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 Thursday, June 24, 2010 at 1900 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of the death of Mr. Aron Firman. Notifying Officer reported that Mr. Firman died after having a Taser deployed on him during a struggle with officers.

Notifying Officer told the SIU that at approximately 1728 hrs that day, two officers responded to the Canford Group Home in Collingwood regarding an assaultive resident who also had mental health issues. Notifying Officer reported that the officers entered the residence and one of the officers, Witness Officer #1 was punched in the head by Mr. Firman. Subject Officer discharged a Taser at Mr. Firman, who then became unresponsive. Mr. Firman was transported to hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

The investigation

The SIU immediately dispatched four investigators and two forensic identification investigators. The first SIU investigator arrived at the scene at 2045 hrs.

On the way to the scene, the SIU lead investigator spoke to Dr. Doctor the Regional Supervising Coroner, to discuss who would be conducting the coroner’s sudden death investigation. Notifying Officer had asserted that the OPP were under instruction from the Chief Coroner that it was their responsibility to conduct sudden death investigations. Dr. Doctor determined that it would not be appropriate for the OPP to conduct the sudden death investigation, in order to protect the integrity of the SIU investigation. It was his/her intention to contact an independent police service and arrange for officers of that service to act as his/her coroner’s constables. Dr. Doctor was eventually able to make arrangements to have two York Regional Police (YRP) detectives made available

to act as his/her coroner’s constables.

The scene of this incident was outside, in a yard on the south side of the group home. The area was photographed and a Total Station device was used for forensic mapping purposes. The scene was examined and various items were collected. An SIU forensic investigator also attended the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital to photograph Mr. Firman’s body prior to it being transported to Toronto for a post-mortem examination. Mr. Firman’s clothing and the Taser cartridge and probes were recovered from the hospital. The uniforms worn by both officers were turned over to the SIU. Subject Officer ’s duty belt and his use of force equipment, including his Taser, were also turned over to the SIU.

On June 24, 2010, the SIU issued the following officer designations:

  • Witness Officer #1 - witness officer
  • Witness Officer #2 - witness officer
  • Subject Officer - subject officer
  • Witness Officer #3 - witness officer
  • Witness Officer #4 - witness officer

Witness Officer #4 was interviewed on June 24, 2010. Witness Officer #2 and Witness Officer #3 were interviewed on June 25. Witness Officer #1 who was injured during this incident, was interviewed on June 30. Subject Officer the subject officer, declined to provide a statement or his notes to the SIU. Subject Officer ’s lawyer confirmed that position on November 22, 2010.

On June 26, 2010, a post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Doctor at the Coroner’s Building in Toronto. Biological samples obtained during the post-mortem examination were submitted to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) on June 30, 2010. With regard to any biological samples taken from Mr. Firman at the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital, the hospital advised the SIU that any such samples would only be released under a coroner’s warrant. As a result, any such samples were to be obtained by the detectives from the YRP, who were acting as coroner’s constables.

On June 27, 2010, SIU investigators canvassed the residents of the group home in order to identify any witnesses. Many denied having witnessed the events and several would not engage in any type of conversation whatsoever with the SIU. Once the SIU had completed its efforts, OPP investigators also canvassed the residents. Copies of all of the statements recorded by the OPP were obtained by the SIU.

The following civilian witnesses were interviewed by the SIU, on the dates noted:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (June 26, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (July 19, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (July 19, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #4 (June 26, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #5 (June 27, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #6 (July 5, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #7 (June 27, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #8 (June 29, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #9 (June 30, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #10 (June 27, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #11 (June 26, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #12 (June 26, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #13 (June 30, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #14 (June 30, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #15 (June 29, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #16 (July 14, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #17 (June 27, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #18 (June 24, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #19 (June 27, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #20 (June 24, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #21 (June 24 and October 7, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #22 (June 27, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #23 (June 27, 2010)

On July 2, 2010, the Taser that was operated by Subject Officer was taken to an independent testing laboratory and was examined to determine whether it was operating within design tolerances.

