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 September 19, 2005 at 0001 hrs, Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Notifying Officer notified the SIU of firearm injury at the OPP’s Port Credit detachment. Subject Officer stopped a vehicle on eastbound Hwy 403 with no licence plates. The driver, later identified as Deceased, was arrested by Subject Officer for having no identification and was transported to the Port Credit detachment. At the detachment a fight ensued between Subject Officer and Deceased. A second constable identified as Witness Officer #6 assisted Subject Officer. Witness Officer #6 drew his/her firearm and fired a shot, and then Deceased took Subject Officer’s pistol and shot himself/herself.

The investigation

Four SIU investigators and four SIU forensic identification technicians (FIT) were dispatched to the scene and arrived at 0110 hours and immediately launched an investigation. The SIU FIT utilized a Sokkia Total Station to map the scene. The entire scene was photographed, video taped and a plan drawing was prepared.

The SIU FIT recovered the following items from the east end of the detachment in the area designated for processing and lodging prisoners:

  • Three spent 40 calibre shell cases, which were located with one metre of the exterior door leading to the sally port
  • Two partial projectiles located within two metres of the exterior door
  • One O/C spray dispenser located on a desk
  • One extended ASP baton, serial number ----redacted
  • One pair of person’s black athletic shoes
  • A bunch of human hair with scalp attached (approximately five to six hairs)
  • Piece of skull located approximately eight metres to the west of the cartridge cases; and cases

As a result of the preliminary SIU investigation, Subject Officer and Witness Officer #6 were designated as subject officers. Witness Officer #6 was re-designated a witness officer on March 23, 2006 as a result of forensic testing on his/her pistol by the Centre of Forensic Science (CFS). SIU investigators interviewed Witness Officer #6 on March 28 and June 30, 2006. Subject Officer declined to provide the SIU with a statement.

The SIU designated the following six OPP officers as witness officers and interviews were conducted on the noted dates:

  • Witness Officer #1 (September 27, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #2 (September 27, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #3 (September 27, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #4 (September 27 & November 7, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #5 (October 7, 2005)

Upon request, the OPP provided the SIU with the following items and documentation:

  • A copy of the Communications Recording relevant to the incident
  • Copy of CPIC queries relevant to Deceased
  • Copy of Carfax Vehicle History for Deceased vehicle
  • Copy of equipment inventory for Subject Officer and Witness Officer #6
  • Copy of various OPP policy concerning dress, arrest, weapon retention, and
  • Copy of press release relevant to incident

During the SIU Investigation, the following six civilian witnesses were located and interviewed on the noted dates:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (September 21, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (October 28, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (October 28, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #4 (October 27, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #5 (October 20, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #6 (October 21, 2005)

The incident

On September 18, 2005 Subject Officer stopped Deceased on Highway 403 in Mississauga. Deceased was driving a car with no licence plates. He/She had no identification documents. He/She was unable to account for the ownership of the vehicle. Deceased did not give his/her correct address. Subject Officer arrested Deceased for failing to identify himself/herself and took him/her to the detachment at Highway 10 and the QEW.

Witness Officer #5 of the OPP stopped at the scene of the arrest and spoke to Subject Officer. Subject Officer told him/her that Deceased was slow to answer questions and appeared distracted.

Deceased registered a zero reading on the roadside screening device. It may be inferred that Deceased gave the appearance of having been drinking, although he/she had not been, and that as a result Subject Officer administered a breath test on the roadside screening device.

Sensitive Personal Information

At the detachment, Subject Officer was taking Deceased past Witness Officer #6 when he/she called out to her for help. Witness Officer #6 says that Deceased was very tense as Subject Officer told him/her he/she was going to be re-handcuffed. Evidently, then, handcuffs had been put on and taken off, and something happened that caused Subject Officer to decide to put the handcuffs back on. Deceased turned his/her back as if to comply, then started wrestling with Subject Officer. Witness Officer #6 attempted to assist. He/She pulled Deceased’s arm, while Subject Officer tried to hold Deceased, and keep him/her from making it to the door of the sally port. Their efforts were unsuccessful. Deceased was bigger and stronger than both of them. It appears that his/her level of agitation gave him/her even more strength. Witness Officer #6 deployed pepper spray in Deceased’s face. This had no effect, other than to encourage him/her. He/She struck Deceased several times on the arm and once, inadvertently, on the head. Deceased got possession of Subject Officer’s sidearm. Still struggling, Witness Officer #6, after ordering Deceased to stop, discharged his/her sidearm twice. One bullet went in through the back of his/her wrist and out through the base of his/her palm. The other grazed his/her upper arm. At the same time, Deceased shot himself/herself in the head with Subject Officer’s firearm. Shortly after his/her arrival at the hospital, Deceased died from a gunshot wound that entered the left side of his/her head behind the ear, and exited the right side of his/her head

Director’s decision under s. 113(7) of the Police Services Act

The forensic evidence does not support Witness Officer #6’s account of the incident in its details. It does not, however, give reason to believe that a materially different transaction occurred. Witness Officer #6 was in an extreme state of emotional shock shortly after the incident. His/Her memories, related at his/her interview some months later, have deficits. The overall effect of his/her account, however, is still the most plausible scenario. Subject Officer cried out, “He/She’s got my gun” during the incident and his/her immediate utterances to others after the incident are all consistently to that effect. There is no reason to doubt that Deceased got hold of Subject Officer’s firearm and shot himself/herself with it.

The blood spatter evidence also suggests a self-inflicted wound. The trajectory of the bullet through Deceased’s head is essentially from down to up, from right to left. The projectile and associated skull fragment that were found on the wall at the opposite end of the detachment, near the floor, suggest that Deceased was on one hand and knees. There is a hair swipe blood pattern on the wall near the floor to the right of the location of the shooting, which suggests that Deceased did not have his/her right hand on the floor at the time of the shooting. It appears that after the shot he/she rolled toward his/her right, his/her head brushing the wall. Subject Officer would have been above him/her, likely with his/her left hand around his/her neck at the time of the shot, which explains why Subject Officer’s left arm was covered in blood from the exit spray.

This very sad incident does not give rise to reasonable grounds to cause an information to be laid against any police officer. The injury caused by Witness Officer #6 was justified in defence of himself/herself and Subject Officer. The death of Deceased was self-inflicted.

Date: July 31, 2006

Original signed by

JA Ramsay
Deputy Director
Special Investigations Unit