interaction.

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the WRPS

  • Arrest Report - 2015
  • Communications recordings
  • Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Details – Occurrences from 2009 to 2017
  • Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) Information - Complainant’s vehicle
  • Crown Brief Synopsis – authored by WO #7
  • Crown Brief Synopsis – Occurrence from 2014
  • Disclosure Log
  • General Reports – Occurrences from 2008 to 2014
  • Notes of WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5, WO #6, WO #7, WO #8, WO #9, WO #10, WO #11, WO #12, WO #13 and WO #14
  • Occurrence (Person) – the Complainant
  • Occurrence Summaries – 2008 incidents
  • Scene photos
  • Prisoner Detain Sheet
  • Procedure - Use of Force
  • Court proceedings (via Teleconference) March 3, 2017
  • Roster Report- Central Division
  • Street Check Summaries – 2008 to 2015
  • Prepared statements of the SO, WO #6, WO #10, WO #12, WO #13 and WO #14
  • Video footage from drone
  • WRPS Canvass Sheet, and
  • WRPS Witness Statement – CW #1

Relevant legislation

Sections 25(1) and 25(3), Criminal Code - Protection of persons acting under authority

25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

  1. as a private person
  2. as a peace officer or public officer
  3. in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or
  4. by virtue of his office

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a person is not justified for the purposes of subsection (1) in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for the self-preservation of the person or the preservation of any one under that person’s protection from death or grievous bodily harm.

Analysis and director’s decision

On March 2nd, 2017 at 12:16:58 a.m., a 911 call was received by WRPS from CW #3 indicating that he would like to report a drunk driver. CW #3 advised that he had observed a Pontiac motor vehicle “all over the road” and “in and out of two lanes” following which the motor vehicle then went through the intersection at Queen Street and Highland Avenue against the red light and the caller lost sight of the motor vehicle. Consequently, a call went out to all units and the SO advised he would head to the area. The next call was from the SO indicating that he had observed the vehicle and had it stopped south of Courtland. Moments later, the SO requested EMS to attend as the driver had a gunshot wound to the right abdomen. The driver of the motor vehicle, the Complainant, was taken by ambulance to hospital where he was operated on to remove the bullet which had lodged behind his spine after travelling through both the large and the small intestine, resulting in a section of each having to be removed. In the course of the bullet’s trajectory, it had also fractured the L4 and L5 vertebrae.

In his statement to SIU investigators, the Complainant did not dispute that he had consumed alcohol that evening prior to driving his vehicle, and should not have been driving. The Complainant, however, alleges that after he stopped his car and was standing outside it, without any warning, the SO deployed his CEW at him. The Complainant acknowledged that he grabbed the CEW and threw it, following which the SO shot him with his firearm.

During the Complainant’s first court remand, which was done over the telephone from his hospital bed, the Complainant confirmed that he was angry about being pulled over and got out of his vehicle and asked the SO why he was pulled over. He then argued with the SO as to why he had been stopped, at which point the SO tried to stun him with his CEW, and the Complainant grabbed the officer’s CEW and the SO shot him.

During the course of this investigation, investigators interviewed eight civilian witnesses, in addition to the Complainant, and five police witnesses. The SO did not make himself available for an interview, as is his legal right, but provided investigators with a written statement and his notebook entries for review. Additionally, investigators had access to the communications recordings and log, the CEW download data, and the notes of all witness officers as well as the SO’s firearm and all physical exhibits and photographs of the scene. There were unfortunately no independent witnesses, either civilian or police, to the interaction between the SO and the Complainant, and no closed circuit television footage or other video recordings.

