AGENDA 07 22 PUBL… · Windsor Police Service Directive #761-01 – Effective Date: 2019-01-21...

WPSB Public Agenda: July 22, 2020 of 3

AGENDA

OF THE PUBLIC MEETING - WINDSOR POLICE SERVICES BOARD THURSDAY, JULY 22, 2020 AT 1:00 P.M.

ZOOM CONFERENCE CALL HOSTED BY WPSB

SECTION 1:

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF

3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Call for amendments to the Agenda.

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Public Meeting held on June 25, 2020.

5. BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES

6. DELEGATIONS

None.

SECTION 2: NEW BUSINESS

None.

SECTION 3: REPORTS

MAY 2020 REPORTS – for information

A. Crime Stoppers

B. Crime Statistics

C. Professional Standards Branch


D. CCP (City Centre Patrol) / POP (Problem Oriented Policing) Statistics

E. Amherstburg Detachment Statistics – Policing Activities Report

F. Referral Tracking

G. Section 11 Review; SIU 19-OCI-256 (REDACTED)

H. Section 11 Review; SIU 19-OCI-185 (REDACTED)

I. Public Safety; Service Improvement Plan

SECTION 4: POLICY

None.

SECTION 5: SERVICE BUDGET/FINANCIAL MATTERS/BOARD ACCOUNTS

None.

SECTION 6: PERSONNEL MATTERS/MULTICULTURAL/RECRUITMENT/

LABOUR RELATIONS

A. Retirement Notice – for information

- Constable Ron Malolepszy (29 Years & 6 Months), effective July 10, 2020

B. Promotions – for information

- Inspector Daniel Potvin to the rank of Superintendent – effective June 7, 2020;

- Staff Sergeant David Deluca to the rank of Inspector – effective June 7, 2020;

- Sergeant Duke Ing to the rank of Staff Sergeant – effective June 7, 2020;

- Constable Leah McFadden to the rank of Sergeant – effective June 7, 2020;

- Sergeant Scott Chapman to the rank of Staff Sergeant – effective July 12, 2020

C. Strength Replenishment – for information

Elevations to the rank of 4th Class Recruit Constable – effective June 22, 2020

- Cadet Brandon Coburn

- Cadet Matthew Conte

- Cadet Michael Johnston

- Cadet William Eric Leardi


- Cadet Sean Hickson - Cadet Justin Fisher

SECTION 7: PLANT/EQUIPMENT/PHYSICAL RESOURCES

None.

SECTION 8: READING/INFORMATION/ MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL &

GOVERNMENT MATTERS For Information:

A. All Chiefs Memos:

20-0096; Constable Joe MacDonald Public Safety Scholarship – June 18, 2020

20-0097; Re-Opening Ontario’s DriveTest Centres – June 19, 2020

20-0098; Enforcement of Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act – June 19, 2020

20-0102; Re-Opening of Courts on July 6, 2020 – June 30, 2020

20-0109; Updated SIU Act In-Force – July 15, 2020

B. Special Investigations Unit 2019 Annual Report

SECTION 9: O.A.P.S.B. COMMUNICATIONS/BOARD MATTERS

None.

SECTION 10: UPCOMING EVENTS/MEETINGS/CONFERENCES/WORKSHOPS

A. Next Regular Public Meeting: September 24, 2020

ADJOURNMENT

WPSB Public Minutes: June 25, 2020 Page 1 of 5

Minutes

of the PUBLIC MEETING - WINDSOR POLICE SERVICES BOARD THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2020 AT 1:00 P.M.

ZOOM CONFERENCE CALL HOSTED BY WPSB

PRESENT: Mayor Drew Dilkens, Chair Chief Pamela Mizuno Mayor Aldo DiCarlo, Vice Chair Deputy Chief Jason Bellaire Councillor Rino Bortolin Deputy Chief Frank Providenti Mr. Robert de Verteuil Ms. Denise Ghanam

Mr. David Tilley Police Services Advisor

REGRETS: None. RECORDER: Matthew Dumouchel, Administrative Director

SECTION 1:

1. CALL TO ORDER It was announced that the meeting was held live through the WPS Facebook page.

The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:06 PM.

2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF None.

3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Moved by Councillor Rino Bortolin, seconded by Ms. Denise Ghanam to APPROVE the Agenda as amended. CARRIED.

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Moved by Ms. Denise Ghanam, seconded by Mr. Robert de Verteuil to APPROVE the Minutes of the Regular Public Meeting held on May 28, 2020. CARRIED.

5. BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES

None.

6. DELEGATIONS None.

S1.4


SECTION 2: NEW BUSINESS

None.

SECTION 3: REPORTS

MAY 2020 REPORTS

A. Crime Stoppers

Moved by Ms. Denise Ghanam, seconded by Councillor Rino Bortolin to RECEIVE Section 3 A as presented. CARRIED.

B. Crime Statistics

Councillor Rino Bortolin asked if the drop from last year’s report, specifically for crimes against property, has a correlation to any specific reasoning or is it too early to early to tell? Deputy Chief Jason Bellaire stated that there may be a decrease based on the larger number of vehicles on patrol, and with the outreach program that is working with different community groups. However, the Service won’t be able to pinpoint or account for the decrease at this point as it may still be too early to tell.

Moved by Mayor Aldo DiCarlo seconded by Ms. Denise Ghanam to RECEIVE Section 3 B as presented. CARRIED.

C. Professional Standards Branch

Moved by Councillor Rino Bortolin seconded by Ms. Denise Ghanam to RECEIVE Section 3 C as presented. CARRIED.

D. Amherstburg Detachment Statistics – Policing Activities Report

Moved by Mayor Aldo DiCarlo seconded by Mr. Robert de Verteuil to RECEIVE Section 3 D as presented. CARRIED.

E. Section 11 Review; SIU 19-OSA-252 (REDACTED)

Moved by Mayor Aldo DiCarlo, seconded by Councillor Rino Bortolin to RECEIVE Section 3 E as presented. CARRIED.


SECTION 4: POLICY

None.

SECTION 5: SERVICE BUDGET/FINANCIAL MATTERS/BOARD ACCOUNTS

None. SECTION 6: PERSONNEL MATTERS/MULTICULTURAL/RECRUITMENT/

LABOUR RELATIONS

A. Retirements – for information

- Constable June Windsor (30 Years and 4 months), effective June 30, 2020;

- Inspector Tammy Fryer (30 Years and 6 Months), effective July 11, 2020;

Moved by Mayor Aldo DiCarlo, seconded by Councillor Rino Bortolin to RECEIVE Section 6 A as presented. CARRIED.

SECTION 7: PLANT/EQUIPMENT/PHYSICAL RESOURCES

None.

SECTION 8: READING/INFORMATION/ MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY SAFETY &

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES & GOVERNMENT MATTERS A. All Chiefs Memos:

20-0081; Distracted Driving Exemptions – May 28, 2020

20-0082; Serious Fraud Office – May 29, 2020

20-0083; Funeral Services during the COVID-19 Pandemic – May 30, 2020

20-0084; Recent Changes to Emergency Orders – May 31, 2020

20-0087; Extension of the Expiry of Driver and Vehicle Products – June 3, 2020

20-0089; Update to Essential Businesses – June 5, 2020

20-0093; Stage Two Re-Openings – June 14, 2020

20-0094; Re-Opening of Ontario Courts to In-Person Hearings – June 16, 2020


Ms. Denise Ghanam asked if there was a total number of officers that will be attending the next session in basic training. Deputy Chief Frank Providenti confirmed we currently have six at the College currently.

Councillor Rino Bortolin confirmed that there is an All Chief’s Memo pertaining to Stage Two Re-Opening (20-0093), and he asked for clarification on the role that the Service will be playing during this process. Deputy Chief Jason Bellaire stated there will be a large placement of patrols in areas that were not there during Stage One. He clarified that the Service is reallocating resources back to their respective units that will mirror the similar style of policing prior to the pandemic.

Moved by Mayor Aldo DiCarlo, seconded by Ms. Denise Ghanam to RECEIVE Section 8 A as presented. CARRIED.

SECTION 9: O.A.P.S.B. COMMUNICATIONS/BOARD MATTERS

None.

SECTION 10: UPCOMING EVENTS/MEETINGS/CONFERENCES/WORKSHOPS

A. Next Regular Public Meeting: July 23, 2020

Moved by Mr. Robert de Verteuil, seconded by Mayor Aldo DiCarlo to RECEIVE Section 10 A as presented. CARRIED.

ADJOURNMENT

A. Local Events; Black Lives Matter, Racism & Police Brutality - Verbal

Councillor Rino Bortolin asked the Chief to speak to the issues that are being raised in the public, tied to race and the Police Services approach to dealing with those. He also questioned what the next steps are being taken to addresses these issues.

Chief Pamela Mizuno stated that herself along with other members of her Senior Leadership Team have attended the events that have been organized locally. She further confirmed that she took part in a conversation that occurred last week with leaders in our community top have a discussion about anti-racism. She thanked the community and stated that the demonstrations that occurred in our city were great events to attend.


The Police Services have been aware of these issues and they have taken the opportunity over the years to provide training to our officers, this included implicit biased training as well last year all sworn officers underwent racial profiling training. She stated that we will always look internally to our organization and what can be done to do better. She further clarified this took off from the 2011 Human Rights Project, however the Service needs to refocus by listening to the members of the community.

Chief Mizuno went on to state that it is also a key goal to be an inclusive employer, and there are discussions being made to understand the steps that need to be taken to follow through with that goal.

Moved by Councillor Rino Bortolin, seconded by Mayor Aldo DiCarlo to RECEIVE Section 10 A as presented. CARRIED.

B. Next Regular In-Camera Meeting: July 23, 2020

Moved by Ms. Denise Ghanam, seconded by Mr. Robert de Verteuil to RECEIVE Section 10 B as presented. CARRIED.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:28 PM.

MATTHEW DUMOUCHEL ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR

APPROVED THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY 2020.

MAYOR DREW DILKENS, CHAIR

WINDSOR POLICE SERVICES BOARD

Windsor & Essex County Crime Stoppers Police Coordinator Report June 1st to June 30th, 2020

Overview

• The Coronavirus Disease (Covid-19) hit many world Countries including Canada and Windsor and Essex County limiting much of our community involvement to media and social media venues.

• Crime Stoppers continued to receive above normal Tip volume despite the Pandemic that swept the area

Program Education and Community Events

• No events have been scheduled/completed during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

AM800 “Crime of the Week” report with AM800 radio recorded every Monday which airs every Tuesday morning and afternoon.

• June 1, 2020 – WPS – Sexual Assault

• June 8, 2020 – WPS – Robbery

• June 15, 2020 – WPS – Shots Fired

• June 22, 2020 – OPP – Theft of Propane Tanks

• June 29, 2020 – Crime Stoppers Promotional Ad

CTV News/Media Plex

• None

Social Media

• Daily/Weekly Facebook, Twitter and Instagram posts – See our social media sites for posts

S3.A

Crime Stoppers Upcoming Calendar

Should you wish a Crime Stoppers Police Coordinator to attend an upcoming meeting or event in your community, please feel free to contact our office.

Windsor Police Coordinator Tim Harrington - 519-255-6700 ext 4493

OPP Police Coordinator Karen Sinnaeve - 519-255-6700 ext 4496

This statistical report is reflective of June 1st to June 30th Crime Stoppers tip information was distributed to the following agencies during this time period. Windsor Police Service WPS- Amherstburg Detachment Ontario Provincial Police LaSalle Police Service Ministry of Revenue and Finance PATS (Provincial Anti-Terrorism Squad) OCEB Windsor & Essex County Health Unit- Tobacco Enforcement CBSA Attached documents include: Police Coordinators Report Monthly Statistical Report This Report was Prepared By: Constable Tim Harrington – Windsor Police Service Coordinator Constable Karen Sinnaeve – OPP Coordinator

TOTAL POPULATION REPRESENTED – 388,610 (2011 CENSUS)

POPULATION (CITY) – 210,890 POPULATION (COUNTY) – 127,521 POPULATION (LASALLE) – 28,643

POPULATION (AMHERSTBURG) – 21,556

**SI on Statistical Report is “Since Inception” – 1985

Crime Statistics June, 2020

July 08, 2020 Michael MENZEL Intelligence Analyst, WPS

*Unless otherwise noted, all crime statistics in this report are compiled using the “all violations” methodology. These statistics should not be compared with those provided by the Canadian

Centre for Justice Statistics (CCJS), a division of Statistics Canada. This published data measures only the most serious

offence related to an incident. In addition, the CCJS includes the number of offences reported by the Windsor Detachment of the

Royal Canadian Mounted Police with the Windsor Police Service crime statistics. The CCJS data should be used for comparisons between policing jurisdictions as all data is compiled using the

same reporting methodology

S3.B

*Unless otherwise stated, the crime statistics are shown as a combination of City of Windsor and the Town of Amherstburg

Overall Crime

There were 1127 total Criminal Code violations in June of this year. This total represents 546 less violations than were reported in the same month of last year (decrease of 32.64%) This total also represents an increase of 92 violations from the 1035 reported last month (increase of 8.9%).

Violent Crime

There were 222 incidents of violent crime in June, a decrease of 23 compared to June 2019. This figure also represents the same number as last month.

Seasonal Variations – Violent Crime

The following categories illustrate the differences in seasonal numbers broken down by Violent Crime offence:

There were no homicides in June 2020.

There were 12 Sexual Assaults-Non Family cases reported in June, 2 less than last June and the same as last month.

Domestic (family) assaults were reported 48 times, 19 less than reported in June of last year, and 4 less than last month.

There were 2 Assault Police cases in June, 5 less than last year and the same as last month.

Criminal Harassment cases were reported 9 times in June, 2 more than last year and 5 more than last month.

Other Violent violations (Threats, Harassing phone calls, etc.) were reported 59 times in June, one more than last year, and 4 more than last month.

There were 4 cases of Sexual Assaults-family, the same as last June, and 2 more than last month.

Assaults Non-Family cases were reported 75 times, 1 less than last year and the 9 less than last month.

The number of Robberies and Attempt Robberies for June of this year amounted to 13. There were 11 Robberies and Attempts reported in the same month last year. The 13 Robberies and Attempts is more than the 9 reported last month (see accompanying chart). Of the 13 robberies;

o 2 robberies involved a firearm o 5 robberies were with ‘other weapon’

o 5 robberies other o 1 attempt robbery

Property Crime

There were 717 property crimes reported in June of this year, 394 less occurrences than in June of last year (decrease of 35.46%) and 60 more than was reported last month.

Seasonal Variations – Property Crimes The following categories illustrate the differences in seasonal numbers broken down by Property Crime offence:

Arson – 0 reported in June 2020, 4 less than June of last year. B&E’s and Attempts – 99 reported in June 2020, 19 less than the total in June

2019 and 16 more than last month. Of the 99 B&E’s and Attempts reported;

o 25 were to businesses o 47 were to dwellings o 15 were to “other buildings or places” o 12 were attempts o 0 B&E involving a firearm

Theft under $5000 – 218 reported in June of this year, 151 less than June of last year and 17 more than last month.

Thefts from Motor Vehicles – 95 incidents reported in June of this year, 93 less than last June, and 4 more than last month (see accompanying chart).

Possession of Stolen Goods – 27 occurrences reported in June of this year, 22 less than the same month last year and 7 more than last month.1

Fraud – 106 incidents of Fraud were reported in June of this year, 42 less than June 2019, and 23 more than last month.

Mischief – 118 occurrences of Mischief were reported for June of this year, 22 less occurrences from June 2019 and a decrease of 4 over last month.

Vehicle thefts or attempts – 50 thefts or attempt thefts of motor vehicles, 35 less than June 2019 and 2 less than what was reported last month

Theft Over $5000 – there were 4 occurrences of Theft Over reported in June, 6 less than June 2019 and 2 less than last month.

1 Although counted toward the total property crime numbers, a decrease in possession of stolen goods is a negative enforcement indicator as it occurs as a result of an arrest and seized of stolen goods

There were 14 Firearms/Offensive Weapons offences reported in June of 2020, 14 less than last year and 1 less than last month. “Other Criminal Code” offences (consisting mostly of Breach offences) were reported 174 times, 115 less than what was reported in June of last year and 34 more than last month. There were 368 Domestic calls responded to in June of 2020. This total is 3 more than last month.

Youth Related Crime

There were 5 occurrences where Young Persons were charged in June of 2020. Of the 5 occurrences,

4 was a crime of violence , 0 were property related offence , 0 was “other Criminal Code” offence 1 was for other offences

Traffic Related Statistics There were 447 occurrences involving motor vehicles in June 2020, 261 less than the same month last year (37% decrease). Of the 447 occurrences;

8 involved Dangerous Operation 18 involved Impaired/Operate over 7 involved fail to stop/drive prohibited 0 involved Street Racing 190 involved HTA offences 314 Involved MVA/CRC accidents

Windsor Police ServiceMonthly Crime StatisticsVer. 1

# of OccJune2020

1127

# of OccJune2019

1673

ViolationInc/Dec

-546

%Inc/Dec

-32.64%

YTDJune2020

7,796

YTDJune2019

8,721

YTD ViolationInc/Dec

-925

YTD%

Inc/Dec

-10.61%

Current Year Monthly Average

1,299

# Cleared by ChargeJune2020

329

%Cleared by ChargeJune2020

29%

Total Cleared

June2020

473

Total %ClearedJune2020

42%

YTD Clearance

%

41.33%

Previous 5 Year

average for the month

ofJune

1,476

Previous 5 Year average for YTD up

to the month of June

Total Criminal Code7,633

Windsor 1,092 1,631 -539 -33.05% 7,603 8,447 -844 -9.99% 1,267 324 30% 461 42.22% 41.42% 1,467 7,575

0 1 -1 -100% 2 2 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0%Homicide 100.00% 1 20 0 0 0% 1 0 1 0% 0 0 0% 0 0%Manslaughter 100.00% 0 00 0 0 0% 1 0 1 0% 0 0 0% 0 0%Violence Causing Death 0.00% 0 00 0 0 0% 3 3 0 0% 1 0 0% 0 0%Attempt Murder 100.00% 1 34 4 0 0% 17 20 -3 -15% 3 0 0% 1 25%Sexual Assaults - Family 52.94% 4 2112 14 -2 -14% 77 87 -10 -11% 13 5 42% 5 42%Sexual Assaults - Non Family 72.73% 18 8548 64 -16 -25% 307 309 -2 -1% 51 22 46% 47 98%Assault - Family 98.70% 55 29375 73 2 3% 415 351 64 18% 69 29 39% 58 77%Assault - Non Family 81.20% 65 3312 7 -5 -71% 8 26 -18 -69% 1 1 50% 2 100%Assault Peace/Police Officers 100.00% 4 2113 11 2 18% 96 72 24 33% 16 6 46% 7 54%Robberies & Attempts 60.42% 13 799 6 3 50% 44 47 -3 -6% 7 6 67% 8 89%Criminal Harassment 79.55% 9 5456 55 1 2% 314 284 30 11% 52 32 57% 47 84%Other Violent Violations 79.30% 53 301

80%17546%1012146.99%841,2011,285-6.81%-16235219Total Crimes Against Person 82.57% 223 1,1890 4 -4 -100% 19 22 -3 -14% 3 0 0% 0 0%Arson 21.05% 5 2395 113 -18 -16% 755 814 -59 -7% 126 9 9% 12 13%Break and Enters & Attempts 14.83% 139 73049 85 -36 -42% 370 387 -17 -4% 62 7 14% 9 18%MV Thefts & Attempts 18.11% 65 3054 10 -6 -60% 27 42 -15 -36% 5 0 0% 0 0%Thefts > 5000 3.70% 9 34

