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 Monday, June 23, 2008 at 1312 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of the custody death of Mr. Jeffrey Marreel.

Notifying Officer reported that officers responded to a call and found Mr. Marreel on the road at ----redacted Front Road, Norfolk, Ont., striking himself with a pole. Mr. Marreel was Tasered by Subject Officer. Ambulance responded and checked Mr. Marreel, who was taken to the Norfolk OPP Detachment and lodged in a cell. At 1135 hrs, Mr. Marreel went vital signs absent (VSA). Ambulance responded and transported Mr. Marreel to hospital. Information from Notifying Officer was that Mr. Marreel was deceased.

The investigation

On June 23, 2008 at 1415 hrs, four SIU investigators and two forensic investigators were assigned to investigate the incident and arrived at the scene at 1608 hrs. The scene was examined, videotaped and photographed, the area was canvassed for potential witnesses, and evidence relevant to the incident was collected.

The SIU requested and received the following documents and materials from the OPP:

  • Copy of OPP Sudden Death Report
  • Sensitive Personal Information
  • Statement of civilian witnesses interviewed by OPP
  • Paul Kennedy’s report on Taser use
  • Taser Technology Review – B.C. Public Complaints Commission
  • OPP radio and telephone communications
  • Initial scene photographs
  • Sensitive Personal Information
  • Training records of Subject Officer, and
  • OPP policy re: use of force, use of restraint belt, transportation of prisoners, Taser use, prisoner care, excited delirium

The following civilian witnesses were interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (June 23, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (June 23, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (June 24, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #4 (June 24, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #5 (June 24, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #6 (June 24, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #7 (June 25, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #8 (June 25, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #9 (June 25, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #10 (June 26, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #11 (June 26, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #12 (June 27, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #13 (June 27, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #14 (June 27, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #15 (June 27, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #16 (June 27, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #17 (June 27, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #18 (June 27, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #19 (June 27, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #20 (June 30, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #21 (June 30, 2008)

Based on information received, the following officers were designated as witness officers. They were interviewed and supplied copies of their notes on the dates indicated:

  • Witness Officer #1 (July 2, 2008)
  • Witness Officer #2 (July 2, 2008)
  • Witness Officer #3 (July 2, 2008)
  • Witness Officer #4 (July 2, 2008)
  • Witness Officer #5 (July 2, 2008)
  • Witness Officer #6 (July 3, 2008)
  • Witness Officer #7 (July 3, 2008)
  • Witness Officer #8 (July 3, 2008)
  • Witness Officer #9 (July 11, 2008)
  • Witness Officer #10 (July 11, 2008)

Subject Officer was designated as a subject officer. He/She declined a request to be interviewed by SIU.

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

I am satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the named subject officer, Subject Officer, committed a criminal offence in connection with the death of Mr. Marreel on June 23, 2008.

On the morning in question, Mr. Marreel left a residence on a location in Fishers Glen where he had been staying. He had been abusing drugs and alcohol in the days before, and ventured out onto the roadways in the vicinity exhibiting erratic and violent behaviour brought about by his intoxication. Neighbours observed him with a steel step in his hands, which he was using in a threatening fashion and to inflict harm upon himself. The police were summoned.

Witness Officer #10 was the first to attend. He confronted Mr. Marreel, who reacted by threatening the officer physically and verbally. Witness Officer #10 decided to keep a safe distance from Mr. Marreel in his cruiser pending the arrival of other officers. He followed Mr. Marreel to the intersection of Front Road and Fishers Glen Road, attempting to communicate with Mr. Marreel via his cruiser’s loudspeaker in an effort to have Mr. Marreel drop the steel step. Mr. Marreel did not comply; instead, he persisted to threaten the officer with violence, tossing a piece of metal at the officer’s cruiser at one point, and continued to harm himself and damage various objects in the area, including trees, a stop sign and a public payphone.

With the arrival of Witness Officer #8 and Subject Officer at the scene, the decision was taken to arrest Mr. Marreel. I am satisfied that the officers were proceeding lawfully to arrest Mr. Marreel on a number of grounds, including those articulated by Witness Officer #10, namely, cause disturbance, uttering threats and assault with a weapon. The officers circled Mr. Marreel and started to move in on him. Witness Officer #8 repeatedly ordered Mr. Marreel to drop the steel step and get down on the ground. Mr. Marreel eventually complied; however, the officers remained understandably concerned as the steel step was still within Mr. Marreel’s reach. Consequently, Witness Officer #8 repeatedly ordered Mr. Marreel to lie face down on the ground. For whatever reason, Mr. Marreel failed to comply.

What happened next is the subject of some discord in the eyewitness evidence. While the officers acknowledge that they used force, including punches and kicks to various parts of Mr. Marreel’s body coupled with the application of their body weight and the use of a Taser (whether effective or not) to control a highly resistant Mr. Marreel, a number of eyewitnesses expressed concern at what they observed and considered to be excessive force. Confidential Witness Statements.

Notwithstanding what Civilian Witness #6 and Civilian Witness #9 said they saw, I am satisfied that their accounts of excessive use of force by the police must be discounted in view of the overriding weight of the evidence. With respect to the totality of the evidence provided by the civilian witnesses, each describes a threatening and physically violent Mr. Marreel. Other than Civilian Witness #6 and Civilian Witness #9, none of the witnesses indicate they observed the kicks described by these two witnesses. To the contrary, the nature of the force they ascribe to the officers is generally consistent with the force acknowledged by the officers. It also bears noting that the officers had a much better perspective of what was occurring, and saw and heard things that the civilian witnesses could not have seen or heard. Lastly, had the kicks described by Civilian Witness #9 actually occurred, one might reasonably have expected more serious injury to Mr. Marreel’s head area than that which actually appears to have been inflicted. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the officers’ rendition may safely be relied upon and that their use of force, albeit severe, fell within the latitude authorized by the criminal law as being no more than was reasonably necessary under section 25 of the Criminal Code to overcome Mr. Marreel’s violence and effect his arrest.

I intend to include the following in the Commissioner’s letter:

Before closing this file, I note for the record that there appears to have been a breach of the segregation provision of O. Reg. 673/98, which governs SIU investigations. Specifically, it appears that the officers involved in Mr. Marreel’s arrest and detention took part in a “critical incident debriefing” on June 24, 2008, by which time Mr. Marreel had died and the matter remitted to the SIU for investigation. I trust that this issue will be addressed in your s. 11 investigation, and I ask that you report back to my office in writing.

Original signed by

Date: February 13, 2009

Ian Scott
Director
Special Investigations Unit