According to the written statement and notes provided by the SO, he was in his cruiser when he heard the call for a possible impaired driver and he activated his emergency lights. He noticed a motor vehicle that matched the 911 caller’s description driving northbound on Ottawa Street South and he made a U-turn and pulled in behind the vehicle, which then turned onto Lilac Street, where it pulled over and stopped. The SO indicated that before he could stop his cruiser, the Complainant opened his driver’s door and got out and advanced quickly on the SO in his cruiser. The SO then exited his cruiser to tell the Complainant to get back into his vehicle, but he had failed to put his cruiser properly into park and the cruiser rolled forward. He then jumped back in to put it properly into gear while the Complainant approached the driver’s door of the cruiser. The SO, at that time, had one foot on the brake and one on the ground outside of his cruiser.

At that point, the SO advised, the Complainant shouted, “Why the fuck did you pull me over?” and reached into the open door of the cruiser and grabbed onto the SO’s vest with both hands and tried to pull him out of the cruiser. The SO used his left foot to keep the Complainant off of him and un-holstered his CEW with his right hand and deployed it at close range towards the Complainant. The SO indicated that he believed that the CEW had been ineffective as the Complainant continued to struggle with him and, as he did so, the SO was subjected to the current of the CEW, at which point the Complainant disengaged and the SO lost his grip on the CEW and it fell onto the roadway. The SO advised that the Complainant stepped back sufficiently from the cruiser to allow the SO to exit, at which point the SO saw the Complainant pick up the CEW. The SO was aware that the CEW still had one remaining cartridge that could be fired and that the CEW was displaying a bright flashlight and its laser indicator. The SO then ran to the front of the cruiser to take cover as he was concerned that the Complainant would deploy the CEW at him. The SO saw the Complainant standing on the roadway with his arm extended and the CEW pointed directly at the SO. The SO indicated in his statement that he needed an immediate response to change the Complainant’s behaviour and to protect himself from serious bodily harm or death. The SO was of the view that if the Complainant was able to successfully deploy the CEW at the SO, he could have access to the police officer’s firearm and other use of force options. The SO advised that he felt he had no other tactical options available to stop the Complainant, so he drew his firearm and shot once at the Complainant, following which the Complainant shouted in pain and hunched over. The Complainant then moved to the rear of his vehicle and dropped the CEW. The SO told him not to touch it, to which the Complainant responded, “Here, take it,” and threw it a few feet towards the SO. The SO then retrieved it, changed the cartridges, holstered his firearm, and kept the CEW trained on the Complainant until WO #3 arrived. The SO advised that the Complainant then apologized saying, “I’m sorry, I’m drunk.” The SO advised that he then told WO #3 that the Complainant had grabbed his CEW as a result of which the SO had shot him. This is consistent with the evidence of both WO #3 and WO #5, who both heard the utterances of the SO. Additionally, WO #2 overheard the SO tell someone that the Complainant had pulled him out of his cruiser and taken his CEW from him, as a result of which the SO shot him.

CW #1 was the first to arrive on scene after the Complainant had been shot and observed the SO with his firearm holstered and aiming his CEW at the Complainant, who was lying on the ground. The SO was still in this same position when the next four police officers arrived on scene.

Three of the civilian witnesses who arrived to assist the Complainant, as well as all police officers who had contact with him, confirmed that an odour of alcohol was emanating from the Complainant, and he was additionally described as being agitated, combative, mumbling, incoherent, nothing he said made any sense, and his speech was slurred.

In the Complainant’s medical records, upon admission to the emergency room at the hospital, the attending physician described the Complainant as combative and uncooperative and he had to be sedated several times in order to calm him so that he could be assessed. His toxicology screen revealed a blood/alcohol level of 32.9 mmol/l (the equivalent of 151 mgs of alcohol per 100 mls of blood or almost twice the limit at which one can legally operate a motor vehicle in Canada) at 1:03 a.m., which would have been higher at the time of driving, as well as traces of Tetrahydrocannabinol, the principal psychoactive constituent of cannabis.