210 361 -151 -42% 1,480 1,988 -508 -26% 247 8 4% 20 10%Thefts < 5000 16.76% 338 1,63792 187 -95 -51% 786 756 30 4% 131 2 2% 3 3%Theft from MV < 5000 2.54% 164 85827 49 -22 -45% 170 199 -29 -15% 28 17 63% 25 93%Possess Stolen Goods 91.18% 34 151

104 144 -40 -28% 721 733 -12 -2% 120 17 16% 23 22%Fraud 17.06% 104 563110 132 -22 -17% 731 682 49 7% 122 25 23% 39 35%Mischief 30.10% 125 733

19%13112%85843-10.03%-5645,6235,059-36.31%-3941085691Total Crimes Against Property 18.78% 983 5,0340 0 0 0% 1 0 1 0% 0 0 0% 0 0%Prostitution 100.00% 0 013 25 -12 -48% 106 121 -15 -12% 18 11 85% 12 92%Firearms/Offensive Weapons 93.40% 16 100

169 286 -117 -41% 1,152 1,502 -350 -23% 192 127 75% 143 85%Other Criminal Codes 90.10% 245 1,25285%15576%138210-22.43%-3641,6231,259-41.48%-129311182Total Other Criminal Code 90.39% 261 1,352

Report Run Date: 2020-07-08 9:05:39AM

# of OccJune2020

1127

# of OccJune2019

1673

ViolationInc/Dec

-546

%Inc/Dec

-32.64%

YTDJune2020

7,796

YTDJune2019

8,721


-925

YTD%

Inc/Dec

-10.61%


1,299


329


29%

Total Cleared

June2020

473


42%

YTD Clearance

%

41.33%

Previous 5 Year


ofJune

1,476




Amherstburg 35 42 -7 -16.67% 193 274 -81 -29.56% 32 5 14% 12 34.29% 37.82% 9 58

0 0 0 0% 3 0 3 0% 1 0 0% 0 0%Sexual Assaults - Family 66.67% 0 10 0 0 0% 4 1 3 300% 1 0 0% 0 0%Sexual Assaults - Non Family 75.00% 0 10 3 -3 -100% 9 14 -5 -36% 2 0 0% 0 0%Assault - Family 100.00% 1 30 3 -3 -100% 13 14 -1 -7% 2 0 0% 0 0%Assault - Non Family 69.23% 1 30 0 0 0% 1 0 1 0% 0 0 0% 0 0%Assault Peace/Police Officers 100.00% 0 00 0 0 0% 2 1 1 100% 0 0 0% 0 0%Robberies & Attempts 50.00% 0 00 1 -1 -100% 4 5 -1 -20% 1 0 0% 0 0%Criminal Harassment 75.00% 0 13 3 0 0% 12 10 2 20% 2 2 67% 3 100%Other Violent Violations 66.67% 1 2

100%367%286.67%34548-70.00%-7103Total Crimes Against Person 75.00% 2 110 0 0 0% 1 1 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0%Arson 0.00% 0 04 5 -1 -20% 23 45 -22 -49% 4 1 25% 1 25%Break and Enters & Attempts 26.09% 1 91 0 1 0% 4 6 -2 -33% 1 0 0% 0 0%MV Thefts & Attempts 0.00% 0 10 0 0 0% 1 1 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0%Thefts > 5000 0.00% 0 08 8 0 0% 35 55 -20 -36% 6 0 0% 3 38%Thefts < 5000 28.57% 2 113 1 2 200% 8 9 -1 -11% 1 0 0% 0 0%Theft from MV < 5000 0.00% 0 20 0 0 0% 1 4 -3 -75% 0 0 0% 0 0%Possess Stolen Goods 100.00% 0 12 4 -2 -50% 21 41 -20 -49% 4 0 0% 0 0%Fraud 9.52% 1 98 8 0 0% 34 38 -4 -11% 6 0 0% 1 13%Mischief 20.59% 2 8

19%54%121-36.00%-722001280.00%02626Total Crimes Against Property 20.31% 5 410 0 0 0% 1 0 1 0% 0 0 0% 0 0%Prostitution 0.00% 0 01 3 -2 -67% 2 5 -3 -60% 0 0 0% 0 0%Firearms/Offensive Weapons 50.00% 1 15 3 2 67% 14 24 -10 -42% 2 2 40% 4 80%Other Criminal Codes 71.43% 1 5

67%433%23-41.38%-1229170.00%066Total Other Criminal Code 64.71% 1 6


# of OccJune2020

1127

# of OccJune2019

1673

ViolationInc/Dec

-546

%Inc/Dec

-32.64%

YTDJune2020

7,796

YTDJune2019

8,721


-925

YTD%

Inc/Dec

-10.61%


1,299


329


29%

Total Cleared

June2020

473


42%

YTD Clearance

%

41.33%

Previous 5 Year


ofJune

1,476




Windsor34 34 0 0% 227 235 -8 -3% 38 18 53% 25 74%Drugs 89.87% 32 19938 5 33 660% 65 29 36 124% 11 0 0% 1 3%Other Federal Charges 10.77% 10 4637 44 -7 -16% 231 240 -9 -4% 39 1 3% 4 11%Provincial Statutes 18.61% 85 48820 10 10 100% 106 81 25 31% 18 16 80% 18 90%Traffic Criminal Code 83.02% 22 17093 184 -91 -49% 682 1,037 -355 -34% 114 28 30% 29 31%Traffic HTA 53.96% 149 92213 19 -6 -32% 105 132 -27 -20% 18 9 69% 12 92%Others 98.10% 4 27

38%8931%72236-19.27%-3381,7541,416-20.61%-61296235Total Other Offences 57.42% 301 1,852

Amherstburg0 1 -1 -100% 1 5 -4 -80% 0 0 0% 0 0%Drugs 100.00% 0 23 0 3 0% 5 0 5 0% 1 0 0% 0 0%Other Federal Charges 0.00% 0 01 3 -2 -67% 14 16 -2 -13% 2 0 0% 0 0%Provincial Statutes 14.29% 1 30 1 -1 -100% 4 3 1 33% 1 0 0% 0 0%Traffic Criminal Code 75.00% 0 17 6 1 17% 43 42 1 2% 7 3 43% 3 43%Traffic HTA 60.47% 1 80 3 -3 -100% 8 5 3 60% 1 0 0% 0 0%Others 100.00% 1 1

27%327%3135.63%47175-21.43%-31411Total Other Offences 53.33% 3 15


Motor Vehicle Occurrence Reports

June 2020

June2019

YTD2020

YTD2019

PercentageChange

PercentageChange

AMHERSTBURGDangerous Operation 0 0 1 10% 0%DANG OPER MV,VESSEL,AIRCRAFT 0 0 1 10% 0%

Impaired/Operate Over 0 3 10 5-100% 100%FAIL/REFUSE COMPLY DEMAND ALCO 0 1 2 1-100% 100%IMPAIRED OPERATION - DRUGS 0 0 2 00% 0%OPERATE WHILE IMP (ALCOHOL) 0 2 6 4-100% 50%

Fail to Stop/Drive Prohibited 0 1 1 2-100% -50%DRIVING WHILE PROHIBITED 0 0 1 00% 0%FAIL TO REMAIN/CRIMINAL CODE 0 1 0 2-100% -100%

HTA Offence 7 6 43 4217% 2%CARELESS DRIVING HTA 2 2 11 120% -8%DRIVE SUSPENDED HTA 2 2 24 140% 71%FAIL TO REMAIN/HTA/OTHER 3 2 8 1150% -27%FAIL TO STOP/REMAIN HTA 0 0 0 50% -100%

MVA/CRC Occurrences 19 19 96 1280% -25%CRC MVA REPORTABLE 0 0 2 20% 0%MVA-FATAL 0 0 1 00% 0%MVA-INJURY 1 1 10 120% -17%MVA-NON-REPORTABLE 0 2 3 12-100% -75%MVA-REPORTABLE 18 16 80 10213% -22%

WINDSORDangerous Operation 8 2 39 38300% 3%DANG OPER MV,VESSEL,AIRCRAFT 5 1 21 26400% -19%DANGEROUS OP MV EVADE POLICE 3 0 15 80% 88%DANGEROUS OPER CAUSING DEATH 0 0 1 10% 0%DANGEROUS OPERATION CBH 0 1 2 3-100% -33%

Impaired/Operate Over 18 19 130 141-5% -8%FAIL/REFUSE COMPLY DEMAND ALCO 2 4 10 21-50% -52%FTC WITH DEMAND (ALCOHOL/DRUG) 0 0 0 00% 0%FTC WITH DEMAND (DRUGS) 1 0 6 00% 0%IMPAIRED CAUSING DEATH (ALCOH) 0 0 0 00% 0%IMPAIRED OPERATION - DRUGS 5 0 23 90% 156%IMPAIRED OPERATION CBH (ALCOH) 0 0 2 00% 0%OPER IMP CHG ALCOHOL/DRUGS 0 0 1 00% 0%OPERATE IMPAIRED (UNSPECIFIED) 0 1 0 6-100% -100%

1

June 2020

June2019

YTD2020

YTD2019

PercentageChange

PercentageChange

OPERATE IMPAIRED ALCOHOL/DRUGS 3 1 18 1200% 1,700%OPERATE WHILE IMP (ALCOHOL) 7 13 70 104-46% -33%

Fail to Stop/Drive Prohibited 7 8 42 34-13% 24%DRIVING WHILE PROHIBITED 6 4 26 1650% 63%FAIL TO REMAIN/CRIMINAL CODE 1 2 16 15-50% 7%FAIL TO STOP CAUSE BODILY HARM 0 2 0 3-100% -100%

HTA Offence 93 184 684 1,037-49% -34%CARELESS DRIVING HTA 11 16 56 86-31% -35%DRIVE SUSPENDED HTA 39 74 334 465-47% -28%FAIL TO REMAIN/HTA/OTHER 43 94 294 363-54% -19%FAIL TO STOP/REMAIN HTA 0 0 0 1230% -100%

MVA/CRC Occurrences 295 466 2,047 2,784-37% -26%CRC MVA NON-REPORTABLE 2 17 118 72-88% 64%CRC MVA REPORTABLE 160 273 1,105 1,719-41% -36%MVA-FATAL 0 0 2 50% -60%MVA-INJURY 76 75 433 4501% -4%MVA-NON-REPORTABLE 5 11 32 43-55% -26%MVA-REPORTABLE 52 90 357 495-42% -28%

447 708 3,093 4,212Total -37% -27%

2

Young Offenders Charged for the Month of June, 2020

Junior Male Junior Female Senior FemaleSenior MaleTotal Male Total Female Total YOTotal Crimes Against Person 4010330AGGR ASSAULT LEVEL III NON-FAM 0 3 3 0 0 0 3ROBBERY WITH FIREARM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1Total Other Offences 1000110DANG OPER MV,VESSEL,AIRCRAFT 0 1 1 0 0 0 1

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Ja

nua

ry

Mar

ch

May

July

Se

pte

mb

er

No

vem

be

r

Jan

uary

Mar

ch

May

July

Se

pte

mb

er

No

vem

be

r

Jan

uary

Mar

ch

May

July

Se

pte

mb

er

No

vem

be

r

Jan

uary

Mar

ch

May

July

Se

pte

mb

er

No

vem

be

r

Jan

uary

Mar

ch

May

July

Se

pte

mb

er

No

vem

be

r

Jan

uary

Mar

ch

May

July

Se

pte

mb

er

No

vem

be

r

Jan

uary

Mar

ch

May

July

Se

pte

mb

er

No

vem

be

r

Jan

uary

Mar

ch

May

July

Se

pte

mb

er

No

vem

be

r

Jan

uary

Mar

ch

May

July

Se

pte

mb

er

No

vem

be

r

Jan

uary

Mar

ch

May

July

Se

pte

mb

er

No

vem

be

r

Jan

uary

Mar

ch

May

July

Se

pte

mb

er

No

vem

be

r

Jan

uary

Mar

ch

May

July

Se

pte

mb

er

No

vem

be

r

Jan

uary

Mar

ch

May

July

Se

pte

mb

er

No

vem

be

r

Jan

uary

Mar

ch

May

July

Se

pte

mb

er

No

vem

be

r

Jan

uary

Mar

ch

May

July

Se

pte

mb

er

No

vem

be

r

Jan

uary

Mar

ch

May

July

Se

pte

mb

er

No

vem

be

r

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Cri

min

al O

ccu

rren

ces

Criminal Occurrences Reported to the WPS, by Month, Since September 2005

Total Crime

Property Crime

Monthly Average 1616

(All crime)

Investigative Services ReOrg Implimentation January 1, 2007 Implimentation of

CrimeReports and CopLogic, September 1, 2010

Patrol Services ReOrg Implimentation January 1, 2006

Implementation ofnew patrol &investigative shifts

Jan 1, 2017Covid-19 Restrictions

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Cri

min

al O

ccu

rren

ces

Criminal Occurrences by Month-Previous 5 years to present

5 Year Monthly Average1572 Occurrences (All categories)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2007

-01

2007

-04

2007

-07

2007

-10

2008

-01

2008

-04

2008

-07

2008

-10

2009

-01

2009

-04

2009

-07

2009

-10

2010

-01

2010

-04

2010

-07

2010

-10

2011

-01

2011

-04

2011

-07

2011

-10

2012

-01

2012

-04

2012

-07

2012

-10

2013

-01

2013

-04

2013

-07

2013

-10

2014

-01

2014

-04

2014

-07

2014

-10

2015

-01

2015

-04

2015

-07

2015

-10

2016

-01

2016

-04

2016

-07

2016

-10

2017

-01

2017

-04

2017

-07

2017

-10

2018

-01

2018

-04

2018

-07

2018

-10

2019

-01

2019

-04

2019

-07

2019

-10

2020

-01

2020

-04

Residential B&E's by Month

Monthly Mean

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

Septem

ber

October

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

Septem

ber

October

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

Septem

ber

October

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

Septem

ber

October

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

Septem

ber

October

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

Septem

ber

October

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Occ

urr

ence

s

Domestic Related Occurrences per Month Past 5 Years with Average

Monthly Average 279

4639

66

51

43

79

57

48

68

40

5854

49

36

59

76

5653

57

6974

62

48

38

66

75

61626466

6976

61

77

94

68

90

75

117

100

131

117

129

137

102

110

8383

119

104

112

87

120

130

167

143147

151

116114

153

123123

95

83

106

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fraud Incidents (UCR 2160) per Month-Previous 5 years

5 YearMonthly Average= 85

0

8

17

25

33

42

50

2007

-01

2007

-04

2007

-07

2007

-10

2008

-01

2008

-04

2008

-07

2008

-10

2009

-01

2009

-04

2009

-07

2009

-10

2010

-01

2010

-04

2010

-07

2010

-10

2011

-01

2011

-04

2011

-07

2011

-10

2012

-01

2012

-04

2012

-07

2012

-10

2013

-01

2013

-04

2013

-07

2013

-10

2014

-01

2014

-04

2014

-07

2014

-10

2015

-01

2015

-04

2015

-07

2015

-10

2016

-01

2016

-04

2016

-07

2016

-10

2017

-01

2017

-04

2017

-07

2017

-10

2018

-01

2018

-04

2018

-07

2018

-10

2019

-01

2019

-04

2019

-07

2019

-10

2020

-01

2020

-04

Robberies by Month

Monthly Mean

Standard Deviation Upper Limit

Standard Deviation Lower Limit

0

50

100

150

200

250

300January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Inci

den

ts

Thefts From Motor Vehicles-Reported to WPS

Monthly Average 152

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Janu

ary

Feb

ruar

yM

arc

hA

pril

Ma

yJu

neJu

lyA

ugu

stS

epte

mb

erO

ctob

er

No

vem

ber

De

cem

ber

Janu

ary

Feb

ruar

yM

arc

hA

pril

Ma

yJu

neJu

lyA

ugu

stS

epte

mb

erO

ctob

er

No

vem

ber

De

cem

ber

Janu

ary

Feb

ruar

yM

arc

hA

pril

Ma

yJu

neJu

lyA

ugu

stS

epte

mb

erO

ctob

er

No

vem

ber

De

cem

ber

Janu

ary

Feb

ruar

yM

arc

hA

pril

Ma

yJu

neJu

lyA

ugu

stS

epte

mb

erO

ctob

er

No

vem

ber

De

cem

ber

Janu

ary

Feb

ruar

yM

arc

hA

pril

Ma

yJu

neJu

lyA

ugu

stS

epte

mb

erO

ctob

er

No

vem

ber

De

cem

ber

Janu

ary

Feb

ruar

yM

arc

hA

pril

Ma

yJu

neJu

lyA

ugu

stS

epte

mb

erO

ctob

er

No

vem

ber

De

cem

ber

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Occ

urr

ence

s

Month

All Non-Family Sexual Assaults per Month-Last 5 years with Average

Monthly Avg. 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

January

March

May

July

September

November

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

# o

f S

tree

t C

hec

ks In

pu

t In

to R

MS

Year and Month

Street Checks Generated per Month by WPS

Source: WPS Versadex RMS Compiled by: Intelligence Analyst, M. Menzel

0

5

10

15

20

25Janu

ary

March

May July

Septem

ber

Nov

embe

rJanu

ary

March

May July

Septem

ber

Nov

embe

rJanu

ary

March

May July

Septem

ber

Nov

embe

rJanu

ary

March

May July

Septem

ber

Nov

embe

rJanu

ary

March

May July

Septem

ber

Nov

embe

rJanu

ary

March

May July

Septem

ber

Nov

embe

rJanu

ary

March

May July

Septem

ber

Nov

embe

rJanu

ary

March

May July

Septem

ber

Nov

embe

rJanu

ary

March

May July

Septem

ber

Nov

embe

rJanu

ary

March

May July

Septem

ber

Nov

embe

rJanu

ary

March

May July

Septem

ber

Nov

embe

rJanu

ary

March

May July

Septem

ber

Nov

embe

rJanu

ary

March

May July

Septem

ber

Nov

embe

r

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

WPS Reported Incidents of Assault Police Officer

Monthly Average=4.58

HONOUR IN SERVICE

WINDSOR POLICE SERVICE

Chief’s Executive Office Chief P. Mizuno

Deputy Chief F. Providenti Deputy Chief J. Bellaire

MEMORANDUM ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Date: July 15, 2020

To: Windsor Police Services Board

From: Deputy Chief Frank Providenti

Re: Professional Standards Report – June 2020

Attached are the reports outlining the complaints and external recognition for the month of June 2020. Submitted for your information.

