SIU Director’s Report - Case # 10-OFD-178
Issued: January 11, 2011
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, August 25, 2010, at 2310 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Brantford Police Service (
Notifying Officer reported that police responded to a domestic call at a location in Brantford on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 at 2151 hrs. Officers arrived at approximately 2154 hrs and were confronted by a male, later found to be Mr. Evan Jones, outside the residence armed with two knives. Mr. Jones retreated back into the residence where sister and two year old female relative were. Police entered the residence and shots were fired. Mr. Jones was pronounced dead at the scene.
The investigation
On August 25, 2010, at 2341 hrs, six SIU investigators and four forensic investigators (FI) were assigned to investigate the incident. The first investigators arrived at 0030 hrs. The scene was examined, photographed and videotaped. Physical evidence was collected and a scale drawing was prepared by FIs. The area was canvassed for witnesses to the incident.
Based on information received, Subject Officer was designated as a subject officer. He was interviewed by the SIU on August 31, 2010 but declined to provide a copy of his notes.
The following officers were designated as witness officers on August 26, 2010. They were interviewed and provided copies of their notes on the dates indicated:
- Witness Officer #1 (August 26, 2010)
- Witness Officer #2 (August 26, 2010), and
- Witness Officer #3 (August 26, 2010)
The following officers were designated as witness officers on August 30, 2010. Their notes were received and reviewed and they were not interviewed:
- Witness Officer #4
- Witness Officer #5, and
- Witness Officer #6
The following civilian witnesses were interviewed on the dates indicated:
- Civilian Witness #1 (August 26, 2010)
- Civilian Witness #2 (August 26, 2010)
- Civilian Witness #3 (August 26, 2010)
- Civilian Witness #4 (August 26, 2010)
- Civilian Witness #5 (August 26, 2010)
- Civilian Witness #6 (August 26, 2010)
- Civilian Witness #7 (August 27, 2010)
- Civilian Witness #8 (August 30, 2010), and
- Civilian Witness #9 (August 30, 2010)
The SIU requested and received the following documents and materials from the BPS:
- CAD report
- Communications audio recording
- Witness statements of involved officers
- Sensitive Personal Information
- Shift roster
- Use of force training record for Subject Officer
- BPS use of force training curriculum, and
- BPS policies on: O.C. spray, Conducted Energy Weapon, ASP Baton, Response to Persons with Mental Illness, Use of Force and Crisis Negotiation
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 of Mr. Jones on August 25, 2010. On that day, the subject officer was dispatched to a location regarding a domestic dispute. He saw the decedent on the front porch holding two large knives. Civilian Witness #1 was also outside but went to the side of the house. Subject Officer drew his firearm, and told Mr. Jones on multiple occasions to drop the knives. Mr. Jones held the blades to his throat and demanded that the police kill him. He went back into his house. The subject officer learned that his sister and two year old niece were in the residence. He entered the residence followed by another officer. In the meantime, another witness officer, Witness Officer #1, had entered the residence from a rear door. The subject officer saw Mr. Jones inside still holding the two knives and refusing to comply with demands to drop them. Mr. Jones began advancing on two of the officers with knives at his throat. The subject officer first used his pepper spray but it did not have the desired effect. Mr. Jones raised the knives and threw one of them at two officers. He then turned with a meat cleaver over his head in the direction where the subject officer reasonably thought Witness Officer #1 would be situated. At that point, Subject Officer discharged multiple rounds, causing Mr. Jones’ death. Four bullets entered his body with a fatal wound to his left chest.
The officers had the lawful authority to enter the premises under the exigent exception to obtaining a search warrant pursuant to s. 529.3 of the Criminal Code because of the presence of two family members. In the moments leading up to the shooting, the decedent had displayed signs of erratic behaviour and disregard for his personal safety.
He seemed to be goading the police into shooting himself. The subject officer tried a less lethal use of force option –pepper spray – to no avail. Immediately before the shooting, Mr. Jones threw a knife, and while armed with another knife, made a threatening gesture toward a place where the subject officer could reasonably conclude Witness Officer #1 was in imminent danger. Based on this scenario, in my view, the officer was justified in the application of lethal force causing Mr. Jones’ death under s. 27 of the Code: he was using lethal force to prevent an imminent, potentially lethal, attack by Mr. Jones against Witness Officer #1. Accordingly, no criminal liability may attach to the subject officer’s actions.
Date: January 11, 2011
Ian Scott
Director
Special Investigations Unit