In the course of this investigation, the SIU requested, obtained and reviewed the following materials:

  • copies of the Ambulance Call Reports
  • an historical asset list of Tasers that had been issued to Subject Officer
  • a copy of the OPP communications recordings
  • copies of surveillance video recordings from a Tim Hortons franchise, located close to the incident scene
  • copies of photographs taken by the OPP of the injuries to Witness Officer #1
  • a copy of the relevant OPP shift schedules
  • Sensitive Personal Information
  • the notebook entries of all four witness officers
  • the most recent Use of Force training records for Subject Officer and Witness Officer #1
  • OPP Police Orders entitled Emotionally Disturbed/Mentally Ill/Developmentally Disabled
  • OPP Police Orders entitled Use of Force
  • OPP Police Orders entitled Domestic Violence Occurrence
  • the OPP Lesson Plan regarding Taser X26 Conducted Energy Weapons, and
  • the OPP PowerPoint lesson presentation entitled X26 Conducted Energy Weapons
  • Operator Re-certification

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 death of Mr. Aron Firman on June 24, 2010. In the late afternoon of that day, the subject officer and witness officer Witness Officer #1 were dispatched to the Blue Mountain Residence in Collingwood with respect to a complaint that Mr. Firman had assaulted one of the residents. They were escorted by one of the staff to Mr. Firman, who was outside one of the buildings. The witness officer had previously been informed that Mr. Firman was “out of control”, suffered from schizophrenia and had a history of violence. He was seated in a chair and not wearing a shirt. Both officers attempted to speak to Mr. Firman with varying success. Mr. Firman became more agitated and began to yell and chant incoherently. The subject officer said “OK” to Witness Officer #1 at which point both of the officers stepped forward to apprehend Mr. Firman. Mr. Firman quickly rose out of his chair and moved aggressively toward the subject officer. Witness Officer #1 tried to intervene. Mr. Firman swung his elbow back and struck her just above the eye. The witness officer drew back and the subject officer could not grab Mr. Firman’s arms. They both yelled at Mr. Firman to stop resisting. According to the witness officer, Subject Officer announced that he had a Taser and she saw it being pointed at the decedent. According to her, Mr. Firman remained noncompliant and began moving toward the subject officer. Subject Officer fired the Taser and the probes struck Mr. Firman in the middle of his chest. Mr. Firman faltered, walked in an awkward fashion and then fell on the ground. Witness Officer #1 handcuffed his hands behind his back, and at that point Mr. Firman was still conscious. The subject officer radioed in a request for additional officers and an ambulance. In the meantime, Mr. Firman lapsed into unconsciousness. He received no CPR at the scene. By the time the paramedics arrived, Mr. Firman was ‘vital signs absent’. He was pronounced dead upon arrival at the hospital.

The post-mortem report stated that the cause of death was “cardiac arrhythmia precipitated by electronic control device deployment in an agitated man with cardiomegaly and an SCN5A polymorphism.” There were two penetrating wounds in his chest consistent with the entry of the Taser probes.

In my view, both officers had the lawful authority to apprehend Mr. Firman under s. 17 of the Mental Health Act because they had credible information that he had assaulted someone else, was suffering from a major mental disorder and was acting in a manner that would likely result in serious bodily harm to another person. They also had the authority to arrest him for assault. When they approached him, he was significantly resistant and struck the witness officer above the eye with his elbow. The subject officer deployed his Taser, causing Mr. Firman’s death.

The Taser is characterized as a less lethal or intermediate weapon both in the OPP operator recertification material and the use of force model. Obviously, in this case, there is a dissonance between the post-mortem findings and the aforementioned classification of the Taser: its deployment caused Mr. Firman’s death when it is not considered to be a lethal weapon. However, the subject officer could have reasonably thought that the Taser deployment would not be lethal based upon his training. Given Mr. Firman’s demonstrated degree of aggression along with the subject officer’s imputed reasonably held but mistaken belief that the Taser use would not be lethal, I am of the opinion that its deployment in these circumstances was not excessive, notwithstanding the fact that it caused Mr. Firman’s demise.

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

Please see attached an appendix outlining the witness officers’ response to the question regarding the completion of notes prior to speaking to counsel. While three officers refused to answer the question, interestingly, one ignored the Association’s lawyers’ advice and did in fact answer. I would be grateful if you would inquire into this apparent breach of s. 8 of O.Reg 267/10 to the Police Services Act and provide my office with a written response.

Date: December 2, 2010

Original signed by

Ian Scott
Director
Special Investigations Unit