Frank Providenti Deputy Chief Operational Support FP/mkl

S3.C

Police Services BoardMonthly Report with Year to Date Total 2020Windsor Police Service - Professional Standards

0

January February March April May June July August September October November December YTD

Total Complaints 10 6 6 4 8 6 40

Public Complaints - Policy/Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Public Complaints - Conduct 8 6 6 3 7 5 35

Chief's Complaints 2 0 0 1 1 1 5

Frivoulous/Vexatious, Over 6 Months, Not Directly Affected, Other Act/Law s.60

3 2 1 1 2 2 11

Unsubstantiated s. 66(2), s. 67(2), s. 68(2) 0 0 0 1 0 2 3

Informal Resolution s. 66(4) 0 0 0 0 0 2 2

Public Complaint - Disposition w/o Hearing s.66(10) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PSA Hearing s. 66(3) s. 76(9) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Informal Resolution Prior s. 93(1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Withdrawn 74(1) 0 0 1 0 1 2 4

Chief's Complaint - Informal Resolution s. 76(10) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chief's Complaint - Disposition w/o Hearing s. 76(12) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chief's Complaint - Unsubstantiated s. 76(8) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Retirement/Resignation s. 90(1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Divisional Discipline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Customer Service Resolution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Policy / Service Complaints - Action 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Policy / Service Complaints - No Action 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Files Closed 3 2 2 2 3 8 20

Files Pending Year to Date 7 11 15 17 22 20 20

Police Services BoardMonthly Comparison ReportWindsor Police Service - Professional Standards

Date: June 30, 2020

Total Complaints

June-20 June-19 YTD-20 YTD-19

6 7 40 41

Classifications of Complaints

Public Complaints - Policy/Service 0 0 0 3

Public Complaints - Conduct 5 7 35 35

Chief's Complaints 1 0 5 3

Classifications of Dispositions

Frivolous/Vexatious, Over 6 Months, Not Directly

Affected, Other Act/Law s. 602 4 9 15

Unsubstantiated s. 66(2), s. 67(2), s. 68(2), s. 76(8) 2 0 1 1

Informal Resolution s. 66(4), s. 68(6) 2 1 0 2

Public Complaint - Disposition w/o Hearing s. 66(10) 0 0 0 0

PSA Hearing s. 66(3) s. 76(9) 0 0 0 0

Informal Resolution Priors. 93(1) 0 0 0 0

Withdrawn s. 74(1) 2 0 2 2

Chief's Complaint - Informal Resolution s. 76(10) 0 0 0 0

Chief's Complaint - Disposition w/o Hearing s. 76(12) 0 2 0 2

Chief's Complaint - Unsubstantiated s. 76(8) 0 0 0 0

Retirement/Resignation s. 90(1) 0 0 0 0

Customer Service Resolution 0 0 0 2

Policy / Service Complaints - Action 0 0 0 0

Policy / Service Complaints - No Action 0 0 0 0

Files Closed 8 7 12 24

Files Pending Year to Date 20 22 17

Windsor Police Service Professional Standards

POLICE SERVICES BOARD REPORT

Public Recognitions

Between June 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020

WINDSOR POLICE SERVICE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

JUNE 2020 MONTHLY BOARD REPORT

INTERNAL RECOGNITION

Sergeant Scott Chapman, Sergeant Jeff Taylor, Constable, Terry Dodich and Constable Scott

Robinson

Superintendent Jason Crowley issued a Divisional Commendation recognizing the above noted

officers for their dedication and innovative approach in combining 48 years of evidence and applying

modern day technology to identify a killer and provide the victims family with closure. The family also

extended their thank you for the outstanding team effort.

EXTERNAL RECOGNITION

Windsor Police Service

Director Horrobin received an email from a citizen stating, “It is shameful that the hate of one bad

police officer (not even in Canada) is being spread to hate all police and “Defund the Police”.

We saw the Windsor Star article about two fast food employees taking a knee when a police officer

was being served - that’s absolutely sickening! I cannot even imagine a world without police, nor

would I want to be around to live in that world.

We value our police and military. We thank you for the work you do in our community.”

Windsor Police Honour Guard

The family of a retired Toronto Police Officer sent a thank you note expressing their appreciation to the

Honor Guard for the “proper send off’ at the funeral in December of 2019.

Windsor Police Service & E911 Dispatch

A Windsor resident sent a thank you card to the Windsor Police Service and E911 Centre for the

continued service of protecting our community.


A Windsor resident sent an email recognizing Windsor Police officers for their efforts in light of these

hard times.

1


A citizen wrote, “Very proud to see WPS supporting the democratic principles of free speech and

equality, not to mention common sense and decency. Its community leadership at it’s best.”


A Windsor resident sent an email, stating, “Just wanted to say thank you to all the officers and 2 cadets

who supported us during our protest on Wednesday June 3. We know it's not every police officer that

is bad, and we're thankful for the good ones. That being said, let it be known we won't stand for anymore

discrimination or brutality, and we will continue to gather peacefully until the bad ones are weeded out

and the corruption ends. Again thank you for your service to the community.”

Deputy Chief Frank Providenti

Jodi Ouellette, Interim Executive Director at Windsor/Essex Child Youth Advocacy Centre sent an email

thanking Windsor Police Service and D/C Providenti for his support in the #hopscotch project.

The OPP Records Collection Unit also commented, stating, “This certainly goes beyond WECYAC as

it demonstrates to our community a perspective of “heart” and “support” from police officers having a

vested interest in Windsor Essex and also children and youth we serve. Thanks to WPS!!”

Sergeant Shaun Ashton, Constable Daniel Zelenv and Constable John Celestino

A Windsor man sent an email extending his thanks to the above officers for their kindness, patience

and support when they attended the home of his father who had passed away in his residence.

Constable Ariei Franklin

A Windsor resident sent an email noting how impressed she was of the clear-headed, smart and brave

Constable Franklin as he spoke on CBC of the need to declare a stance against racism and police

brutality.

Constable Connor McKinnon

An elderly Windsor resident sent an email thanking Constable McKinnon for his quick response and

professionalism while attending her residence concerning a man attempting to sell her fencing. The

homeowner states Constable McKinnon is “certainly an asset and a positive example for the Windsor

Police Service.”

Constable Ashley Harris

2

Director Fady Dagher, City of Longueuil Police Service sent a letter of appreciation to Constable Harris

for her assistance in locating a female who had gone missing for almost two years. Constable Harris

recognized a tattoo design on a woman found in the Windsor area who was in serious distress which

had been transmitted by the Longueuil police. Constable Harris’ insight and efficiency made all the

difference in the successful conclusion in this matter.

3

2nd Quarter Highlights for POP Unit - 2020 20-62017: POP Unit Officers assisted CBSA officers as they were in foot pursuit of a port runner on the Windsor side of the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel. The vehicle was stopped at the intersection of Wyandotte St and Goyeau St by POP Unit officers and an adult male party was arrested for possession of a loaded .40 calibre handgun and 3 loaded ammunition magazines. Several firearms charges filed for illegal possession of the firearm as well as Canada Customs Act charges. 20-53872: Vehicle stop in area of Jefferson Av and Tecumseh Rd resulted in an arrest of an adult male for Possession of A Controlled Substance for the Purpose of Trafficking, Possession of a Controlled Substance, Fail to Comply with Probation and Possession of a Prohibited Weapon. Seized were approximately 40 grams of fentanyl and 9 grams of cocaine. $3114.80 in cash was also seized. 20-56965: Bruce Park, 700 Bruce Ave. Arrest of 2 adult males after they had stabbed another adult male with a knife. Each suspect charged with Aggravated Assault. 20-55695: Hotel in 2100 block of Division Road. Investigation into theft of motor vehicle and fraudulent use of credit cards identifies an adult male and adult female as persons responsible. Surveillance set up on local hotel where suspects are believed to be staying. Suspects subsequently arrested in a stolen vehicle and charged with: Theft Under $5000, Possession of Stolen Property Under $5000, Fraud Under $5000, Use Stolen Credit Card and Unauthorized Use of Credit Card. 20-62983: Officers attended hotel in 2500 block of Ouellette Ave regarding a serious dog bite complaint. Further investigation yielded over $24,000 in cash, approximately 40 grams of cocaine, 204 packs of cannabis gummies (500 milligram-sized edibles) and approximately 100 opioid pills being seized. Adult male and female subsequently arrested for numerous drug possession/trafficking charges. 20-30039 - Unit officers observed a stolen vehicle in the area of Moy Ave and Hanna St. Vehicle attempted to flee and crashed into a porch of a house. Adult male suspect arrested and charged with: Breach of Probation, Failure to Comply with Release Order, Theft of Motor Vehicle, Possession of Property Obtained by Crime (2 counts), Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle, Fail to Stop for Police, Possess Schedule I Substance (small amount of crystal methamphetamine). 20-40949 - Adult male wanted by the OPP as a result of a vehicle pursuit through Essex County. Speeds were recorded in excess of 180km/h. POP Officers received information the suspect was in the area of Seminole and Bernard St. Surveillance initiated and suspect was located and arrested without incident before being transferred to the custody of the OPP. 20-38269 - Report of an Indecent Act by an adult male in the municipal parking garage located at 68 Chatham St E. Officers located the suspect and a brief foot pursuit ensued. Suspect was caught and arrested. Charged with committing an Indecent Act. Community Action - POP officers contacted by the Ottawa St BIA regarding numerous complaints of a homeless adult male sleeping in the doorways of businesses and in Lansperry Park. Officers attended area on numerous occasion over several days and also poke with store

owners as well as the noted homeless adult male. Partnership with outreach program utilized and no further incidents have been reported. 20-49817 - Reports were received that an adult male was causing issues with the staff of a

motel located in the 2600 block of Howard Ave. Complaints were also received from other

motels guests and nearby businesses. Officers attended and spoke with the adult male and

further reached out to community partners to assist the adult male in transporting his

belongings. Trucks from Street Help arrived and transported the adult male’s property so that

the adult male could move on to his desired location. Officers were thanked by Street Help staff

on social media for using alternative approached in dealing with this situation.

WWIINNDDSSOORR PPOOLLIICCEE SSEERRVVIICCEE

PPRROOFFEESSSSIIOONNAALL SSTTAANNDDAARRDDSS BBRRAANNCCHH

SSEECCTTIIOONN 1111 RREEVVIIEEWW SSIIUU 1199--OOCCII--225566

RREEDDAACCTTEEDD

DDaattee:: MMaayy 66,, 22002200

IInnvveessttiiggaatteedd bbyy:: SSeerrggeeaanntt PPaaoolloo DDiiCCaarrlloo

S3.G

REDACTED SECTION 11 REVIEW SIU 19-OCI-256 Page 2

RREEDDAACCTTEEDD SSEECCTTIIOONN 1111 RREEVVIIEEWW SSIIUU 1199--OOCCII--225566

EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY

This review pursuant to section 11 of Ontario Regulation 267/10 made under the Police Services Act will review the applicable policies of the Service, the services provided and the conduct of its members. Certain recommendations, where noted, made because of this review are addressed within this report.

BBAACCKKGGRROOUUNNDD

On October 29, 2019, the Windsor Police Service contacted the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) of the Ministry of the Solicitor General because of Windsor Police event #2019-104581. Communication with the SIU is to maintain consistent adherence with provincial legislative requirements during an exigent matter that required clear and direct communication.

It was determined that the facts-in-issue regarding the injury sustained by the Complainant met the threshold as defined by the Honourable Justice John Osler. This information exchange as to the details of the aforementioned event caused the SIU to invoke their mandate and commence an investigation into the actions of the designated Windsor Police Service Officers in accordance with section 113(5) of the Police Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P.15.

Section 11 of Ontario Regulation 267/10 made under the Police Services Act requires the Chief of Police to commence an investigation forthwith into any incidents in which the SIU invokes its mandate. Assigned to this investigation was Sergeant Paolo DiCarlo of the Windsor Police Service Professional Standards Branch, Risk Management Unit. This report is based on, a factual review of events, the actions of the involved officers and a review of applicable Windsor Police Service policies.

MMEETTHHOODDOOLLOOGGYY

Identified for review and detailed in the ‘scope of review’ section, are applicable directives and policies administered by the Windsor Police Service. A review was to ensure compliance with the Police Services Act of Ontario and comprised Regulations, including the Ontario Policing Standards and overall policing “best practices”.

SSCCOOPPEE OOFF RREEVVIIEEWW

This review pursuant to section 11 of Ontario Regulation 267/10 made under the Police Services Act will review the applicable Policies of the Service, the services provided and the conduct of its members.

Examined in relation to this incident were the following Windsor Police Service Directives:

WWiinnddssoorr PPoolliiccee SSeerrvviiccee DDiirreeccttiivvee –– SSppeecciiaall IInnvveessttiiggaattiioonnss UUnniitt ##771166--0011

WWiinnddssoorr PPoolliiccee SSeerrvviiccee DDiirreeccttiivvee –– IInn--SSeerrvviiccee TTrraaiinniinngg ##333300--0011

WWiinnddssoorr PPoolliiccee SSeerrvviiccee DDiirreeccttiivvee –– AArrrreesstt ##773300--0011

WWiinnddssoorr PPoolliiccee SSeerrvviiccee DDiirreeccttiivvee –– PPrriissoonneerr CCaarree aanndd CCoonnttrrooll ##773311--0011


WWiinnddssoorr PPoolliiccee SSeerrvviiccee DDiirreeccttiivvee –– NNoottee TTaakkiinngg RReessppoonnssiibbiilliittiieess ##776611--0011

WWiinnddssoorr PPoolliiccee SSeerrvviiccee DDiirreeccttiivvee –– UUssee ooff FFoorrccee ##771111--0011

WWiinnddssoorr PPoolliiccee SSeerrvviiccee DDiirreeccttiivvee –– SSuuppeerrvviissoorryy RReessppoonnssee ##886633--0011

IINNVVOOLLVVEEDD PPEERRSSOONNSS

Injured Complainant regarding SIU investigation Windsor Police Officer, Identified by SIU as “Subject Officer” Windsor Police Officer, Identified by SIU as “Subject Officer” Sergeant, Windsor Police Service Professional Standards

Staff Sergeant, Windsor Police Service Professional Standards

Inspector Windsor Police Service Professional Standards

Lead Investigator Special Investigation Unit

SSUUMMMMAARRYY

On October 29, 2019, members of the Windsor Police Target Base Unit were investigating a stolen vehicle in a parking lot of a store in the City of Windsor. Target Base Units requested the assistance of a patrol unit and the Windsor Police Emergency Services Unit attended.

The suspect vehicle, an SUV, was parked in a parking spot north of a cart corral section facing east. A male exited the front passenger side of the SUV and walked toward the store entrance, leaving a driver and a secondary passenger in the vehicle. It was at this time that Target Base Unit vehicles approached, with one pulling into the parking space directly behind the SUV. Simultaneously, Emergency Services Unit members, in their fully marked police vehicle and an additional Target Base Unit vehicles, blocked the front end of the SUV to prevent its escape.

Officers exited their vehicles and converged on the SUV advising its occupants they were under arrest. The SUV’s driver ignored the officers and reversed, striking the Target Base Unit vehicle pushing it back. The female passenger in the suspect vehicle could be heard yelling, “Go, go, go” as the SUV drove slightly forward, and then reversed again, striking the Target Base Unit vehicle pushing it further back. The SUV drove slightly forward, and then for a third time reversed again, striking and pushing back the Target Base Unit vehicle. As officers approached the SUV, the SUV drove forward quickly and struck the Emergency Services Unit vehicle pushing it back. Officers were able to finally close in on the SUV and after a struggle arrested the driver, identified as the Complainant and a female passenger.

During his arrest, the Complainant, as well as the arresting officers, sustained injuries. Because of the injuries, the Windsor Police Service contacted paramedics to assess and treat the injuries. Due to the severity of the Complainant’s injury, paramedics transported him to the hospital where he was later diagnosed with a fracture to his orbital bone.

Because of the custody injury sustained by the Complainant on October 29, 2019 and as set out in subsection 113 (5) and pursuant to O/Reg. 267/10 s.3 of the Ontario Police Services Act, the Windsor Police Service contacted the Special Investigation Unit of the Ministry of the Solicitor General. On October 29, 2019, the Special Investigation Unit


identified two Windsor Police Constables as the subject officers and four witness officers.

On May 6, 2020, the Special Investigations Unit notified Chief Pamela Mizuno that pursuant to s. 11(4) of regulation 267/10 under the Police Services Act, the investigation into the custody injury sustained by the Complainant during his arrest on October 29, 2019 was complete. The Special Investigations Unit advised that there were no grounds in the evidence to proceed with criminal charges against the Subject Officers.

PPOOLLIICCIIEESS

SSPPEECCIIAALL IINNVVEESSTTIIGGAATTIIOONNSS UUNNIITT

Windsor Police Service Directive #716-01 – Effective Date: 2018-11-01 Rationale:

The Police Services Act (Part Vll) establishes the Special Investigations Unit of the Ministry of the Solicitor General. Its mandate is to cause investigations to be conducted into circumstances of serious injuries and deaths that may have resulted from criminal offences committed by police officers.

S.113 (9) of the Act requires members of the Windsor Police Service to co-operate fully with members of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU). Regulation 267/10 addresses the conduct and duties of police officers with respect to SIU investigations. The purpose of this Directive is to ensure that members of the Service fulfill their legislated duty to co-operate with the SIU.

Ontario Regulation 267/10 made under the Police Services Act states in section 11(1): The Chief of Police shall also cause an investigation to be conducted forthwith into any incident with respect to which the S.I.U. has been notified, subject to the SIU’s lead role in investigating the incident. Section 11(4) provides the authority to make the report available to the public.

FFiinnddiinnggss:: TThhee eeffffeeccttiivvee ddaattee ooff tthhiiss ddiirreeccttiivvee wwaass 22001188//1111//0011.. AAtt tthhee ttiimmee ooff tthhee iinncciiddeenntt,, tthhee ddiirreeccttiivvee wwaass uupp ttoo ddaattee.. TThhee ppoolliiccyy mmeeeettss MMiinniissttrryy gguuiiddeelliinneess aanndd tthheerree aarree nnoo rreeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss rreeggaarrddiinngg cchhaannggeess ttoo tthhee ppoolliiccyy bbeeccaauussee ooff tthhiiss SSeeccttiioonn 1111 rreevviieeww.. AAllll ooffffiicceerrss wweerree iinn ffuullll ccoommpplliiaannccee aanndd aaddhheerreedd ttoo tthhee ddiirreeccttiivvee..

IINN--SSEERRVVIICCEE TTRRAAIINNIINNGG

Windsor Police Service Directive #330-01 – Effective Date: 2019-04-01

Rationale: The objective of the In-Service Training directive is to develop and maintain the knowledge, skills and abilities of the members of the Windsor Police Service. This will be achieved through a succession of training programs, consistent with provincial government established Adequacy Standards, or as designated by the Chief of Police. This directive addresses the responsibility of members for career development, skills development and learning.


The purpose of this Directive is to establish and clarify the responsibility of members to attend and participate in In-Service Training programs.


AARRRREESSTT


Rationale:

The purpose of this Directive is to establish policy and procedures with respect to Arrest, which encompasses the legal, constitutional and case law requirements relating to arrest. This directive will outline that all arrests of persons shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Provincial Statutes and Common Law, and that the rights of all arrested persons under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms shall be protected.


PPRRIISSOONNEERR CCAARREE AANNDD CCOONNTTRROOLL


Rationale:

The purpose of this Directive is to establish policy and procedures relative to care and control of prisoners detained in the Detention Centre. The police owe a duty of care to those in custody. Prisoners are entitled to humane treatment and immediate medical care if needed.

The Sergeant assigned to the Detention Centre is the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) for the purposes of this Directive. The Officer in Charge is responsible to ascertain the need for medical attention for prisoners and arrange for medical attention if circumstances so indicate, resolving all doubt in favour of prisoner wellbeing.

The Officer in Charge of the Detention Centre shall ensure that the appropriate special precautions are taken for prisoners who are known or suspected to be: violent or exhibit violent behaviour, mentally ill or have a developmental disability, suicidal, emotionally disturbed or under the influence of alcohol/drugs or suffering a medical emergency.


Prisoners have a right to private consultation with counsel. Prisoners may be allowed to contact family or friends while in custody.


NNOOTTEE TTAAKKIINNGG RREESSPPOONNSSIIBBIILLIITTIIEESS


Rationale:

Notes are one of the most important tools an officer has at their disposal and necessary for the execution of duty. The note taking process is a vital record of evidence including an officer’s observations and information provided by witnesses, victims and suspects. Notes are an important memory aid and should be used when writing reports and retained as a reference for court.


UUSSEE OOFF FFOORRCCEE


Rationale:

The authority to use force on a person carries a great responsibility. It is incumbent on a Police Service to provide the proper tools, training and guidance to its Members to ensure that this responsibility is always paramount in the decision making process.

It is important that the Service have access to information concerning the frequency and types of force used by police and the circumstances under which it occurs. This information is used to guide local training, refine policy and assist in the identification of provincial trends and training needs.

The purpose of this Directive is to establish policy and procedures with respect to the reporting of use of force required by PSA O. Regulation 926. The other directives in the 711 series are specific to the various Use of Force tools.