On the basis of the observations of the civilian witnesses, along with the blood/alcohol screening done at hospital and the Complainant’s poor recollection of specifics during his interaction with police, I find in all likelihood that his level of intoxication was much higher than the Complainant estimated to investigators. Additionally, I find that his combative and uncooperative behaviour with medical staff, combined with his own evidence regarding his demeanour when interacting with the SO, was further indicative of both his level of intoxication and his aggression with the SO. I also find that the Complainant’s statements during his court remand that he was angry with the SO for pulling him over or stopping him is more consistent with the SO’s version of events that he pulled the Complainant over with his emergency lighting, than it is with the Complainant’s statement regarding where he was when the SO pulled up behind him.

Pursuant to s. 25(1) of the Criminal Code, a police officer, if he acts on reasonable grounds, is justified in using as much force as is necessary in the execution of a lawful duty. Further, pursuant to subsection 3:

(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a person is not justified for the purposes of subsection (1) in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for the self-preservation of the person … from death or grievous bodily harm.

As such, in order for the SO to qualify for protection from prosecution under section 25, it must be established that he was in the execution of a lawful duty, that he was acting on reasonable grounds and that he used no more force than was necessary. Furthermore, pursuant to subsection 3, if death or grievous bodily harm is caused, it must also be established that the police officer did so believing on reasonable grounds that it was necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

Turning first to the lawfulness of the Complainant’s apprehension, it is clear from the statements of CW #3 and CW #8, as well as the information that was available to the SO from the 911 call, that the Complainant was in all likelihood an impaired driver and had been described as being “all over the road”, going through a red light and with the entire back end of his motor vehicle missing. As such, the SO was lawfully entitled to stop the Complainant’s vehicle in order to investigate the Complainant pursuant to both the Highway Traffic Act and the Criminal Code. As such, the vehicle stop and investigation of the Complainant was legally justified in the circumstances.

With respect to the other requirements pursuant to s.25(1) and (3), I am mindful of the state of the law as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Nasogaluak, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206, as follows:

Police actions should not be judged against a standard of perfection. It must be remembered that the police engage in dangerous and demanding work and often have to react quickly to emergencies. Their actions should be judged in light of these exigent circumstances. As Anderson J.A. explained in R. v. Bottrell (1981), 60 C.C.C. (2d) 211 (B.C.C.A.):

In determining whether the amount of force used by the officer was necessary the jury must have regard to the circumstances as they existed at the time the force was used. They should have been directed that the appellant could not be expected to measure the force used with exactitude. [p. 218]

The court describes the test required under s.25 as follows:

Section 25(1) essentially provides that a police officer is justified in using force to effect a lawful arrest, provided that he or she acted on reasonable and probable grounds and used only as much force as was necessary in the circumstances. That is not the end of the matter. Section 25(3) also prohibits a police officer from using a greater degree of force, i.e. that which is intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm, unless he or she believes that it is necessary to protect him- or herself, or another person under his or her protection, from death or grievous bodily harm. The officer’s belief must be objectively reasonable. This means that the use of force under s. 25(3) is to be judged on a subjective-objective basis (Chartier v. Greaves, [2001] O.J. No. 634 (QL) (S.C.J.), at para. 59).

The decision of Justice Power of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Chartier v. Greaves, as adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada above, sets out a number of legal principles gleaned from the legal precedents cited, including the following:

  1. Whichever section of the Criminal Code is used to assess the actions of the police, the Court must consider the level of force that was necessary in light of the circumstances surrounding the event
  2. "Some allowance must be made for an officer in the exigencies of the moment misjudging the degree of force necessary to restrain a prisoner". The same applies to the use of force in making an arrest or preventing an escape. Like the driver of a vehicle facing a sudden emergency, the policeman "cannot be held to a standard of conduct which one sitting in the calmness of a court room later might determine was the best course." (Foster v. Pawsey) Put another way: It is one thing to have the time in a trial over several days to reconstruct and examine the events which took place on the evening of August 14th. It is another to be a policeman in the middle of an emergency charged with a duty to take action and with precious little time to minutely dissect the significance of the events, or to reflect calmly upon the decisions to be taken. (Berntt v. Vancouver)
  3. Police officers perform an essential function in sometimes difficult and frequently dangerous circumstances. The police must not be unduly hampered in the performance of that duty. They must frequently act hurriedly and react to sudden emergencies. Their actions must therefore be considered in the light of the circumstances
  4. "It is both unreasonable and unrealistic to impose an obligation on the police to employ only the least amount of force which might successfully achieve their objective. To do so would result in unnecessary danger to themselves and others. They are justified and exempt from liability in these situations if they use no more force than is necessary, having regard to their reasonably held assessment of the circumstances and dangers in which they find themselves." (Levesque v. Zanibbi et al.)

On the basis of the foregoing principles of law then, I must determine whether the SO:

  1. Subjectively/reasonably believed that he was at risk of death or grievous bodily harm from the Complainant at the time that he discharged his firearm, and
  2. Whether that belief was objectively reasonable, or, in other words, whether his actions would be considered reasonable by an objective bystander who had all of the information available to the SO at the time that he discharged his firearm

With respect to the first of these criteria, it is clear from the statement of the SO that he believed that he was at risk of death or grievous bodily harm at the time that he discharged his firearm. He based that belief on the fact that the Complainant had already armed himself with the SO’s CEW, he had it aimed directly at the SO and, if successfully deployed against the SO, the Complainant could have access to the SO’s firearm and would therefore not only place the SO at risk of death or grievous bodily harm, but also anyone else with whom he came into contact. On that basis, I find that the SO’s belief that he was at risk of death or grievous bodily harm from the Complainant was reasonable in the circumstances.

Turning then to the second criteria as to whether or not the SO’s belief was objectively reasonable, the Complainant conceded in his statement his demeanour towards the SO. He also conceded during his court appearance that he grabbed the CEW from the SO. According to the SO, the Complainant had already grabbed him by the vest and attempted to pull him from the cruiser, the CEW deployment against him had been ineffective and the Complainant was now armed with the CEW which he had aimed directly at the SO. Additionally, the SO, having himself already been subjected to the CEW’s current, was very possibly less capable at that point of defending himself than he might otherwise have been. In these circumstances, it appears objectively reasonable that the SO had to act quickly to protect himself from a further deployment of the CEW and that he had at that point no further options available to him, other than to resort to his firearm. Had he turned to any of his lesser use of force options, including his baton or his hands, he would have put himself in the direct line of the CEW which would definitely have incapacitated him had it been successfully deployed. As such, his only remaining option was his firearm, which he fired, only once. As soon as the Complainant dropped his hand, with the CEW down from where it was aimed at the SO, the SO did not resort to his firearm again. As soon as the Complainant then released his grip on the CEW, the SO removed the CEW from his reach, re-holstered his firearm, and trained the CEW on the Complainant until help arrived.

Having extensively reviewed all of the evidence, and the law relating to the justification in using force intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm when one believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for one’s self-preservation from death or grievous bodily harm, I find in all the circumstances that the SO reasonably believed that his life was in danger from the Complainant and that belief was objectively reasonable and therefore his actions in firing upon the Complainant were justified. I find that it would have been foolish and reckless for the SO to risk his own life by waiting to see if the Complainant deployed the CEW at the SO, which would in all likelihood have incapacitated the SO and put him at risk of losing his firearm, which could ultimately have put not only the SO but other members of the community at risk of death, before he took action to prevent that happening.

On the evidence before me, I find that the SO was dealing with a very angry, combative, irrational and intoxicated male who had already tried to physically pull the SO out of his cruiser, had disarmed him of his less lethal use of force option, pointed it at him, and had forced him to take cover behind his cruiser. On this record, I find that the SO’s resort to the use of his firearm was justified in these circumstances and that I have no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed any criminal offence and no charges will issue.

Date: January 19, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit