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, May 2, 2012, at 0806 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU to report that in the last hour, OPP officers had shot and mortally wounded 33-year-old Mr. Matthew Roke in Maitland. Notifying Officer understood that in the early morning hours of Wednesday, May 2, 2012, the OPP received a 911 call from the Roke residence in Maitland, reporting that Mr. Matthew Roke had threatened his mother with a knife. By the time the OPP arrived at the address, Mr. Roke had fled into a nearby bush. In spite of a night long search by officers, aided by search dogs, Mr. Roke could not be located. At approximately 0700 hrs, the OPP received a second call from the residence indicating that Mr. Roke had now returned home. A number of officers attended and after a foot chase confronted Mr. Roke, who was armed with a knife. Shortly after, Mr. Roke was shot and mortally wounded.

The investigation

Within minutes of the notification, the SIU dispatched a team consisting of four SIU investigators and two SIU forensic investigators (FI). The first SIU investigator arrived at the scene at 1230 hrs. The SIU FI videotaped and photographed in and around the scene. They also mapped out the environs with the aid of a Sokkia Total Station and seized ballistic and physical evidence.

The SIU investigators liaised with the OPP, and over the next several days interviewed a number of civilian and police witnesses. Following a preliminary investigation, the SIU designated Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #2 as subject officers. Subject Officer #1 declined an SIU request for an interview. Subject Officer #2 waived his rights under the Police Services Act and on May 25, 2012, provided both his notes, and an audio taped statement to SIU investigators.

Additionally, the SIU designated the following five OPP personnel as witness officers. All five turned over their notes, and were interviewed by SIU investigators on the dates noted:

  • Witness Officer #1 (May 3, 2012)
  • Witness Officer #2 (May 5, 2012)
  • Witness Officer #3 (May 5, 2012)
  • Witness Officer #4 (May 5, 2012)
  • Witness Officer #5 (May 5, 2012)

Upon request, the OPP turned over the following material to the SIU:

  • A CD of the OPP communications regarding the incident
  • A copy of the CAD printout relating to the incident
  • Sensitive Personal Information, and
  • Copies of OPP statements taken from civilian witnesses

During the ensuing SIU investigation, the following civilian witnesses were interviewed on the dates noted:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (May 2, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (May 2, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (May 2, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #4 (May 2, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #5 (May 2, 2012):
  • Civilian Witness #6 (May 2, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #7 (May 2, 20120:
  • Civilian Witness #8 (May 2, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #9 (May 2, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #10 (May 2, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #11 (May 2, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #12 (May 2, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #13 (May 3, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #14 (May 3, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #15 (May 3, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #16 (May 3, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #17 (May 3, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #18 (May 5, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #19 (May 5, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #20 (May 5, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #21 (May 10, 2012)

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

In my view, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the two named subject officers, Subject Officer #1 and/or Subject Officer #2, committed a criminal offence in relation to the firearms death of the decedent, Mr. Matthew Roke on May 2, 2012. With respect to this incident, there were a number of nonpartisan civilian witnesses to the tragic shooting death of Mr. Roke. As well, one of the subject officers, Subject Officer #2, provided his notes and submitted to a voluntary statement with the SIU. The other subject officer, Subject Officer #1, declined an opportunity to provide a statement. In total, all of the statements largely square with the other information gathered in this investigation such as the OPP communication tapes and forensic evidence. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the investigation in this matter is complete enough to give an adequate understanding of the material events.

In the early morning of May 2, 2012, Mr. Roke`s parents phoned 911 to report that their son had psychiatric issues and had just threatened to kill them with a knife. The dispatcher sent OPP officers from the Prescott detachment to the family residence on a location in Maitland. Four officers, witness officers Witness Officer #3 and Witness Officer #4, as well as the two subject officers attended the residence. They could not find Mr. Roke and left the area shortly before 6:00 a.m. Mr. Roke`s mother called again after 6:00 a.m. and informed the dispatcher that her son was back at the front door. Once again, the four officers attended the residence with Witness Officer #4, Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #2 arriving first. They saw Mr. Roke sitting on the steps of his parents’ residence with his hands in his pockets. Because of their prior knowledge that he might have been armed, they drew their handguns. Subject Officer #2 commanded the decedent to show his hands and to put any knife he had in his possession on the ground. Mr. Roke made it clear that he did not intend to comply. He then stood up and displayed a metal knife to the officers. At approximately this moment, Witness Officer #4 joined the other three officers. All officers told him to drop the knife. Witness Officer #4 deployed his pepper spray; unfortunately it was not pressurized properly and the liquid did not touch Mr. Roke.

Mr. Roke turned and began to walk quickly westbound on a location toward a location with the officers trailing behind him. They continued to implore him to drop his weapon. He continued to walk in a westerly direction beside a parked yellow school bus. At the westerly end of the school bus, Mr. Roke was about 25 feet ahead of the four officers who continued to order him to drop his knife. He turned around, and shouted words to the effect of “I hate f**** cops, just shoot me!”, and moved toward the officers. He stopped at a distance of roughly 15 to 20 feet between himself and the officers, repeated some of the prior words and moved forward in an aggressive manner toward Subject Officer #2. Subject Officer #2 was the closest officer to the decedent at this critical moment. According to a civilian witness, Mr. Roke lunged at the officer, making underhanded spearing motions with his knife. Both subject officers discharged their firearms - Subject Officer #1 three times and Subject Officer #2 twice - in rapid succession at Mr. Roke. A total of five bullets were discharged with two striking Mr. Roke in the right side of his chest, causing his death.

None of the front line officers had a conducted energy weapon (‘CEW’) either on their person or in their vehicles. The OPP only issues CEWs to its tactical teams or supervisory staff. In this incident, Witness Officer #1, who was listening to the events unfold on the radio from the Kemptville detachment, requested that the dispatcher send an officer to the scene with a CEW. As a result, another sergeant from Brockville who was nearer to the scene was dispatched. He/She was en route when the shooting took place.

In my view, the fatal shooting of Mr. Roke by the two subject officers was justified in law. They had received credible information that the decedent was armed with a knife and had threatened his family members with serious bodily harm. This information was confirmed by the viewing of the knife in his possession outside his parents’ residence. When confronted, Mr. Roke refused to drop his weapon. After a short chase, instead of continuing to attempt to flee, Mr. Roke turned around and made it clear that he was prepared to be shot by the officers. He approached them in an aggressive manner ignoring all pleas and commands to drop his weapon. The prior deployment of pepper spray proved to be ineffective and none of the subject officers was equipped with a CEW. This scenario in my view satisfies the Criminal Code provisions justifying the use of lethal force when a person reasonably believes that either they or someone else might suffer imminent death or grievous bodily harm. While it is unclear which subject officer discharged the fatal shot - it might have been both of them - Subject Officer #2 reasonably feared for his life given the fact that he was the closest to the decedent at the point of discharge. Similarly, Subject Officer #1 could have reasonably feared for the safety of Subject Officer #2, given his viewing of what was likely an imminent strike at the fellow officer. Accordingly, given the imminent danger that Mr. Roke represented to Subject Officer #2 immediately before the point of discharge, combined with the lack of other use of force options, I am of the view that the actions of the subject officers in using lethal force leading to the decedent’s tragic death were justified in these circumstances.

Date: June 19, 2012

Original signed by

Ian Scott
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Appendix "A"

There were no issues with the officer notes or presentation.