The Ontario Use of Force Model

FFiinnddiinnggss:: TThhee eeffffeeccttiivvee ddaattee ooff tthhiiss ddiirreeccttiivvee wwaass 22001188//0066//0011.. AAtt tthhee ttiimmee ooff tthhee iinncciiddeenntt,, tthhee ddiirreeccttiivvee wwaass uupp ttoo ddaattee.. TThhee ppoolliiccyy mmeeeettss MMiinniissttrryy gguuiiddeelliinneess aanndd tthheerree aarree nnoo rreeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss rreeggaarrddiinngg cchhaannggeess ttoo tthhee ppoolliiccyy bbeeccaauussee ooff tthhiiss SSeeccttiioonn 1111 rreevviieeww.. TThhee rreevviieeww ddiissccoovveerreedd tthhaatt nnoo UUssee ooff FFoorrccee RReeppoorrtt ssuubbmmiissssiioonn wwaass ccoommpplleetteedd.. TThhee CCoommppllaaiinnaanntt iinn tthhee SSIIUU iinnvveessttiiggaattiioonn rreeqquuiirreedd mmeeddiiccaall aatttteennttiioonn bbeeccaauussee ooff tthhee aapppplliiccaattiioonn ooff ffoorrccee bbyy tthhee iinnvvoollvveedd OOffffiicceerr.. AAss ppeerr DDiirreeccttiivvee 771111--0011 UUssee ooff FFoorrccee,, aa UUssee ooff FFoorrccee RReeppoorrtt ssuubbmmiissssiioonn iiss rreeqquuiirreedd.. TThhee ooffffiicceerr wwaass ccooaacchheedd wwiitthh rreessppeecctt ttoo tthhee ppoolliiccyy aanndd tthhee MMiinniissttrryy rreeqquuiirreemmeennttss.. AA UUssee ooff FFoorrccee RReeppoorrtt wwaass ccoommpplleetteedd aanndd ssuubbmmiitttteedd aass ppeerr tthhee DDiirreeccttiivvee.. NNoo ffuurrtthheerr aaccttiioonn iiss rreeqquuiirreedd..

SSUUPPEERRVVIISSOORRYY RREESSPPOONNSSEE


Rationale:

Adequacy Standards Regulations require the establishment of processes and procedures on supervision that set out the circumstances where a supervisor must be notified of an event and where the supervisor must attend at or become involved in an event. These requirements are also imbedded in the event specific Directives.


The purpose of this Directive is to list the circumstances where a patrol supervisor must

attend a scene, circumstances where the patrol supervisor must be notified of the

occurrence and, the supervisory reporting requirements.


SSEERRVVIICCEESS

The Investigator reviewed the ‘Services’ provided by Windsor Police Members. This review found no issues with the “Services” that were provided.

CCOONNDDUUCCTT

On October 29, 2019, the Complainant was operating a stolen SUV with two passengers. The vehicle was under surveillance by Windsor Police Target Base Unit. When the Complainant parked the SUV in the parking lot of a store, a plan was developed to take the vehicle’s occupants into custody. With the assistance of W indsor Police Emergency Services Unit, the SUV was boxed-in by police vehicles to prevent its escape while officers approached to effect the arrests.

At the sight of the officers approaching the SUV, the Complainant put the vehicle in motion in an attempt to escape. He maneuvered the SUV back and forth several times, striking police vehicles behind and in front of him, as officers yelled at him to stop and show his hands. An Officer managed to break the driver’s door window and reached in through the shattered glass to engage the Complainant, delivering a number of punches to the Complainant’s head. The Complainant released his hold of the steering wheel following the strikes. With the assistance of other Officers, the Complainant was removed from the vehicle and arrested.

On October 29, 2019, Windsor Police Officers were clearly in the lawful execution of their duties when they arrested the Complainant and used as much force as necessary to effect that arrest. When the Complainant placed the SUV in gear and began to ram the vehicles in front and behind in an effort to escape, he created a dangerous situation not only for the officers surrounding the vehicle, but also for other pedestrians and motorists in the area.

Section 25(1) of the Criminal Code states; Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law, as a private person, as a peace officer or public officer, in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or by virtue of his office, is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose. Police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their lawful duties provided such force was no more than was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law. Police officers


are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their lawful duties provided such force was no more than was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law. Officers are not expected to measure the degree of their responsive force to a nicety (R. v. Baxter (1975) 27 C.C.C. (2d) 96 (Ont. C.A.) nor should they be judged to a standard of perfection (R. v. Nasogaluk [2010] 1 S.C.R. 6.).

After reviewing policies, procedures, services and all the evidence with respect to this Section 11 review, I identified no additional conduct issues regarding the actions of Windsor Police Officers on October 29, 2019. During the course of the investigation conducted by the Special Investigations Unit, no criminal charges were laid. Additionally, as outlined in the Police Services Act of Ontario, s. 113(9), all Windsor Police Service members co-operated fully and as required with the Special Investigation Unit’s investigation.

CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONN

In his final analysis Special Investigation Unit Director, Joseph Martino stated; in the afternoon of October 29, 2019, the Complainant was arrested by members of the WPS and suffered injuries in the process, including a fractured orbital bone. Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #2 were among the arresting officers and identified as subject officers for purposes of the SIU investigation. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject officer committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s arrest and injuries.

Director, Joseph Martino continued; in the circumstances, the officers were within their rights in resorting to a measure of force to bring the situation to an end as quickly as possible. Subject Officer #1 did so, breaking the driver’s door window and punching the Complainant in the head a number of times until he let go of the steering wheel and was removed from the SUV. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that Subject Officer #1 acted excessively, even if one or more of the blows he struck caused or contributed to the Complainant’s broken orbital bone. In the result, as I am satisfied that there are no grounds in the evidence to believe that Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #2 acted other than lawfully in their dealings with the Complainant, there is no basis for charges in this case and the file is closed.


Respectfully Submitted

SSeerrggeeaanntt PPaaoolloo DDiiCCaarrlloo Professional Standards Branch Windsor Police Service

SSttaaffff SSeerrggeeaanntt JJeennnniiffeerr CCrroossbbyy Professional Standards Branch Windsor Police Service

IInnssppeeccttoorr MMaatttthheeww DD’’AAssttii Professional Standards Branch Windsor Police Service

WWIINNDDSSOORR PPOOLLIICCEE SSEERRVVIICCEE

PPRROOFFEESSSSIIOONNAALL SSTTAANNDDAARRDDSS BBRRAANNCCHH

SSEECCTTIIOONN 1111 RREEVVIIEEWW SSIIUU 1199--OOCCII--118855

RREEDDAACCTTEEDD

DDaattee:: AApprriill 2299,, 22002200

IInnvveessttiiggaatteedd bbyy:: SSeerrggeeaanntt PPaaoolloo DDiiCCaarrlloo

S3.H


RREEDDAACCTTEEDD SSEECCTTIIOONN 1111 RREEVVIIEEWW SSIIUU 1199--OOCCII--118855

EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY

This review pursuant to section 11 of Ontario Regulation 267/10 made under the Police Services Act will review the applicable policies of the Service, the services provided and the conduct of its members. Certain recommendations, where noted, were made because of this review are addressed within this report.

BBAACCKKGGRROOUUNNDD

On August 7, 2019, the Windsor Police Service contacted the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) from the Ministry of the Solicitor General because of Windsor Police event #2019-73270. Communication with the SIU is to maintain consistent adherence with provincial legislative requirements during an exigent matter that required clear and direct communication.

It was determined that the facts-in-issue regarding the injury sustained by the Complainant met the threshold as defined by the Honourable Justice John Osler. This information exchange as to the details of the aforementioned event caused the SIU to invoke their mandate and commence an investigation into the actions of the designated Windsor Police Service Officers in accordance with section 113(5) of the Police Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P.15.

Section 11 of Ontario Regulation 267/10 made under the Police Services Act requires the Chief of Police to commence an investigation forthwith into any incidents in which the SIU invokes its mandate. Assigned to this investigation was Sergeant Paolo DiCarlo of the Windsor Police Service Professional Standards Branch, Risk Management Unit. This report is based on, a factual review of events, the actions of the involved officers and a review of applicable Windsor Police Service policies.

MMEETTHHOODDOOLLOOGGYY

Identified for review and detailed in the ‘scope of review’ section, are applicable directives and policies administered by the Windsor Police Service. A review was completed to ensure compliance with the Police Services Act of Ontario and comprised Regulations, including the Ontario Policing Standards and overall policing “best practices”.

SSCCOOPPEE OOFF RREEVVIIEEWW

This review pursuant to section 11 of Ontario Regulation 267/10 made under the Police Services Act will review the applicable Policies of the Service, the services provided and the conduct of its members.

Examined in relation to this incident were the following Windsor Police Service Directives:

WWiinnddssoorr PPoolliiccee SSeerrvviiccee DDiirreeccttiivvee –– SSppeecciiaall IInnvveessttiiggaattiioonnss UUnniitt ##771166--0011

WWiinnddssoorr PPoolliiccee SSeerrvviiccee DDiirreeccttiivvee –– IInn--SSeerrvviiccee TTrraaiinniinngg ##333300--0011

WWiinnddssoorr PPoolliiccee SSeerrvviiccee DDiirreeccttiivvee –– AArrrreesstt ##773300--0011


WWiinnddssoorr PPoolliiccee SSeerrvviiccee DDiirreeccttiivvee –– PPrriissoonneerr CCaarree aanndd CCoonnttrrooll ##773311--0011 WWiinnddssoorr PPoolliiccee SSeerrvviiccee DDiirreeccttiivvee –– NNoottee TTaakkiinngg RReessppoonnssiibbiilliittiieess ##776611--0011

WWiinnddssoorr PPoolliiccee SSeerrvviiccee DDiirreeccttiivvee –– UUssee ooff FFoorrccee ##771111--0011

IINNVVOOLLVVEEDD PPEERRSSOONNSS

Injured Complainant regarding SIU investigation Windsor Police Officer Identified by SIU as “Subject Officer” Sergeant, Windsor Police Service Professional Standards

Staff Sergeant, Windsor Police Service Professional Standards

Inspector Windsor Police Service Professional Standards

Lead Investigator Special Investigation Unit

SSUUMMMMAARRYY

On Tuesday, August 06, 2019 at 7:45pm, Windsor Police Officers were on routine patrol within the City of Windsor. Officers entered a parking lot associated to a residential building. As they passed the south wall of the building, officers observed a male standing at the corner with his face towards the wall. It appeared the male was about to urinate on the building. Officers drove towards the male and were within 10 feet of him. An Officer recognized the male as the Complainant who was wanted by Windsor Police on several outstanding arrest warrants. The Officer advised the Complainant to stay where he was at and that he was under arrest. The Complainant ignored the Officer and ran southbound along a west fence of the residential building.

One Officer pursued the Complainant on foot while the other Officer, in the police cruiser, circled back to a roadway. The Complainant entered a municipal parking lot just south of the residential building and attempted to jump over a west fence. After several attempts to jump the fence, the Complainant fell to the ground and attempted to run eastbound but was unable to gain his footing and lost his balance. The Officer in the cruiser was able to pull up to the Complainant, exit the cruiser, and gain control of him as he was still attempting to flee. Both Officers were able to control the Complainant and place him under arrest and in handcuff restraints to the rear without any further incident.

While in the Windsor Police detention unit, the Complainant complained of a sore left hand that he described was related to his arrest. As a result, paramedics transported the Complainant to the hospital where he was diagnosed with a fracture to his left ring finger.

Because of the custody injury sustained by the Complainant on August 6, 2019 and as set out in subsection 113 (5) and pursuant to O/Reg. 267/10 s.3 of the Ontario Police Services Act, the Windsor Police Service contacted the Special Investigation Unit of the Ministry of the Solicitor General. On August 7, 2019, the Special Investigation Unit identified a Windsor Police Officer as the subject officer and a second Windsor Police Officer as the witness officer.

On April 29, 2020, the Special Investigations Unit notified Chief Pamela Mizuno that their investigation was complete. The Special Investigations Unit explained that pursuant to s. 11(4) of regulation 267/10 under the Police Services Act, the investigation


into the custody injury sustained by the Complainant during his arrest on August 6, 2019 was complete. The Special Investigations Unit advised that there were no grounds in the evidence to proceed with criminal charges against the Windsor Police Subject Officer.

PPOOLLIICCIIEESS

SSPPEECCIIAALL IINNVVEESSTTIIGGAATTIIOONNSS UUNNIITT

Windsor Police Service Directive #716-01 – Effective Date: 2018-11-01 Rationale:

The Police Services Act (Part Vll) establishes the Special Investigations Unit of the Ministry of the Solicitor General. Its mandate is to cause investigations to be conducted into circumstances of serious injuries and deaths that may have resulted from criminal offences committed by police officers.

S.113 (9) of the Act requires members of the Windsor Police Service to co-operate fully with members of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU). Regulation 267/10 addresses the conduct and duties of police officers with respect to SIU investigations. The purpose of this Directive is to ensure that members of the Service fulfill their legislated duty to co-operate with the SIU.

Ontario Regulation 267/10 made under the Police Services Act states in section 11(1): The Chief of Police shall also cause an investigation to be conducted forthwith into any incident with respect to which the S.I.U. has been notified, subject to the SIU’s lead role in investigating the incident. Section 11(4) provides the authority to make the report available to the public.


IINN--SSEERRVVIICCEE TTRRAAIINNIINNGG


Rationale: The objective of the In-Service Training directive is to develop and maintain the knowledge, skills and abilities of the members of the Windsor Police Service. This will be achieved through a succession of training programs, consistent with provincial government established Adequacy Standards, or as designated by the Chief of Police. This directive addresses the responsibility of members for career development, skills development and learning.

The purpose of this Directive is to establish and clarify the responsibility of members to attend and participate in In-Service Training programs.



AARRRREESSTT


Rationale:

The purpose of this Directive is to establish policy and procedures with respect to Arrest, which encompasses the legal, constitutional and case law requirements relating to arrest. This directive will outline that all arrests of persons shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Provincial Statutes and Common Law, and that the rights of all arrested persons under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms shall be protected.


PPRRIISSOONNEERR CCAARREE AANNDD CCOONNTTRROOLL


Rationale:

The purpose of this Directive is to establish policy and procedures relative to care and control of prisoners detained in the Detention Centre. The police owe a duty of care to those in custody. Prisoners are entitled to humane treatment and immediate medical care if needed.

The Sergeant assigned to the Detention Centre is the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) for the purposes of this Directive. The Officer in Charge is responsible to ascertain the need for medical attention for prisoners and arrange for medical attention if circumstances so indicate, resolving all doubt in favour of prisoner wellbeing.

The Officer in Charge of the Detention Centre shall ensure that the appropriate special precautions are taken for prisoners who are known or suspected to be: violent or exhibit violent behaviour, mentally ill or have a developmental disability, suicidal, emotionally disturbed or under the influence of alcohol/drugs or suffering a medical emergency.

Prisoners have a right to private consultation with counsel. Prisoners may be allowed to contact family or friends while in custody.



NNOOTTEE TTAAKKIINNGG RREESSPPOONNSSIIBBIILLIITTIIEESS


Rationale:

Notes are one of the most important tools an officer has at their disposal and necessary for the execution of duty. The note taking process is a vital record of evidence including an officer’s observations and information provided by witnesses, victims and suspects. Notes are an important memory aid and should be used when writing reports and retained as a reference for court.


UUSSEE OOFF FFOORRCCEE


Rationale:

The authority to use force on a person carries a great responsibility. It is incumbent on a Police Service to provide the proper tools, training and guidance to its Members to ensure that this responsibility is always paramount in the decision making process.

It is important that the Service have access to information concerning the frequency and types of force used by police and the circumstances under which it occurs. This information is used to guide local training, refine policy and assist in the identification of provincial trends and training needs.

The purpose of this Directive is to establish policy and procedures with respect to the

reporting of use of force required by PSA O. Regulation 926. The other directives in the

711 series are specific to the various Use of Force tools.

FFiinnddiinnggss:: TThhee eeffffeeccttiivvee ddaattee ooff tthhiiss ddiirreeccttiivvee wwaass 22001188//0066//0011.. AAtt tthhee ttiimmee ooff tthhee iinncciiddeenntt,, tthhee ddiirreeccttiivvee wwaass uupp ttoo ddaattee.. TThhee ppoolliiccyy mmeeeettss MMiinniissttrryy gguuiiddeelliinneess aanndd tthheerree aarree nnoo rreeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss rreeggaarrddiinngg cchhaannggeess ttoo tthhee ppoolliiccyy bbeeccaauussee ooff tthhiiss SSeeccttiioonn 1111 rreevviieeww.. TThhee rreevviieeww ddiissccoovveerreedd tthhaatt nnoo UUssee ooff FFoorrccee RReeppoorrtt ssuubbmmiissssiioonn wwaass ccoommpplleetteedd.. TThhee CCoommppllaaiinnaanntt iinn tthhee SSIIUU iinnvveessttiiggaattiioonn rreeqquuiirreedd mmeeddiiccaall aatttteennttiioonn bbeeccaauussee ooff tthhee


aapppplliiccaattiioonn ooff ffoorrccee bbyy tthhee iinnvvoollvveedd OOffffiicceerrss.. AAss ppeerr DDiirreeccttiivvee 771111--0011 UUssee ooff FFoorrccee,, aa UUssee ooff FFoorrccee RReeppoorrtt ssuubbmmiissssiioonn iiss rreeqquuiirreedd.. TThhee ooffffiicceerr wwaass ccooaacchheedd wwiitthh rreessppeecctt ttoo tthhee ppoolliiccyy aanndd tthhee MMiinniissttrryy rreeqquuiirreemmeennttss.. AA UUssee ooff FFoorrccee RReeppoorrtt wwaass ccoommpplleetteedd aanndd ssuubbmmiitttteedd aass ppeerr tthhee DDiirreeccttiivvee.. NNoo ffuurrtthheerr aaccttiioonn iiss rreeqquuiirreedd..

The Ontario Use of Force Model

SSEERRVVIICCEESS

The Investigator reviewed the ‘Services’ provided by Windsor Police Members. This review found no issues with the “Services” that were provided.

CCOONNDDUUCCTT

On August 6, 2019, Windsor Police Officers were on routine patrol and observed a male about to urinate on a building. As they neared the male, an Officer recognized him as the Complainant who was wanted on several outstanding arrest warrants. The Officer called out to the Complainant and told him that he was under arrest on the strength of the arrest warrants but the Complainant ran off. The two officers followed him in the police cruiser until such point as the path taken by the Complainant narrowed to prevent the police cruiser’s forward progress. At that point, one Officer exited and pursued the Complainant on foot, while the other Officer drove the cruiser back to the parking lot.

In his effort to flee from police, the Complainant came upon a chain-link fence, which he tried to scale on three occasions. He failed each time, falling to the ground on his last attempt. The Complainant then again stood and attempted to flee, this time running east through the parking lot directly in front of the Officer in his police cruiser. The


Complainant continuously stumbled while running, eventually falling to the ground in the parking lot.

The Officer exited his police cruiser and gave the Complainant commands ordering him to get onto his stomach and place his hands behind his back but the Complainant did not comply. The Officer approached, grabbed the Complainant by the left shoulder and turned him onto his stomach, at which point the foot pursuit Officer caught up on foot. One Officer then took control of the Complainant’s right arm as the other Officer took control of his left, and the Complainant was handcuffed.

Section 25(1) of the Criminal Code states; Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law, as a private person, as a peace officer or public officer, in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or by virtue of his office, is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose. Police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their lawful duties provided such force was no more than was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law. Officers are not expected to measure the degree of their responsive force to a nicety (R. v. Baxter (1975) 27 C.C.C. (2d) 96 (Ont. C.A.) nor should they be judged to a standard of perfection (R. v. Nasogaluk [2010] 1 S.C.R. 6.).

On August 6, 2019, the Complainant was wanted on a number of outstanding arrest warrants. The Windsor Police Officers were clearly in the lawful execution of their duties when they arrested the Complainant. Officers used as much force as necessary to effect that arrest and the actions exercised by them fell within the limits prescribed by criminal law.

