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, April 22, 2009 at 1839 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) notified the SIU of the firearm injury of Mr. Richard Bastien. Notifying Officer reported that on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 at 1630 hrs, Mr. Bastien committed a robbery and a person was fatally wounded by Mr. Bastien.

At about 1730 hrs, the same day, Mr. Bastien was seen in his car on Highway 417, Ottawa, being pursued by police officers. Mr. Bastien’s car was stopped on Highway 417 and Walkley Road, Ottawa, and the police shot him. Mr. Bastien, suffering life threatening injuries, was taken to the Ottawa Civic Hospital (OCH) where he was treated for gunshot wounds.

On Friday, April 24, 2009, Mr. Bastien succumbed to his firearm injuries. A post mortem took place on Saturday, April 25, 2009, at the Ottawa General Hospital (OGH).

The investigation

On Wednesday, April 22, 2009 at 1856 hrs, four SIU investigators and three Forensic Investigators (FIs) were assigned. At 2150 hrs, SIU investigators arrived and began an investigation. The incident scene was canvassed for witnesses, forensically mapped and photographed. Police firearms and a revolver were inspected and seized. Civilian and police witnesses were interviewed and police documentation was reviewed.

Subject Officer was designated as a subject officer. He/She supplied his/her duty notes and was interviewed on May 8, 2009.

The following officers were designated as witness officers. They were interviewed and they supplied their duty notes on April 27, 2009:

  • Witness Officer #1
  • Witness Officer #2 and
  • Witness Officer #3

Non-Witness Officer #1 supplied his/her duty notes. He/She was not interviewed.

The SIU received and reviewed the following from the OPS:

  • Automated Vehicle Locator (AVL) record
  • Communications record
  • Occurrence reports
  • Duty rosters
  • The written reports of Non-Witness Officer #2, Non-Witness Officer #3, Non-Witness Officer #4, Non-Witness Officer #5, Non-Witness Officer #6, Non-Witness Officer #7 and Non-Witness Officer #8
  • Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD) report, and
  • Use of Force policy

The following civilian witnesses were interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (April 24, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (April 23, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (Ma 6, 2009), and
  • Civilian Witness #4 (May 6, 2009)

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 officer, Subject Officer, committed a criminal offence in relation to the firearms death and of Mr. Bastien. On April 22, 2009, Subject Officer was one of the OPS officers involved in a motor vehicle pursuit of the decedent eastbound on Hwy 417. Mr. Bastien had just committed an armed robbery/murder at a residence in Ottawa, and was escaping on Hwy 417. He had shot the victim with a .22 calibre six shot revolver, and had reloaded before leaving the scene. Three police cruisers were involved in pursuing Mr. Bastien, who was driving a Toyota Corolla. Slightly east of Walkley Road, Mr. Bastien came to an abrupt halt, pulling over to the curb area. All three police cruisers stopped in rough proximity to him. Mr. Bastien exited his vehicle with his revolver in his right hand. While his actions in the next critical moments are somewhat unclear, it appears that he pointed his revolver at a witness officer, and also in the direction of the subject officer. The subject officer discharged five rounds from his/her Glock in the direction of the decedent from inside his/her cruiser with one of the rounds entering his left shoulder area and exiting his back.

Almost simultaneously, Mr. Bastien shot himself in the left temple area of his head, although it is unknown whether the revolver was in his left or right hand at that moment. According to the autopsy, the self-inflicted wound, and not the chest wound, was the fatal one.

In these circumstances, the subject officer is afforded the protection of s. 25(3) of the Criminal Code, which permits him/her to use force likely to cause grievous bodily harm or death when he/she believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for his/her self-preservation or the preservation of anyone under his/her protection. Here, Subject Officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the decedent might shoot either him/her or another officer, and accordingly was justified in shooting him. His/Her reasonable belief was based upon the receipt of his/her credible information that Mr. Bastien had just shot someone, was armed, and was pointing a firearm at him/her. Accordingly, the subject officer was justified in shooting Mr. Bastien.

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

Our investigation disclosed that both Mr. Bastien’s revolver and Subject Officer’s glock were emptied of their ammunition shortly after the shooting. I understand from our forensic investigative supervisors that there can be evidentiary value from the analysis of firearms before any unspent bullets are removed. I further understand that this issue of removing bullets from weapons after a shooting has been previously addressed by the SIU. As the lead investigators under s. 5 of O/Reg 673/98 I am asking that your Service refrain from in any way altering discharged firearms after a shooting in SIU related incidents and merely retain them until the arrival of the SIU. I would be happy to provide another informational session to your SIU liaison officers on this issue if you would like, and would be grateful if you would confirm your change in policy to my office in writing.

Date: July 7, 2009

Ian Scott

Director

Special Investigations Unit