After reviewing policies, procedures, services and all the evidence with respect to this Section 11 review, I identified no additional conduct issues regarding the actions of the Windsor Police Officers on August 6, 2019. During the course of the investigation conducted by the Special Investigations Unit, no criminal charges were laid. Additionally, as outlined in the Police Services Act of Ontario, s. 113(9), all Windsor Police Service members co-operated fully and as required with the Special Investigation Unit’s investigation.

CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONN

In his final analysis Special Investigation Unit director, Joseph Martino stated; in the evening of August 6, 2019, the Complainant was arrested by the Subject Officer and the Witness Officer of the Windsor Police Service. Sometime after the arrest, the Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with the fracture of a left finger.

Director Martino continued; I am cognizant there is some evidence the Subject Officer stomped on the Complainant’s finger causing the injury after he had been handcuffed. If true, the evidence would likely support grounds for proceeding with an assault-based charge against the officer. Standing alone, however, I am satisfied that this version of events is insufficient to ground criminal charges. This evidence, for example, also suggests that only one officer, the Subject Officer, was involved with the arrest and the other officer, the Witness Officer, was inside the police cruiser at the time. Each of the


officers, however, assert that the Witness Officer was the first to physically engage the Complainant, and that both had a hand in affixing the handcuffs. I see no reason why either officer would lie about their respective involvement in this regard. In the circumstances, it would be unwise and unsafe to proceed with charges based on this evidence alone. The Complainant’s injury, which might have served as such corroboration, is incapable of doing so in this case as it could just as conceivably have been caused by one or more of his several falls in his flight from the police. In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Subject Officer and the Witness Officer acted other than lawfully in effecting the Complainant’s arrest, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case and the file is closed.

Respectfully Submitted

SSeerrggeeaanntt PPaaoolloo DDiiCCaarrlloo Professional Standards Branch Risk Management Unit Windsor Police Service

SSttaaffff SSeerrggeeaanntt JJeennnniiffeerr CCrroossbbyy Professional Standards Branch Windsor Police Service

IInnssppeeccttoorr MMaatttthheeww DD’’AAssttii Professional Standards Branch Windsor Police Service

of 3

Ministry of the Solicitor General Public Safety Division

Service Improvement Plan

Windsor Police Service – Major Case Management Inspection - 2019

Ministry Use Police Service Ministry

Use

# Requirement / Recommendation

Reference Responsibility- Board or Chief

Staff Assigned

Anticipated Completion

Progress Update Verification

Legislative/Regulatory

1

The Chief of Police ensures that procedures related to the investigation of attempted homicides are developed as required by O.Regulation (3/99) and board policy.

O.Regulation

(3/99) Chief Inspector

Cribley Completed October ‘19

WPS Directive 780-06 has been

amended to include the category

of Attempted Homicide

3

The Chief of Police establish procedures and processes to ensure that PowerCase software is used for every major case.

O.Reg.354/04

s.1(3). Chief Inspector

Cribley Constable Dodich

September of 2020

The WPS Pow erCase Unit is

developing a new WPS Directive

specif ic to the use of the

Pow erCase softw are in every

Major Case. Our current relevant

Directives (780-06, 780-07, and

780-03) do currently instruct that

OMCM guidelines (including use

of Pow erCase) shall be adhered

to.

4

The Chief of Police ensure that major cases are correctly classified as threshold or non-threshold in accordance with the OMCM Manual

O.Reg.354/04

s.1(2). Chief MCB Staff

Sergeants Power Case Unit

Completed January 2020

MCB staff sergeants are now

currently review ing all Major Case

occurrences and assigning them

accordingly, determining

Threshold vs Non-Threshold. The

Pow erCase Unit then review s the

classif ication for accuracy.

5

The Chief of Police ensure that PowerCase entries are made within the 30-day limit required by the OMCM Manual

O.Reg.354/04

s.1(2). Chief Inspector

Cribley Power Case Unit


The Pow erCase Unit is running

smoothly. There are no delays or

backlogs in completing entries

w ithin 30 days.

S3.I

of 3


Use



Staff Assigned



6

The Chief of Police ensure that Major Case Managers notify the Serial Predator Crime Investigations Coordinator within seven days after investigating linkages between cases raising a reasonable likelihood that the same person has committed the crimes

O.Reg.354/04

s.1(2). Chief MCB Staff

Sergeants


All current investigators are aw are

of the reporting requirements to

the SPCIC w ithin 7 days w hen it

has been determined the

offence(s) has been linked or is

predatory or serial in nature. The

Pow erCase Unit also serves as a

safeguard to ensure this task has

been fulf illed under the specif ied

requirements.

Advisory/Good Practice

2

The Chief of Police should consider revising the procedures to reflect the role of the PowerCase Unit.

Advisory Chief Inspector Cribley Power Case Unit

September of 2020

The WPS Pow erCase Unit is

developing a new WPS Directive

specif ically to address the use of

the Pow erCase softw are, as w ell as the role of the Pow erCase Unit

w ithin in every Major Case

investigation.

7

The Chief of Police should consider additional capacity and resources in ensuring that Major Case Managers, Primary Investigators and File Coordinators are involved in making PowerCase an active investigation tool.

Advisory Chief MCB Staff Sergeants Power Case Unit


WPS now endeavors to ensure

that every investigator attend the 2

w eek Pow erCase Course or the 2

day Pow erCase for the Command

Triangle Course. This requirement

has sparked an interest in

Pow erCase, creating buy-in and making investigative requests for

ad-hoc searches and trigger

notif ications.

8

The Chief of Police should consider requiring that major case threshold and non-threshold classifications are recorded in the Service records management system.



WPS has implemented policy that

a brief supplemental report be

added to each Major Case

occurrence in RMS Records

indicating w hether it is a threshold

or non-threshold case. This w ill be

addressed in the new Pow erCase Directive, and w ill be the ultimate

responsibility of the Pow erCase

Unit.

of 3


Use



Staff Assigned



9

The Chief of Police should ensure that the correct identity of members performing command triangle roles is accurately entered into PowerCase.



The Pow erCase Unit now records

the identity of the investigators

assigned to the command triangle

roles and enters them in the ‘tree

notes’ w ith Pow erCase. This new

requirement w ill also be

addressed in the pending

Pow erCase Directive.

This Service Improvement Plan (SIP) template is provided to assist the Board and Chief of Police in the development of responses to the inspection. The SIP lists the inspection report recommendations and identifies if they are based on mandatory legislative/regulatory requirements, advisory elements in the Policing Standards Manual or good practices calculated to assist. The Ministry requests that the SIP templat e be used for reporting on inspection recommendation decisions and progress.


Ministère du Solliciteur général Division de la sécurité publique

25 Grosvenor St. 12th Floor Toronto ON M7A 2H3 Telephone: (416) 314-3377 Facsimile: (416) 314-4037

25 rue Grosvenor 12e étage Toronto ON M7A 2H3 Téléphone: (416) 314-3377 Télécopieur: (416) 314-4037

MEMORANDUM TO: All Chiefs of Police and Commissioner Thomas Carrique

Chairs, Police Services Boards FROM: Richard Stubbings Assistant Deputy Minister Public Safety Division SUBJECT: 2020/2021 Constable Joe MacDonald Public Safety

Officers’ Survivors Scholarship Fund (CJMPSOSSF) Call for Applications

DATE OF ISSUE: June 18, 2020 CLASSIFICATION: General Information RETENTION: July 15, 2020 INDEX NO.: 20-0096 PRIORITY: Normal

Please find attached an application package outlining the eligibility criteria and the process to apply for the Constable Joe MacDonald Public Safety Officers’ Survivors Scholarship Fund (CJMPSOSSF). The CJMPSOSSF was established in recognition of the tremendous sacrifice made by our public safety officers and their families to keep Ontario safe. It is a demonstration of the esteem that the people of Ontario have for public safety officers. The CJMPSOSSF is available to spouses and children of public safety officers who died in the line of duty. The scholarship may be used for tuition, textbooks and eligible living expenses for programs leading to a degree or a diploma at an approved Canadian post-secondary educational institution. To date, the CJMPSOSSF has provided financial assistance to 85 recipients to obtain a post-secondary education. Additional details regarding eligibility criteria can be found in the attached 2020/2021 CJMPSOSSF Guidelines. For the purposes of the CJMPSOSSF, a public safety officer may include a municipal or provincial police officer, First Nations Constable, auxiliary member of a police force,

…/2

- 2-

special constable (acting with the authority of a police officer at the time of his/her death), firefighter, correctional officer, probation officer, parole officer, or youth worker. Please see the attached guidelines for a more comprehensive definition of a public safety officer. Please forward this information to the appropriate areas and/or persons for distribution. The due date for submission of applications is July 15, 2020. Applications and all required documentation must be submitted by e-mail to [email protected], followed by a signed original copy mailed to the following address. Attention: Yoko Iwasaki, Community Safety Analyst

Program Development Section External Relations Branch, Public Safety Division Ministry of the Solicitor General 25 Grosvenor Street, 12th Floor Toronto ON M7A 2H3

Grant funding is subject to the Ministry of the Solicitor General receiving the necessary appropriation from the Ontario Legislature. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Yoko by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at (416) 314-3085. Sincerely,

Richard Stubbings Assistant Deputy Minister Public Safety Division Attachments

mailto:[email protected]




Ministry of the Solicitor General

CONSTABLE JOE MACDONALD

PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS’ SURVIVORS SCHOLARSHIP FUND

2020/2021 GUIDELINES

2020/2021 Constable Joe MacDonald Public Safety Officers’ Survivors Scholarship Fund Guidelines

Ministry of the Solicitor General, Public Safety Division Page 2 of 12 April 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND 3

APPLICATION PROCESS AND TIMELINES 3

ELIGIBILITY 3

RETURNING APPLICANTS 4 FINAL YEAR APPLICANTS 5 RETROACTIVE APPLICATIONS 5

ELIGIBLE EXPENSES 6

TUITION 6 TEXTBOOKS 6 STUDENT LIVING ALLOWANCE 6 1. SHELTER 6 2. FOOD 7 3. MISCELLANEOUS 7 4. LOCAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 8

LIMITATIONS 8

UNUSED OR MISUSED SCHOLARSHIP FUNDS 8

DEFINITION OF TERMS 8

A PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER 8 DIED IN THE LINE OF DUTY 9 A CHILD OF A PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER 9 APPROVED POST-SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION 9 STUDENT LIVING ALLOWANCES 9 COURSE LOAD 10 FULL-TIME STUDENTS 10 PART-TIME STUDENTS 10 COMMON-LAW MARRIAGE 10

APPLICATION FORM INTRUCTIONS 11

APPLICATION FORM 11 SECTION A – APPLICANT INFORMATION (PAGE 1) 11 SECTION B – INFORMATION ON DECEASED PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER (PAGE1 AND 2) 11 SECTION C – EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION/STUDIES INFORMATION (PAGE 2) 11 SECTION D – LIVING SITUATION (PAGE 3) 12 SECTION E – EXPENSES (PAGE 3) 12 SECTION F – SCHOLARSHIP/BURSARY (PAGE 4) 12 TERMS AND CONDITIONS (PAGE 5 AND 6) 12

SUBMITTING YOUR APPLICATION 12

INSTRUCTIONS 12 QUESTIONS AND ASSISTANCE 12



BACKGROUND In June 1997, the Public Safety Officers’ Survivors Scholarship Fund (PSOSSF) was established

through an Order-in-Council (OIC) to recognize the tremendous sacrifice made by our public safety officers and their families to keep Ontario safe. o In 2002, the PSOSSF was renamed to commemorate the late Constable Joe MacDonald.

The PSOSSF was initially established to provide for the cost of tuition and textbooks for post-secondary education at approved Canadian institutions, to the spouses and children of public safety officers who have died in the line of duty. o In August 2003, the Constable Joe MacDonald PSOSSF (CJMPSOSSF) was amended by

OIC to permit the funding of certain living expenses and to restrict the funding of the scholarship to a maximum period of five years.

APPLICATION PROCESS AND TIMELINES The CJMPSOSSF application package consists of the application form, these guidelines and

Appendix A, which outlines the eligible living allowances for recipients. The CJMPSOSSF is offered annually. A new and fully complete application form must be

submitted for each year that funding is requested. Applications are reviewed individually by an Advisory Committee, whose members have been

appointed by the Solicitor General, and are assessed against the eligibility criteria specified in these guidelines. The Advisory Committee recommends applications to the Solicitor General for approval.

Approximate Scholarship Timelines May 2020 – The Ministry of the Solicitor General (the “Ministry”) issues the annual call for

applications. May 2020 – 2019/20 scholarship recipients must submit their year-end reconciliation forms and

corresponding receipts to the Ministry. June 2020 – 2020/21 applications are due. July 2020 – The Advisory Committee convenes to review applications and make funding

recommendations to the Solicitor General. Mid-End of August 2020 – The Ministry advises applicants of their application status and the

first funding instalment is distributed to successful recipients. September to December 2020 – Scholarship recipients track expenses for their mid-year

reconciliation and advise the Ministry of any changes to their program status or contact details. End of December 2020 – January 2021 – Scholarship recipients submit their mid-year

reconciliation forms and corresponding receipts to the Ministry for review and approval. The Ministry reconciles the recipients’ mid-year expenses and issues the second funding instalment.

January to April 2021 – Scholarship recipients track expenses for the year-end reconciliation and advise the Ministry of any changes to their program status or contact details.

May 2021 – Scholarship recipients submit their year-end reconciliation forms and receipts to the Ministry for review and approval. The Ministry reconciles the recipients’ year-end expenses.

ELIGIBILITY The following persons may apply for a scholarship from the CJMPSOSSF: any spouse of a public safety officer who died in the line of duty; or any child of a public safety officer who died in the line of duty, born within or outside marriage,

including an adopted child, who is under the age of 25 at the time of the application (or such greater age as the Advisory Committee, in its discretion, considers appropriate in the circumstances).



To be considered for a scholarship from the CJMPSOSSF, a child or spouse must meet the following conditions: the applicant is admitted to an approved Canadian post-secondary educational institution as a

full-time, part-time or summer school student in a program of study leading to a degree or diploma;

the applicant does not hold a bachelor’s or higher degree in any subject; the applicant has not received funding under the CJMPSOSSF for five or more years; and the applicant provides satisfactory evidence to the Ministry that he/she is the child or surviving

spouse of a public safety officer who died in the line of duty. New Applicants A new applicant under the CJMPSOSSF who is the child of a deceased public safety officer must submit: a copy of the death certificate of the public safety officer who died in the line of duty; a copy of his/her birth certificate; proof of his/her acceptance into an approved post-secondary educational institution; evidence that the program of study for which he/she is seeking a scholarship leads to a degree or

diploma; an official tuition invoice for the upcoming semester or year, once available; proof that he/she moved to attend school and/or proof that he/she does not currently live with

his/her parent(s)/guardian(s), if applicable (i.e., a change of address substantiated by a cable bill, hydro bill or rerouting of mail);

proof of marriage, if applicable; and proof of dependents, if applicable (e.g., birth certificates, Canada Child Tax Benefit receipts or

Federal Income Tax Returns). A new applicant under the CJMPSOSSF who is the spouse of a deceased public safety officer must submit: a copy of the death certificate of the public safety officer who died in the line of duty; a copy of his/her marriage certificate; a copy of his/her birth certificate; proof of his/her acceptance into an approved post-secondary educational institution; evidence that the program of study for which he/she is seeking a scholarship leads to a degree or

diploma; an official tuition invoice for the upcoming semester or year, once available; and proof of dependents, if applicable (e.g., birth certificates, Canada Child Tax Benefit receipts, or

Federal Income Tax Returns). Returning Applicants A returning applicant who wishes to apply for another year of funding under the CJMPSOSSF must: immediately advise of any changes to his/her program/course, address and/or contact

information; provide evidence that the program for which he/she is seeking a scholarship leads to a degree or

diploma; provide proof of satisfactory academic progress (as defined by the post-secondary institution in

which he/she is enrolled), or proof of extenuating circumstances leading to unsatisfactory academic progress; and

an official tuition invoice for the upcoming semester or year, once available; provide proof that he/she moved to attend school and/or proof that he/she does not currently live

with his/her parent(s)/guardian(s), if applicable (i.e., a change of address substantiated by a cable bill, hydro bill or rerouting of mail); and



complete and submit mid-year and year-end reconciliation forms with original, itemized receipts to substantiate the expenses claimed, in order to reconcile the previous year’s funding. o Only original, itemized receipts, which list all of the individual items purchased, will be

accepted. Credit/debit card transaction records, which include the total cost but do not list all of the individual items purchased, will not be accepted as a proof of purchase.

Final Year Applicants A returning applicant who is in his/her final year of study and/or final year of the CJMPSOSSF must: immediately advise of any changes to his/her program/course, address and/or contact

information; submit proof of completion of his/her educational program (e.g., final transcript or a copy of

diploma/degree); provide proof that he/she moved to attend school and/or proof that he/she does not currently live

with his/her parent(s)/guardian(s), if applicable (i.e., a change of address substantiated by a cable bill, hydro bill or rerouting of mail); and

complete and submit mid-year and year-end reconciliation forms with original, itemized receipts to substantiate the expenses claimed in order to reconcile the last year of funding. o Only original, itemized receipts, which list all of the individual items purchased, will be

accepted. Credit/debit card transaction records, which include the total cost but do not list all of the individual items purchased, will not be accepted as a proof of purchase.

o Upon final reconciliation, if he/she:

• received an underpayment in the final year of study, the difference between the amount paid and the maximum amount for which he/she is eligible may be paid to him/her by cheque; or

• received an overpayment in the final year of study, the amount overpaid must be returned to the Ministry by cheque payable to the “Ontario Minister of Finance”.

Retroactive Applications A retroactive application should be completed if the applicant is requesting a funding

reimbursement for previous years of study. However, such an application will only be considered if the retroactive period of study directly precedes the current academic year’s application and is part of the current degree/diploma for which a CJMPSOSSF scholarship is being sought. o For example: A student submits an application this year for his/her second year of studies

towards a Psychology Degree at the University of Toronto and also submits a retroactive application for the previous year (first year studies) of this degree.

An applicant who wishes to submit a retroactive claim under the CJMPSOSSF must: provide proof of satisfactory academic progress (as defined by the post-secondary institution in

which he/she is enrolled), or proof of extenuating circumstances leading to unsatisfactory academic progress, for each year of the retroactive claim;

complete and submit a year-end reconciliation form for each year of the retroactive claim, with original, itemized receipts to substantiate the expenses claimed, in order to reconcile each year of funding.

Only original, itemized receipts, which list all of the individual items purchased, will be accepted. Credit/debit card transaction records, which include the total cost but do not list all of the individual items purchased, will not be accepted as a proof of purchase. Submitting a retroactive application that meets the above criteria does not guarantee an approval of the application. o Retroactive applications will be brought forward to the Advisory Committee for their review. o The Advisory Committee has the discretion and authority to approve or reject a retroactive

claim, or deem it ineligible. Note: For a copy of the Retroactive Application Form and Reconciliation Form, please contact Ministry staff.



ELIGIBLE EXPENSES Tuition Approved tuition, as evidenced in an official tuition invoice, is paid directly to the scholarship

recipient’s educational institution in two or three instalments, depending on the financial policy of the institution.

Generally, instalments are paid as follows: o Fall (e.g., Late August/September); o Winter (e.g., January/February); and/or o Summer, if applicable (e.g., May/June).

Textbooks Funding for required textbooks is paid directly to the scholarship recipient in a single instalment at

the beginning of the academic year (e.g., August/September). Upon reconciliation at the mid-year and/or year-end points, overpayments/underpayments are

identified and recovered/reimbursed. Student Living Allowance A scholarship recipient can apply for a student living allowance based on his/her living situation

(as defined below and further outlined in Appendix A). Eligible student living expenses and allowances are based on the Canada Student Loans

Program (CSLP). o The CSLP conducts an annual review of the allowance amounts and they are amended

accordingly. o The current student living allowances in each expense category (i.e., shelter, food,

miscellaneous and local public transportation) are detailed in Appendix A. Funding for approved living expenses may be paid out to the maximum limit per expense

category, based on an eight or 12 month academic period. However, a part-time student may be subject to a reduced maximum limit in each expense category (to be determined on an individual basis by the Advisory Committee).

Funding for approved living expenses is paid directly to the scholarship recipient in two or three instalments, in line with the schedule for tuition payments.

Generally, instalments are paid as follows: o Fall (e.g., August/September); o Winter (e.g., January); and/or o Summer, if applicable (e.g., April/May).

Upon reconciliation at the mid-year and/or year-end points, overpayments/underpayments in each living expense category are identified and recovered/reimbursed.

Additional details regarding each living expense category are provided below. 1. Shelter

o Shelter allowance is only provided to students in the living situations as outlined in sections (a) - (d) below.

o Shelter allowance amounts are outlined in Appendix A for each living situation. o Eligible shelter expenses include, but are not limited to:

• rent, and utilities.

a. To be considered a “Single Student Away from Home” for the purposes of the CJMPSOSSF, a scholarship recipient must be:

• a student who is living away from home (not in his/her parent(s)’/guardian(s)’ home); and

• a student whose educational institution is more than 50 kilometres away from his/her primary residence (parent(s)’/guardian(s)’ home).



Note: Any student whose primary residence (parent(s)’/ guardian(s)’ home) is closer than 50 kilometres to his/her educational institution is not eligible to apply for the shelter allowance, regardless of whether he/she moves closer to the educational institution.

For example: A student who lives with his/her parents in Richmond Hill, a suburb of the Greater Toronto Area, and moves to downtown Toronto to be closer to his/her educational institution (e.g., University of Toronto), would not be eligible to apply for the shelter allowance. However, if that student attends Carleton University and moves from his/her parents’ home in Richmond Hill to Ottawa, then he/she would be considered a “Student Away from Home” and would be eligible to apply for the shelter allowance as the distance exceeds 50 kilometres.

For single students living away from home, the allowance outlined in Appendix A is based on half of the average cost of a two-bedroom apartment, including utilities.

b. To be considered a “Single Parent” for the purposes of the CJMPSOSSF, a scholarship recipient must be:

• a student who has legal and/or physical custody and responsibility for supporting a child(ren) and who: has never been married or in a common-law relationship; is separated or divorced from a spouse/common-law partner; or is widowed.

c. To be considered a “Married Student and Spouse” for the purposes of the CJMPSOSSF, a scholarship recipient must be:

• a student who has been living in a conjugal relationship, or a situation similar, for at least three years (common-law marriage), or who is married.

For married students, the allowance outlined in Appendix A is based on the average cost of a two-bedroom apartment, including utilities.

d. For scholarship purposes, a recipient may receive living allowance amounts for each eligible dependent. To be considered to have a “dependent(s)” for the purposes of the CJMPSOSSF, the dependent(s) must be:

• a pre-school child;

• a child attending elementary school; or

• a child in high school who is under the age of 18 years old.

Children in high school who are 18 years of age or older are not considered dependents. Children who have completed high school are also not considered dependents.

2. Food

o Eligible food expenses include, but are not limited to: groceries; take-out; and food ordered at restaurants.

o Alcohol is not an eligible food expense.

3. Miscellaneous o Eligible miscellaneous expenses include, but are not limited to:

• clothing;

• personal care (e.g., toiletries);

• health care products (e.g., eyeglasses);



• household expenses (e.g., furnishings); and

• communication (e.g., cellular phone bill). o Alcohol is not an eligible miscellaneous expense.

4. Local Public Transportation

o Eligible local transportation costs only include expenses to and from the student’s school residence and the educational institution, and not transportation costs to and from the secondary residence, such as the student’s parent(s)’ home.

o Eligible transportation expenses include, but are not limited to:

• gas;

• a bus pass; and

• a school parking pass. LIMITATIONS The amount of the CJMPSOSSF scholarship will be reduced by the amount of any other

scholarship received by the recipient but shall not be reduced by any other money received by the recipient, including a student loan, a bursary given by the approved post-secondary educational institution or an association to which the deceased public safety officer belonged or an insurance benefit maintained on behalf of the deceased public safety officer.

UNUSED OR MISUSED SCHOLARSHIP FUNDS

If the recipient does not complete the year or semester of study for which he/she has received a

scholarship under the CJMPSOSSF, the recipient must immediately return the scholarship funds to the Ministry.

A scholarship under the CJMPSOSSF must only be used for the intended purposes, and only for eligible expenses as outlined in these guidelines. o If scholarship funds are unused or misused, the funding must be returned to the Ministry. o If such unused or misused funding is not returned to the Ministry, the recipient’s account may

be sent to the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services for collections. DEFINITION OF TERMS For the purposes of this application and the administration of the CJMPSOSSF, the following terms in these guidelines are as defined in Orders-in-Council 1453/97 and 1582/2003 and generally described as follows: A Public Safety Officer A police officer (municipal or provincial) as defined in section 2 of the Police Services Act (PSA). A First Nations Constable. A firefighter (full-time, part-time and volunteer) as defined in subsection 1(1) of the Fire Protection

and Prevention Act, 1997. A person who is employed in the Ministry:

o to provide probation services and parole supervision (Probation and Parole Officers); o to be directly involved in the care, health, discipline, safety and custody of an inmate, as

defined in section 1 of the Ministry of Correctional Services Act (Correctional Officers); or o a youth worker appointed under the former section 46(1)(b) of the Ministry of Correctional

Services Act, or under clause 90(1)(b) of the Child and Family Services Act. The Advisory Committee may, in its discretion, consider an individual’s application, if the applicant’s spouse or parent was:



an auxiliary member of a police force who, at the time of his/her death, was acting with the authority of a police officer under section 52 of the PSA; or

a special constable whose appointment at the time of his/her death conferred on him/her the powers of a police officer under section 53 of the PSA.

If a scholarship is granted as a result of the foregoing paragraph, the deceased auxiliary member of the police force or special constable shall be deemed to have been a public safety officer. Died in the Line of Duty A public safety officer’s death is the direct and proximate result of a traumatic injury incurred in

the course of, or arising from, his/her employment as a public safety officer. o Traumatic injury means a wound or the condition of the body caused by external force,

including but not limited to an injury inflicted by a bullet, explosive, sharp instrument, blunt object or other physical blow, fire, smoke, chemical, electricity, climatic condition, infectious disease, radiation or bacteria, but excluding an injury resulting from stress, strain or a disease that routinely constitutes a special hazard in, or is commonly regarded as a normal incident of a public safety officer’s occupation.

A Child of a Public Safety Officer A child born within or outside marriage and includes an adopted child and a person whom a

parent has demonstrated a settled intention to treat as a child of his/her family. Approved Post-Secondary Educational Institution An educational institution in Canada, as described in the definition of “designated educational

institution” in subsection 118.6(1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada), and such other post-secondary educational institutions in Canada as may be designated by the Minister.

Excerpt from the federal Income Tax Act, 1985, Subsection 118.6 (1): “designated educational institution” means: (a) an educational institution in Canada that is:

(i) a university or college or other educational institution designated by the lieutenant governor in council of a province as a specified educational institution under the Canada Student Loans Act, designated by an appropriate authority under the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, or designated, for the purposes of An Act respecting financial assistance for education expenses, by the Minister of the Province of Quebec responsible for the administration of that Act.

(ii) certified by the Minister of Employment and Social Development to be an educational institution providing courses, other than courses designed for university credit, that furnish a person with skills for, or improve a person’s skills in, an occupation,

Note: To verify eligibility of an educational institution, please contact Ministry staff. Student Living Allowances Student living allowances are outlined in the Canada Student Loans Program policies developed

by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, but with the following limitations: o the distribution of funds will only be extended for local transportation costs to and from the

student’s school residence and the educational institution but will not be extended for transportation costs to and from the student’s educational institution or the student’s school residence to a secondary residence, such as the student’s parents’ home;

o an allowance for shelter will only be considered if the student’s educational facility is more than 50 kilometres in distance from his/her home residence and the student wants to live at another residence which is less than 50 kilometres from the educational institution; and

o the amounts with respect to student living allowances in the Canada Student Loans Program represent the maximum amount that the Fund will distribute regarding any student living allowance.



The following terms are as defined in the Canada Student Loans Program and generally described as follows: Course Load Determined based on the policy of each student’s educational institution, and in some cases,

factors other than courses or credits considered. A student may wish to contact the financial aid office of his/her educational institution for further

information, if unable to determine his/her course load. Full-Time Students A student who is taking at least 60 per cent of a full course load, unless he/she has a permanent

disability. o If five courses are considered to be a full course load, then a student must take at least three

courses to be considered a full-time student (i.e., 3/5 x 100 = 60 per cent). o If 30 credits are considered to be a full course load, then a student must take at least 18

credits to be considered a full-time student (i.e., 18/30 x 100 = 60 per cent). If a student indicates that he/she has a permanent disability, he/she is considered to be a full-time

student if he/she is taking at least 40 per cent of a full course load. o If five courses are considered to be a full course load, then a student with a disability must

take at least two courses to be considered a full-time student (i.e., 2/5 x 100 = 40 per cent). o If 30 credits are considered to be a full course load, then a student with a disability must take

at least 12 credits to be considered a full-time student (i.e., 12/30 x 100 = 40 per cent). If a student indicates that he/she has a permanent disability and is planning to take between 40

and 59 per cent of a full course load, he/she is required to submit documentation of the permanent disability. o "Permanent disability" is a functional limitation that is caused by a physical or mental

impairment that restricts an individual’s ability to perform the daily activities necessary to participate in studies at a post-secondary level or in the labour force, and that is expected to remain with the individual for his/her expected natural life.

o Acceptable documentation includes a medical certificate, a learning disability assessment, or a document proving the student is in receipt of federal and/or provincial disability assistance.

Part-Time Students A student who is taking 20 to 59 per cent of a full course load.

o If five courses are considered to be a full course load, then a student must take at least one, and less than three, courses to be considered a part-time student (i.e., 1/5 x 100 = 20 per cent).

o If 30 credits are considered to be a full course load, then a student must take at least six, and less than 18, credits to be considered a part-time student (i.e., 6/30 x 100 = 20 per cent).

Common-Law Marriage A common-law marriage exists if:

o a student has been living with his/her partner in a conjugal relationship for at least three years; or

o a student has been living with his/her partner in a conjugal relationship and are raising any children of whom they are the natural or adoptive parents.

If the above criteria are met, an applicant may be eligible to apply for living expenses funding as a married student.



APPLICATION FORM INTRUCTIONS Application Form Open the Application Form (Adobe PDF). Once the form is open, you will begin on Page 1. Complete each field. Press “Tab” to get to the next field, or click on the desired field.

o Note: Some fields have a drop-down menu, which will appear when you click on the field. Section A – Applicant Information (Page 1) Enter your first, middle and last names Enter your date of birth (D/M/Y) Enter your address (primary residence, e.g., parent(s)’/guardian(s)’ home address) Enter your email address (to be used for future correspondence) Enter your primary phone number (digits only, e.g., 4169876543) Enter your secondary phone number (if applicable) Enter your other phone number (if applicable) Select your marital status

o Note: See the Eligible Expenses and the Definition of Terms sections for more information on marital status definitions.

Select the number of children you have (if applicable) Select the number of children you have under the age of 18 years old (if applicable) Provide your emergency/alternate contact person’s information (a person we may contact in the

event of an emergency or if you are unavailable) o Enter his/her first and last names o Enter his/her relationship to you (e.g., Spouse, Mother, Father, Sister, etc.) o Enter his/her primary phone number o Enter his/her secondary and/or other phone number (if applicable) o Enter his/her email address

Section B – Information on Deceased Public Safety Officer (Page1 and 2) Enter his/her first, middle and last names Enter his/her place of employment (e.g., Ontario Province Police) Select his/her occupation Enter his/her employment address Select his/her relationship to you Indicate if you are a new applicant Indicate if you are making a retroactive claim

o Note: Retroactive claim refers to an application for a funding reimbursement for a previous year of study. Review the Retroactive Applications section for more detail.

Section C – Educational Institution/Studies Information (Page 2) Enter your educational institution Enter the address of the educational institution Enter the undergraduate program name Select the year of study (e.g., 1st year = 1, 2nd year = 2, etc.) Select the designation (i.e., Degree or Diploma) Select the duration of the program (e.g., four-year program = 4) Select your status (e.g., Full-Time or Part-Time)

o Note: See the Definition of Terms section for the definitions of full-time and part-time Select the type of institution (i.e., University, College or Other) Select type of study. If not listed, select “Other” and type in the next field. Indicate proof of study (i.e., document you will submit with your Application Form, e.g.

Admissions/Acceptance Letter, etc.)



Section D – Living Situation (Page 3) Indicate if you will live at your primary residence during the school year (e.g., parent(s)’ or

guardian(s)’ home address) as provided on Page 1 (Select Yes or No) o If no, please type in the address where you will be residing during the school year.

Indicate the distance of travel between the above address and your educational institution Section E – Expenses (Page 3) Indicate the number of month(s) you will be attending school during the current school year Enter the amount of your request for each of the following expense categories:

o tuition, o textbooks, o *shelter*, Note: Eligibility is dependent on your living situation and will be determined

automatically based on the information provided on previous pages. o *food*, o *miscellaneous*, and o local public transportation*.

Totals will be calculated automatically. *For maximum amounts, refer to Appendix A (Student Living Allowances)*

Section F – Scholarship/Bursary (Page 4) List any scholarship and/or bursary that you have or will receive, unless the bursary is from an

association to which the deceased public safety officer belonged Complete all three columns

o First column: Enter the name of scholarship/bursary. o Second column: Enter the year for which the scholarship or bursary was received o Third column: Enter the total amount of the scholarship/bursary

Totals will be calculated automatically. Terms and Conditions (Page 5 and 6) Please read through the Terms and Conditions of the Application and check appropriate boxes. By checking the boxes and signing the page, you understand and agree to the Terms and

Conditions, Proper Use of Funds and the Notice of Collection when applying for a scholarship under the CJMPSOSSF.

SUBMITTING YOUR APPLICATION Instructions

Ensure that all sections and pages of the Application Form have been completed. If you require a Retroactive Application Form or Reconciliation Form, please contact the Ministry.

Save, attach and email the completed Application Form to [email protected]

Please print two copies of the entire application, sign and date both copies, with a witness present.

Keep one hardcopy for your records and mail one hardcopy to the following address with the required documentation: Attention: Yoko Iwasaki, Community Safety Analyst

Ministry of the Solicitor General Public Safety Division, External Relations Branch Program Development Section 25 Grosvenor Street, 12th Floor, Toronto, ON M7A 2H3

Questions and Assistance

If you have any questions or require further assistance, please contact:

Yoko Iwasaki, Tel: (416) 314-3085, Email: [email protected]






Appendix A – Student Living Allowances


Canada Student Loans Program

Student Living Allowances for School Year (Actual Monthly Allowance by Province/Territory)

LIVING SITUATIONS NL PE NS NB QC ON MB SK AB BC YT NT NU

Shelter (2 bedroom apt. inc. utilities shared by two) 495 444 500 458 423 600 495 560 481 871 601 827 829

Food (purchased from stores) 268 243 245 245 272 270 253 259 282 279 305 310 3

Miscellaneous (personal & health care, clothing,

H/H cleaning, communications)234 257 247 237 318 290 303 311 338 342 317 326 327

Local public transportation 69 67 68 71 48 86 100 83 73 108 62 71 71

Total Monthly Allowance ($) 1,066 1,011 1,060 1,011 1,061 1,246 1,151 1,213 1,174 1,600 1,285 1,534 1,230

Shelter (1 bedroom apartment including utilities) 818 742 844 798 708 968 696 934 763 1,250 1,090 1,302 1,305






Shelter (2 bedroom apartment including utilities) 989 874 1,004 906 845 1,197 904 1,120 960 1,763 1,198 1,652 1,665






Shelter 171 182 207 169 154 257 193 186 171 260 181 355 357


Miscellaneous (personal & health care, clothing) 104 75 73 71 120 109 138 141 154 125 95 113 114


Total Monthly Allowance ($) 534 522 547 509 547 663 627 594 617 697 588 786 790

Shelter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Miscellaneous (personal & health care, clothing) 201 196 181 169 225 222 242 248 270 288 210 265 266


Total Monthly Allowance ($) 460 503 494 485 498 519 538 532 562 674 577 583 585

SINGLE STUDENT LIVING AWAY FROM HOME

SINGLE PARENT (no dependent considered)

MARRIED STUDENT & SPOUSE (no dependent considered)

EACH DEPENDENT PERSON

SINGLE STUDENT LIVING AT HOME


Appendix A – Student Living Allowances


Description of Student Living Situations:

Shelter allowance is only provided to students in the living situations as outlined in (a) - (d) below:

a. To be considered a “Single Student Away from Home” for the purposes of the Constable Joe MacDonald Public Safety Officers’ Survivors Scholarship Fund (CJMPSOSSF), a scholarship recipient must be:

• a student who is living away from home (not in his/her parent(s)’/guardian(s)’ home); and

• a student whose educational institution is more than 50 kilometres away from his/her primary residence (parent(s)’/guardian(s)’ home).

b. To be considered a “Single Parent” for the purposes of the CJMPSOSSF, a scholarship recipient must be:

• a student who has legal and/or physical custody and responsibility for supporting a child(ren) and who: o has never been married or in a common-law relationship; o is separated or divorced from a spouse/common-law partner; or o is widowed.

c. To be considered a “Married Student and Spouse” for the purposes of the CJMPSOSSF, a scholarship recipient must be:

• a student who has been living in a conjugal relationship, or a situation similar, for at least three years (common-law marriage), or who is married.

d. For scholarship purposes, a recipient may receive living allowance amounts for each eligible dependent. To be considered to have a “dependent(s)” for the purposes of the CJMPSOSSF, the dependent(s) must be:

• a pre-school child;

• a child attending elementary school; or

• a child in high school who is under the age of 18 years old.

Children in high school who are 18 years of age or older are not considered dependents. Children who have completed high school are also not considered dependents.






Chairs, Police Services Boards FROM: Richard Stubbings Assistant Deputy Minister Public Safety Division SUBJECT: Re-Opening of Ontario’s DriveTest Centres

DATE OF ISSUE: June 19, 2020 CLASSIFICATION: General Information RETENTION: Indefinite INDEX NO.: 20-0097 PRIORITY: Normal

At the request of the Ministry of Transportation (MTO), I am sharing a communication regarding the re-opening of DriveTest centres as of June 22, 2020. Please note, as indicated in the attached, that police services are asked to continue to suspend enforcement of driver and vehicle renewal requirements.

For further information about MTO’s phased approach to Driver Examination services, please review the attached memo from A/Assistant Deputy Minister Nosa Ero-Brown.

If you have any questions, please contact:

• Carlos Cascallar for DriveTest related matters, at 416-235-5312 or [email protected]

• Elizabeth Marles for vehicle related matters, at 416-235-3433 or [email protected]

• Kim MacCarl for Drivers’ Licences or Temporary Drivers’ Licence related matters, at 416-235-5248 or [email protected]

Sincerely,

Richard Stubbings Assistant Deputy Minister Public Safety Division

Attachment







Ministry of Ministère des

Transportation Transports

Road User Safety Division Division de Sécurité Routière 87 Sir William Hearst Avenue 87, avenue Sir William Hearst

Room 191 bureau 191

Toronto, ON M3M 0B4 Toronto, ON M3M 0B4

Tel: 416-235-4453 télé: 416-235-4453

Fax: 416-235-4153 télécopieur: 416-235-4153

June 18, 2020 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Stubbings

Assistant Deputy Minister Public Safety Division Ministry of the Solicitor General

FROM: Nosa Ero-Brown

Assistant Deputy Minister (A) Road User Safety Division Ministry of Transportation RE: DriveTest Reopening This memorandum is to advise you that on June 22, 2020, Ontario will begin a three-

phased approach to gradually resume driver testing.

Phase 1 - June 22, 2020: All 56 full-time DriveTest centres will reopen for knowledge

and vision tests for G1 & M1 licences, driver’s licence exchanges and commercial

driver’s licence applications and upgrades. Commercial road tests will also be available

by appointment at 28 locations across Ontario.

Phase 2 - August 4, 2020: Road testing for G2 driver licences and all motorcycle

licences will resume. Commercial driver road testing will expand to the remaining 22

DriveTest locations across Ontario that road test commercial drivers. Also, many part-

time Travel Point locations will begin reopening.

Phase 3 - September 8, 2020: G road testing resumes. All DriveTest centres and Travel

Point locations fully operational.

As previously communicated, temporary regulations have been made under the Highway Traffic Act, Photo Card Act, and Motorized Snow Vehicles Act to extend the validity of the various driver and vehicle products that would have otherwise expired on or after March 1, 2020. The extension continues until further notice.

…/2 -2-

The Ministry is seeking police services’ support to continue to suspend enforcement of driver and vehicle renewal requirements. Drivers with expired licences and/or licence plates are currently permitted to operate in Ontario until further notice. Consequently, where a driver’s licence or a licence plate appears to have expired it may in fact still be valid under the temporary regulations. These may include but are not limited to:

o All licence plate validation stickers o Online purchase receipts of validation stickers o Special Permits o Ontario Photo Cards and Enhanced Driver’s Licence for driving purposes o All classes of Ontario driver’s licences, including the temporary driver’s

licence and Driving Instructors’ licence If any police services would like to discuss these amended programs, they may contact:

• For DriveTest related matters, Carlos Cascallar, Manager, Driver Examination Services Office, at 416-235-5312 or [email protected]

• For vehicle related enquiries, Elizabeth Marles, Manager, Vehicle Programs Office, at 416-235-3433 or [email protected]

• For Drivers’ Licences or Temporary Drivers’ Licence related enquiries, Kim MacCarl, Manager, Driver Programs Office, at 416-235-5248 or [email protected]

Thank you for your assistance in communicating these changes.

Nosa Ero-Brown Assistant Deputy Minister (A) Road User Safety Division












Chairs, Police Services Boards

FROM: Richard Stubbings Assistant Deputy Minister Public Safety Division

SUBJECT: Enforcement of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019

DATE OF ISSUE: June 19, 2020 CLASSIFICATION: General Information RETENTION: Indefinite INDEX NO.: 20-0098 PRIORITY: Normal

Further to All Chiefs Memo 19-0093, issued on December 19, 2019, regarding the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 (PAWS Act), I am writing to provide some clarification regarding enforcement of the PAWS Act. Effective January 1, 2020, the PAWS Act came into force creating a new provincial animal welfare enforcement model. The Ministry of the Solicitor General established the Animal Welfare Services (AWS) branch, with a Chief Animal Welfare Inspector who has in turn appointed animal welfare inspectors across the province. As you know, the Ontario Animal Protection Call Centre, which is available 24/7 to respond to public calls regarding animals in distress or being abused, triages calls to the appropriate authority including provincial animal welfare inspectors or local police. Police officers and First Nations Constables have authority under section 60 of the PAWS Act to exercise the powers of an animal welfare inspector in relation to animals in distress and the investigation of offences. Taking Possession of Animals in Distress Section 60 of the PAWS Act includes the power for police officers and First Nations Constables to take possession of animals in distress in order to relieve their distress, as per section 31 of the PAWS Act.

…/2

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/19p13

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/19p13

-2-

In order to exercise this power under section 31, police officers and First Nations Constables who take possession of an animal must provide prompt notice to an animal welfare inspector per section 60 of the PAWS Act. They may do so by contacting the Ontario Animal Protection Centre at 1-833-9- ANIMAL (1-833-926-4625) and requesting to speak with the inspector on call. The inspector on call can provide advice and assistance in terms of the necessaries that may need to be provided to relieve the animal’s distress, including, for example, when veterinary care may be required, the scope of that care, and how to obtain these services. Following this notice, as required per section 60 of the PAWS Act, an animal welfare inspector will conduct an inspection of the animal and determine whether to take possession of the animal. AWS may decline to cover costs that police services incur while animals are in their possession prior to an animal welfare inspector taking possession. Police services are therefore encouraged to discuss the provision of necessaries and costs with the inspector on call.

Pets in Hot Cars With the onset of warmer weather, it is anticipated that police officers and First Nations Constables will be receiving calls regarding pets left in hot cars. This can result in serious animal injury or fatality.

The public are advised to call 911 if they see an animal in a hot car and are concerned that the animal’s life is in immediate danger. The PAWS Act authorizes police, First Nations Constables, and animal welfare inspectors to enter motor vehicles to remove animals. Members of the public are advised not to attempt entering a vehicle in these situations. Where they have reasonable grounds to believe that an animal is in critical distress, police officers and First Nations Constables have the authority under section 29 of the PAWS Act to enter places including motor vehicles. Critical distress is defined in the PAWS Act as “distress requiring immediate intervention in order to prevent serious injury or to preserve life”. Some visible signs of critical distress in dogs, for example, include excessive panting or drooling, listlessness, collapsing or seizures. Should an animal be removed from a motor vehicle, section 60 of the PAWS Act applies and notification to an animal welfare inspector shall occur promptly, should animals need to be taken into possession as described above.

…/3

-3-

I ask that you share this memorandum with police officers and First Nations Constables who may be exercising powers under the PAWS Act and communications and dispatch personnel in your respective public safety answering points regarding 911 calls for service in relation to animals in hot cars, particularly with summer commencing. The ministry looks forward to continuing to work in partnership with you as we implement the new provincial animal welfare enforcement model to help ensure animals are protected. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact Georgios Fthenos, Deputy Chief Inspector, Animal Welfare Services at [email protected]. Sincerely,

Richard Stubbings Assistant Deputy Minister Public Safety Division








Chairs, Police Services Boards FROM: Richard Stubbings Assistant Deputy Minister Public Safety Division SUBJECT: Re-opening of Courts on July 6, 2020

DATE OF ISSUE: June 30, 2020 CLASSIFICATION: General Information RETENTION: Indefinite INDEX NO.: 20-0102 PRIORITY: High

Further to All Chiefs Memos 20-0016, 20-0021 and 20-0094, I am sharing additional information regarding the precautions that policing personnel should take when courts re-open on July 6, 2020. As part of a phased approach, the Ministry of the Attorney General is implementing precautionary health and safety measures in each courthouse to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The Ministry of the Attorney General is also actively working with all justice partners to implement a transparent and orderly return to operations. A list of the courthouses that are expected to be re-opened as of July 6 are listed in the chart on page 4. In addition, court security personnel will continue to be expected to perform their duties pursuant to Part X of the Police Services Act. Completing the screening questionnaire for members of the public will be a prerequisite to entering the courthouse. A notice will be posted on the public-facing internet site informing of active screening protocols at court locations. Transportation of Persons in Custody

With the re-opening of the courts, policing personnel will be required to resume transportation of accused persons to court from correctional facilities. Correctional facilities have taken precautionary measures to limit the spread of COVID-19 in their facilities.

…/2

-2-

For further detail, please see attached In-Person Court Appearances Guidance document that is intended to be used in correctional facilities to support the protection of the health and well-being of correctional staff and persons in custody (please note that as the situation evolves, this document may be updated). The Ministry of the Solicitor General (ministry) will be relying on policing personnel to ensure that risk of transmission of the virus is minimized during the transportation process and appearance in court (e.g., ensuring physical distancing is implemented in court holding cells between persons in custody).

It is critically important for police services boards and chiefs of police who have the responsibility for the transportation of persons in custody to implement all the following advice:

• Conduct active screening for policing personnel and any individual taken into custody and to follow any appropriate measures for those that screen positive for COVID-19.

o Active screening involves an individual being required to answer questions pertaining to COVID-19 (please refer to All Chiefs Memo 20-0016).

o If a person screens positive on site, they should be instructed to wear a surgical / procedure mask (if physically tolerated). Those persons should also be advised to perform hand hygiene

and ensure that used masks are not left in common areas or transportation vehicles.

The individual should be secluded immediately and placed in a room or transportation vehicle with the door closed, where possible and appropriate, to avoid contact with other persons in custody in common areas of the court.

• Keep daily records of policing personnel, transported individuals, and others who may be involved in the transport process to facilitate contact tracing in the event of a confirmed COVID-19 case or outbreak.

• When conducting a point of interaction risk assessment, policing personnel should consider that transmission of COVID-19 can occur through direct or indirect contact and through droplets.

• Take extra precautionary measures during the transportation of persons in custody to, and from, police facilities, correctional institutions and courts:

o Encourage respiratory etiquette (i.e., covering mouth and nose with a tissue and immediately discarding the tissue into a receptacle, cough or sneeze into the crook of elbow or use tissues that are immediately discarded in the appropriate receptable followed by performing hand hygiene);

…/3

-3-

o Maintain a minimum of two (2) metres (6 feet) of distancing between people throughout their journey;

o When maintaining a two-metre distance on transport vehicles is not practical or possible, putting in place proper personal protective equipment (PPE) should be emphasized for persons in custody (i.e., surgical/procedure masks, gloves, eye protection such as goggles or face shield, physical barriers between those using the transport vehicle);

o Use physical markers (such as seat and floor decals) between seats in transport vehicles, where possible; and

o Avoid physical contact, where possible.

• Enhanced cleaning measures for transportation vehicles and commonly touched surfaces on vehicles (e.g., the steering wheel, the seatbelt, the seats, interior rear-review mirror and interior and exterior door handles) before and after every transport and ensuring the use of a cleaning agent, approved for use in Canada by Health Canada (i.e., cleaning and disinfectant products that have a Drug Identification Number (DIN)), designed to kill bacteria, fungi and viruses on hard surfaces within 10 minutes of application or fewer.

o To the extent possible, maintain the availability of alcohol-based hand sanitizer or disinfectant wipes upon entrance and exit to the vehicle.

o Develop a hygiene, cleaning and disinfection protocol for transport vehicles and maintain frequent cleaning routine for all high-touch surfaces such as door handles, handrails, and countertops should be cleaned frequently.

• Endeavour to minimize the number of individuals in custody that are travelling together in any transport vehicle considering, to the extent practical, best public health practices, which include:

o Physical distancing of two metres or more; o Avoid mixing individuals transported from correctional facilities with other

individuals taken into custody at the court. If mixing of individuals cannot be prevented, precautionary measures such as the use of PPEs should be taken;

o Avoiding contact with people who are sick or those have been tested and are awaiting test results; and

o Washing hands often with soap and water or hand sanitizer and ensuring that in-custody person(s) have also used hand sanitizer before they enter the transport vehicle and again before entry and upon exiting the courtroom.

Police services boards and chiefs of police should prepare for any increased requests and allocate the appropriate resources needed to facilitate the administration of justice in a timely manner, including staffing court facilities with additional policing personnel.

…/4

-4-

Policing personnel are also reminded to continue to take the necessary extra precautions to protect themselves from COVID-19 exposure during the transportation of persons in custody to, and from, police facilities, correctional institutions and courts. In addition, policing personnel should be performing frequent hand hygiene between each transportation of person(s) in custody and use PPE (e.g., surgical/procedure masks, gloves and eye protection) as they interact with persons in custody and members of the public attending court facilities. For additional information, please consult the attached Guidebook – Precautionary Measures for Re-opening Courts from the Ministry of the Attorney General. As the situation with COVID-19 continues to evolve, the guidebook will be reviewed and updated further. Resumption of Trials and Preliminary Inquiries on July 6, 2020, at Specified Court Locations The Ontario Court of Justice will resume hearing criminal trials and preliminary inquiries on July 6, 2020, in a limited number of courtrooms in all courthouses that are part of Phase One of the Ministry of the Attorney General’s plan. All trials and preliminary inquiries involving accused persons who are in custody and who are out of custody will proceed as scheduled in the following Ontario Court of Justice locations:

Region Courthouses

Central East Barrie, Newmarket, Oshawa (Durham), Lindsay

Central West Brampton, Brantford, Hamilton, Milton, Orangeville, St Catharines

East Belleville (Quinte), Cornwall, Kingston, Ottawa, Pembroke

Northeast North Bay, Sault Ste Marie, Sudbury

Northwest Thunder Bay

Toronto Toronto North (1000 Finch Ave W), Toronto East (1911 Eglinton Ave E), Toronto West (2201 Finch Ave W), 311 Jarvis St, College Park (444 Yonge St), Old City Hall (60 Queen St W)

West Chatham, Guelph, Kitchener (Waterloo Region), London, Owen Sound, Sarnia, St Thomas (Elgin County), Windsor

The Ministry of the Attorney General will introduce engineering controls and PPE to ensure the safety of entry personnel at courthouses.

…/5

-5-

I trust this information will be of use to you. Thank you again for your continued collaboration during these challenging times. Sincerely,

Richard Stubbings Assistant Deputy Minister Public Safety Division Attachments

1 Ministry of the Solicitor General CONFIDENTIAL

Process for In-Person Court Appearances

Introduction

In March of 2020, courthouses were closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In

partnership with the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ministry of the Solicitor

General (the ministry) moved all court appearances to video or telephone in order to

reduce the movement of inmates in and out of the institutions.

On July 6, 2020, as the province continues its path to recovery, both the Superior Court

of Justice and the Ontario Court of Justice will reopen their courts on a limited basis.

The ministry will be working with our justice partners to facilitate the attendance of

inmates at court as required.

Given the nature of our institutional environments, as well as the robust health and

safety guidance that has been established to limit COVID-19 risk exposure for our

inmates and staff, it is critical that the reintroduction of in-person court hearings is done

in line with best infection prevention and control practices.

Guiding Principles

• Inmates in intake or isolation units will only attend court by video.

• Inmates are unfit for in-person court if they:

o Have tested positive for COVID-19 and have not been cleared by

Corporate Health Care;

o Are awaiting a COVID-19 test result;

o Have been determined to be medically unfit by health care;

o Report illness prior to leaving and health care is not able to assess prior to

leaving the institution;

o Are currently housed in medical isolation or in an intake unit.

• Inmates who report illness will be assessed by health care and made unfit for

court, if appropriate.

• Health Care will receive a court list minimally 24 hours in advance, where

possible, and provide one-on-one health teaching on how and when to use a

mask, the importance of physical distancing and not touching your face, proper

hand hygiene and cough etiquette, and the importance of reporting illness.

• Inmates will be provided with the required PPE (level 1 surgical mask) for use

while out of institution.

• Upon return to the institution, inmates will be monitored through a point of care

assessment to determine level of exposure risk while outside the institution.


• Ministry of the Attorney General and police services guidelines will be expected

to be followed while in the custody of police services and at the courthouse.

• While in transit or in court, inmates should:

o Be wearing a level 1 surgical mask at all times if unable to be 2 metres

apart from others with no physical barrier, and

o Have access to hand hygiene (either sink, soap and water or hand

sanitizer) throughout the process.

• A replacement mask should be provided for inmates should the mask become

contaminated, soiled or wet.

• Institutions should maintain regular contact with local police services to ensure

that guiding principles are followed.

• Inmates must be screened by Correctional Staff per Inmate Screening for

Symptoms of ILI upon return from court.

• Inmates returning from court will also have additional questions asked by

correctional staff using the Return from Court Risk Assessment to assess

exposure risks and health care will be contacted, where indicated.

• The information gathered from the ILI screening and Court Risk Assessment may

generate a change in housing requirements (e.g., intake unit or isolated) and the

individual may need to be monitored for 14 days from their Court appearance.

• Logs must be kept for those who make court appearances and ideally all persons

cohorted for transport or at court along with contact information, in case exposure

is identified and contact follow up becomes necessary.

Process for In-Person Court Appearances

1. Prior to leaving the institution

a) Health Care staff will review the court list 24 hours in advance and provide one to

one health teaching on how and when to use a mask, the importance of physical

distancing and not touching your face, proper hand hygiene and cough etiquette,

and the importance of reporting illness.

b) Inmates will be provided with the required PPE (level 1 surgical mask) for use

while out of institution.

c) The institution must provide notification as per policy to the Ministry of the

Attorney General if the inmate will not be appearing at court.

d) Correctional staff will give each inmate leaving the institution one (1) level 1

surgical/procedural mask which is to be worn at all times if unable to be 2 metres

apart from others with no physical barrier.


2. At the courthouse

a) Inmates will follow all police services guidelines while in their custody.

b) Inmates will follow all Ministry of the Attorney General guidelines while at the

courthouse. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Wearing a mask as required;

• Keeping physical distance; and

• Sanitizing/washing hands as appropriate.

3. Returning to the institution

a) Each inmate must be screened by correctional staff each time they return to the

institution using the Inmate Screening for Symptoms of ILI and the Return from

Court Risk Assessment.

b) If the inmate does not pass the screening, correctional staff are to follow the

Correctional Officer Influenza-Like Symptom Screening Algorithm for Inmates.

c) Inmates who pass screening and are determined to not be an exposure risk may

be returned to the unit they had been housed in prior to leaving. They are not to

proceed to the intake unit.

Local Direction for (Add Institution Name)

i. Each institution should add any specific steps that their institution needs to take, due to operational requirements. These steps must be reviewed by the Regional Office and cleared by the Central Response Team (CRT) before implemented.






Chairs, Police Services Boards FROM: Richard Stubbings Assistant Deputy Minister Public Safety Division SUBJECT: Updated Special Investigations Unit Act In-force Date

DATE OF ISSUE: July 15, 2020 CLASSIFICATION: General Information RETENTION: Indefinite INDEX NO.: 20-0109 PRIORITY: Normal

Further to All Chiefs Memo 20-0001, the Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG) has requested that I share an update on the in-force date of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), which was originally proposed for June 30, 2020 and is now being proposed for December 1, 2020. For further information, please review the attached memo from Assistant Deputy Attorney General Jane Mallen. As noted in the MAG memo, feedback on the proposed in-force date can be submitted to Mariela Orellana at [email protected] up to August 15, 2020. Sincerely,

Richard Stubbings Assistant Deputy Minister Public Safety Division Attachment



of 2

Ministry of the Attorney General

Ministère du Procureur général

Office of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General

Bureau du sous-procureur général adjoint

Policy Division Division des politiques

McMurtry-Scott Building 720 Bay Street, 7th Floor Toronto, ON M7A 2S9

Edifice McMurtry-Scott 720, rue Bay, 7e étage Toronto, ON M7A 2S9

Tel: Fax:

416-326-5446 416 326-2699

Tél: Téléc:

416-326-5446 416 326-2699

Our Reference #: ADAG2020-17 July 15, 2020

MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT:

Richard Stubbings, Assistant Deputy Minister Public Safety Division, Ministry of the Solicitor General Jane Mallen, A/Assistant Deputy Attorney General Policy Division, Ministry of the Attorney General

Special Investigations Unit Act In-force Date

The purpose of this memorandum is to advise policing stakeholders across the province of the government’s proposal to bring the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act) into force on December 1, 2020. This date has been adjusted due to the global outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. As you are aware, on March 26, 2019, Bill 68, the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, 2019 received Royal Assent. The Act includes a new standalone statute,

the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), which will clarify the mandate of the

SIU to focus investigative resources where they are needed, on potential criminal

conduct.

Once in force, the SIU Act will:

• establish the SIU as a fully independent provincial agency;

• require the SIU to investigate any discharge of a firearm at a person by an official,

regardless of whether serious injury or death occurred;

• clarify the ability of the SIU to investigate potential criminal conduct within its

mandate;

• permit the SIU to investigate special constables employed by the Niagara Parks

Commission and peace officers in the Legislative Protective Service, in addition to

police officers; and,

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/19s01

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/s19001

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/s19001

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/19s01

of 2

• require the SIU to report publicly on investigations that take more than 120 days to

complete and release further updates every 30 days thereafter.

As the province gradually reopens, members of the law enforcement community are

being asked to provide feedback on the proposed date via email to Mariela Orellana,

Director of the Agency and Tribunals Relations Branch in the Ministry of the Attorney

General at [email protected] by August 15, 2020 and to provide contact

information should additional information be required by the government.

Thank you for your assistance in bringing this memorandum to the attention of the

policing community.

Sincerely,

Jane Mallen A/Assistant Deputy Attorney General Policy Division Ministry of the Attorney General


SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

ANNUAL REPORT 2019

www.siu.on.ca

S8.B

2

Director’s Message ...................................................................................................................... 3-4

Making Connections to Enhance Oversight ............................................................................... 5-7

Investing in Education ............................................................................................................... 8-10

Communications ...................................................................................................................... 11-12

Outreach .................................................................................................................................. 13-14

Affected Persons Program ...................................................................................................... 15-16

Training .................................................................................................................................... 17-18

Statistically Speaking ............................................................................................................... 19-29

Cases at a Glance ..................................................................................................................... 30-44

Case Breakdown Chart ............................................................................................................ 45-49

2019-2020 Financials ............................................................................................................... 50-52

SIU Organization Chart ................................................................................................................. 53

CONTENTS

3

It is my pleasure to present the SIU Annual Report for the 2019 calendar year. Its publication is the culmination of the collective efforts of many SIU personnel, whom I thank dearly for their time and energy invested in this critical project.

The Annual Report represents a detailed look at the business of the SIU in 2019. The SIU is Ontario’s oversight agency tasked with conducting investigations of the circumstances around serious injury, allegations of sexual assault and death in cases involving the police. Staffed with civilian investigators and completely separate from the province’s police services, the SIU conducts

independent investigations to determine whether there are grounds to charge a police officer in relation to the serious injury, sexual assault complaint or death under review. Where such grounds exist, the SIU director is compelled to charge the officer. Conversely, where the grounds do not exist, the SIU director cannot lay charges, and instead issues a public report summarizing the investigation and his or her reasons for decision.

The purpose giving rise to the SIU, whose creation and governing legal framework is set out in section 113 of the Police Services Act and a regulation under the Act (O. Reg. 267/10) is clear – police accountability and public confidence. Society vests incredible powers in the police, including the power to encroach on an individual’s liberty and to use force, including lethal force, in the execution of their duties. The citizenry grants these powers on condition that they will be exercised strictly in accordance with the law and that officers will be held to account for any lapses. To the extent the public trust that their police services are being held to account for their conduct, their confidence in policing grows. This is where the SIU comes in. By ensuring that police conduct is subject to rigorous and independent investigation, and that charges are laid where appropriate, the SIU ties the concern for police accountability with the need for public confidence in policing.

Ontarians may justly be proud of their SIU. Borne in 1990 of a crisis of public confidence in a system in which the police policed themselves, the SIU remains today at the forefront of civilian oversight of the police in Canada and around the world. In these pages, for example, you will read of two international delegations that visited the SIU’s offices to learn from its experience and how it operates.

I am also pleased to report that the women and men of the SIU performed admirably in meeting the challenges of 2019. Though the SIU saw a decline in its caseload year-to-year,

DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE

4

investigative staff – investigators, forensic investigators and managers - continued to work under the pressures of a significant workload while ensuring that high standards of investigative integrity were maintained. In this, they were expertly assisted by in-house professional advice and services in the fields of victim services, training, media relations, outreach, administration, information technology, and law. I thank each of them for their tireless work.

Of course, there is always room for improvement. Thus, while the SIU has in recent years significantly reduced its backlog of cases – 151 open investigations at the end of 2019 compared to 231 at the close of 2018 – it must continue to trend in this direction if the office is to build on the trust of the community. The SIU must also do more to engage the diverse communities it serves through its outreach initiatives, including more targeted efforts in relation to young people, Indigenous and racialized communities, and other vulnerable groups within society. Finally, in line with the spirit of the 2017 report on the SIU by The Honourable Michael Tulloch, transparency remains paramount and the SIU must continue to push the envelope with the amount of information released to the public while respecting the legal limitations in place meant to protect the integrity of SIU investigations.

As I write this message, I have accepted a two-year appointment as the SIU’s director, having served in the interim director capacity for most of 2019. It is a high honour and I pledge to bring my full talents and energies to bear every day while I hold the seat. The SIU belongs to the public, and we who work here are its temporary custodians. We can only hope and aspire to do you proud.

In embarking on this journey over the next couple of years, I would be remiss if I did not pay homage to the Unit’s preceding directors with whom I had the privilege to work with closely as the SIU’s counsel and then its deputy director, and from whom I learned so much – James Cornish, Ian Scott and Tony Loparco. I would especially be remiss in failing to salute Peter Tinsley, who expertly guided the SIU in a period of transformational change in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Director Tinsley passed away in April of this year. His legacy at the SIU lives on.

Sincerely,

Joseph Martino

Director, Special Investigations Unit

5

Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement The 2019 Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (CACOLE) conference was held in Toronto, Ontario from May 27-30, 2019. This annual conference brings together delegates – approximately 130 this year - from police oversight agencies, community groups, law enforcement and academia from across Canada, the United States and the world. The conference – titled Experience, Challenges & Opportunities – included the following topics:

• Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in Policing • Excited Delirium, Conducted Energy Weapons, and Positional Asphyxia • Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls – Indigenous Perspective • Cannabis ‘A New Reality’ • Police Use of Video Technology: Limitations & Prospects • De-Escalation and Strip Searches • Independence • Oversight and the Media

On behalf of the SIU, the conference was attended by the SIU’s interim director at the time, executive officer, communications and outreach coordinators, and legal counsel.

Meeting with Georgia’s State Inspector’s Service On December 9, 2019, the SIU was honoured to host Sophio Jiadze, the Head of Administration of Georgia’s new State Inspector’s Service, and her associate, Adiba Hasan, a graduate student with the Munk School. Ms. Jiadze was enrolled in a fellowship program at the Munk School dealing with policing and accountability issues, and her visit to the SIU was a fact-finding mission organized through her studies to learn how the office operates. SIU staff also learned about the important work of Georgia’s new office headquartered in Tbilisi. It conducts investigations of alleged criminal activity of law enforcement officials while also serving as the country’s protectorate of people’s privacy and data. The two offices committed to a continued relationship.

MAKING CONNECTIONS TO ENHANCE OVERSIGHT

6

Hosting Delegation from Japan On February 5, 2019, Mr. Satoshi Mishima, Professor of Criminal Justice in the Faculty of Law at Osaka City University, and Ms. Yoko Inoue, Attorney at Law, Kizugawa Law Office, Osaka, Japan, visited the SIU headquarters in Mississauga. They were in Canada to meet with various police oversight groups. Then SIU Director, Tony Loparco, discussed the challenges encountered by the SIU in its role of police oversight through its history from its inception in 1990.

Volunteer Assignment at French Medical Institute for Mothers and Children (FMIC), Kabul, Afghanistan From May 31, 2019 to July 31, 2019, SIU forensic investigator Aly Ramji took a leave of absence from the Special Investigations Unit and made his way to Kabul, Afghanistan, to work at the French Medical Institute for Mothers and Children (FMIC). The FMIC is a not-for-profit hospital dedicated to providing world-class medical services to children throughout Afghanistan. The hospital is run through an innovative four-way partnership between the Government of Afghanistan, the Government of France, the Aga Khan Development Network, and La Chaîne de l’Espoir, a French non-governmental organization. Mr. Ramji volunteered with the hopes of using his experience to help those less fortunate. Investigator Ramji speaks of his experience: Approximately one year prior to my assignment, a security solutions company had gone into the FMIC to see how safety and security could be improved in all departments of the hospital. As a result, 159 recommendations were made. For instance, one recommendation outlined the need for the customer information counter to have a barrier to the public. Once arriving in Kabul, my job was to determine which recommendations had been fully implemented, which ones were in the process and which ones had not yet begun, and to provide input where necessary. For this, I relied on my experience as an SIU forensic investigator over the last several years, and as a Toronto Police Service officer for 30 years prior to that. I was given unfettered access to every section of the hospital and staff answered my questions readily. I was also greatly assisted by members of the Safety and Security Office. At the conclusion of my assignment, I submitted my findings to the FMIC team. The report was well-received, and I was advised that the report would be presented at the annual board meeting, which was to be held shortly after my departure. Due to turmoil and safety concerns in Kabul, including numerous incidents of explosions within the city during my time there, I was advised not to venture outside the hospital compound. Being confined to the hospital gave me the opportunity to help improve the Safety and Security

7

Office. I was able to assist with the creation of policies and procedures, and I was able to utilize my knowledge and skills to help modernize some aspects of the Safety and Security Office. I trained security guards on certain topics, and ensured they were able to continue training others when I was back in Canada. This assignment was an extremely fulfilling experience. The people of Afghanistan – civilians and FMIC personnel – were polite, humble and always went above and beyond to ensure I was comfortable and that my personal needs were met. At every turn, steps were taken to ensure my personal security was not compromised. I developed relationships that I am sure will last forever, and I look forward to going back to Afghanistan one day soon.

Investigator Ramji (yellow collar) providing training to security guards from the Safety and Security Office.

8

Student Program During the fall and winter months, the SIU engages in various cooperative student placements to give youth a chance to work in their field of study. The SIU connects with various colleges and universities to accommodate these placements during the year. In addition, the SIU has summer student work placements between April and August. Although the types of assignments given to students vary from year to year, some examples of experiences gained at the SIU include:

• Data collection and various administrative functions; • Legal research and memos; • Assisting with the SIU case management system; • Attending court and observing proceedings; • Attending training and outreach sessions; • Learning about the P.E.A.C.E.1 model of investigative interviewing; • Learning about investigative processes and forensic investigations; • Participating in an investigation exercise (mock interviews, preparation of follow-up

reports and the Director’s Report, etc.); and • Observing investigations.

The SIU is proud of its student program and continues to be impressed with the caliber of students who have come through the program. While the students have learned much from the SIU, the SIU has also enjoyed the contributions and fresh perspectives offered by the students.

1 A non-accusatory, information gathering approach to investigative interviewing, the P.E.A.C.E. model is considered to be a best practice. P.E.A.C.E. stands for Preparation and Planning, Engage and Explain, Account, Clarify and Challenge, Closure, and Evaluation.

INVESTING IN EDUCATION

9

PROFILE: Cassidy MacKay, Summer Student Being a Forensic and Psychology major, I was thrilled to have the chance to work as a summer student at the Special Investigations Unit in 2019. I am incredibly grateful for the opportunity to apply my knowledge in such an interesting setting, while also learning new things and gaining valuable firsthand experience. In my time at the SIU, I was not only able to assist with administrative tasks, but I also learned about the investigative process. My responsibilities included receptionist and administrative duties, attending an outreach session, attending a training presentation, viewing an autopsy and completing an investigation exercise with my fellow summer students. I was able to learn about investigative procedures and methods, such as report writing and the P.E.A.C.E. interviewing technique, and apply these newfound skills to our investigation exercise. My time allowed me to gain insight into this area of law enforcement, and to consider the questions and problems that investigators must face in their investigations. This has been an amazing experience and I am very thankful for all the staff members who supported me and included me in a variety of tasks and opportunities.

PROFILE: Lindsay Maharaj, Summer Student My experience at the Special Investigations Unit was like no other! I had the opportunity to work alongside incredible employees and gain hands-on experience in the field of investigations and police oversight. As a Masters of Criminology and Criminal Justice Policy (CCJP) student at the University of Guelph, working at the SIU gave me several opportunities to reach my full potential, including the ability to conduct my own research and write an extensive research paper. I collected data and analyzed cases of sexual assault allegations within police services, the impact of the #metoo movement, and the role of the SIU as a civilian agency. Working as a Summer Student allowed me to tag along with Investigators, attend a Coroner’s Inquest, travel for an Outreach Session with Forensic Investigators, participate in weekly

10

meetings, initiate a mock case, integrate P.E.A.C.E. interviewing techniques, write interview synopses, and compose a Director’s Report. I will be returning to school not only with professional learning and personal growth, but with meaningful connections within the field of justice! Thank you to all SIU staff members for making my summer experience one I will never forget and for always supporting me in my future endeavours.

Take Our Kids to Work Day On Wednesday, November 6, 2019, the SIU participated in the Take Our Kids to Work Day. This annual event allows grade nine students to step into their future for a day and peer into the working world. This year, five students took part in the full-day program, which had them participate in an SIU “investigation” from start to finish. During the day, the students took on roles as forensic investigators and assessed, documented and collected evidence at a mock scene set up in the SIU parking lot. They also learned about forensic testing of the evidence they had collected, conducted civilian interviews and analyzed connections between the physical evidence and witness statements. The day finished with the students presenting their findings to the SIU director and learning about what the director must consider in making his final decision. The day proved to be a great success with the students walking away with a greater appreciation of the nuts and bolts of civilian oversight in Ontario. In addition, the opportunity shed light on the potential career opportunities that exist in the justice field.

11

Communication with the Media Communication with the media is important in ensuring that the SIU remains responsive, transparent and accountable to the public it serves. Because the SIU takes on cases at all hours of the day and night across the province, SIU Communications has made it a priority to respond to media 24 hours a day, seven days a week. From January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019, SIU Communications responded to approximately 600 inquiries from media via phone, email, text, Twitter and in-person. The nature of the questions varied, with media looking for the following types of information:

• Updates on SIU cases; • Statistics; and • Backgrounder information to get a better understanding of SIU policies and procedures.

While the vast majority of calls were from media across Ontario, SIU Communications also responded to inquiries from across the country, as well as international media.

Status of SIU Cases The SIU is mandated with investigating incidents involving police that have resulted in serious injury, death, or an allegation of sexual assault. Due to the complexity and/or circumstances of any particular case, these investigations can require a significant amount of time to complete. The length of an investigation may be impacted by how long it takes to conduct interviews, and gather and analyze physical evidence. For example, significant delay can result when the SIU must await the completion of expert reports from outside organizations with respect to the forensic analysis of evidence or the completion of a post-mortem examination report. While the SIU recognizes it is important to resolve cases in a timely manner, the thoroughness of the investigation must take precedence over the length of time it takes to finish an investigation.

In an effort to keep the public up-to-date on the progress of SIU investigations, the Unit continues to proactively provide updates on each investigation via the Unit’s Status of SIU Cases chart at https://www.siu.on.ca/en/case_status.php, a practice that began July 1, 2018.

COMMUNICATIONS

https://www.siu.on.ca/en/case_status.php

12

News Releases In 2019, the SIU issued 419 news releases.

74 News releases were issued in the early stages of an investigation

The SIU has committed to issuing news releases at the beginning of investigations in cases where a death has occurred, a firearm has caused serious injury, there has been major vehicle collision, and other cases that have generated significant public interest.

227 News releases were issued in cases where the evidence did not satisfy the director that there were reasonable grounds to lay charges At the conclusion of an SIU investigation, if the evidence does not satisfy the director that there are reasonable grounds to lay criminal charges, a Director’s Report is produced and posted to the SIU’s website. Each time a report is published, the SIU notifies the public of the report by issuing a news release.

102 News releases were issued for cases terminated by memo

In order to promote transparency, investigations that are terminated because the mandate of the SIU is not engaged, including instances in which it is determined that no serious injury was sustained, the SIU issues a news release. This practice was initiated in the summer of 2017.

13 News releases were issued in cases where charges were laid

In 2019, charges were laid in 13 cases, and a news release was issued each time.

3 News releases were issued for non-case-related reasons (e.g. annual report, alerting the public of fraudulent calls being made using the SIU phone number, etc.)

In cases involving allegations of sexual assault, the SIU, as a general matter, will not release details to the public which could potentially identify the individual alleging a sexual assault occurred or the officer who is the subject of the allegation. This is so because the release of information related to investigations of sexual assault allegations is associated with a risk of further deterring what is already an under-reported crime and undermining the heightened privacy interests of the involved parties, most emphatically, the complainants. The SIU hopes that by not releasing identifying information in these cases, potential complainants will be encouraged to come forward. As with other types of cases, once a sexual assault investigation is underway, it is denoted on the Status of SIU Cases chart.

13

Presentations

Engagement with Ontario’s diverse communities and stakeholders remains at the heart of the SIU’s outreach function. A core objective of outreach is to increase public knowledge of the SIU’s mandate, while creating meaningful dialogue with community stakeholders. Developing, strengthening and fostering relationships through outreach efforts enhances transparency, encourages mutual awareness and, ultimately, increases the public’s confidence in the SIU’s work throughout Ontario.

The SIU Library Series outreach initiative, begun in 2017, continued its partnership with the Toronto, London and Hamilton Public Libraries throughout 2019. Presentations were centred on five themes as they pertain to the SIU:

Program 1: What is the Special Investigations Unit - A Course for Newcomers

Program 2: Dispelling the Myths of the Special Investigations Unit

Program 3: How the Special Investigations Unit Operates

Program 4: The Science Behind Special Investigations Unit Investigations

Program 5: SIU Youth Program

While the SIU’s outreach efforts were hampered as the Outreach Coordinator position was vacant for a significant period in 2019, the following chart sets out the number of presentations made to different categories of audiences.

Audience Number completed Academia (college, university, high school) 41 Community

7

Police

6

Public library series

22

TOTAL

75

OUTREACH

14

First Nations, Inuit and Métis Liaison Program In 2019, the SIU investigated 19 cases where the complainant2 identified as First Nations, Inuit or Métis. The SIU’s First Nations, Inuit and Métis Liaison Program (FNIMLP) is geared to providing culturally sensitive guidance in the Unit’s approach to incidents involving First Nations, Inuit and Métis persons or communities. In the context of cultural awareness and sensitivity, areas of focus include investigations, training, recruitment, policy development and reporting. Members of the Program also serve an outreach and liaison function by developing and maintaining positive professional relationships with leaders and representatives of First Nations, Inuit and Métis organizations and communities. On a bi-annual basis, the SIU reports out to Provincial Territorial Organizations3 with respect to the work of the FNIMLP.

2The “complainant” is the person in SIU cases who has been seriously injured, died or alleged sexual assault. 3 The Provincial Territorial Organizations represent the various First Nations within the boundaries of present day Ontario.

15

The Affected Persons Program (APP) is a vital component of the SIU, providing support services to those negatively impacted by incidents investigated by the Unit. The APP aims to respond to the psychosocial and practical needs of complainants, their family members and witnesses by offering immediate crisis support, information, guidance, advocacy and referrals to community agencies. Program staff are available to respond to the needs of affected persons 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Formally established in 2014, the Affected Persons Court Support Program continues to provide direct support services to SIU victims and witnesses throughout the court process, which can be difficult and confusing. Court support services are available to SIU victims and witnesses when an SIU investigation results in criminal charges.

The establishment and maintenance of collaborative relationships with government and community partner agencies across the province continues to be a core objective of the APP, which directly contributes to its success. These efforts continued throughout 2019, in coordination with the member agencies of the Ontario Network of Victim Service Providers, Victim Service Units, Victim Witness Assistance Programs, and the Office of the Chief Coroner. These collaborative relationships were solidified with the establishment of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with several Victim Service agencies throughout the province, including:

• Victim Services of Temiskaming & District

• Sudbury & Area Victim Services

• Victim Services of Peterborough & Northumberland

• Haldimand, Norfolk & New Credit Victim Services

• Muskoka Victim Services

• Brant County Victim Services

• Kawartha, Haliburton Victim Services

• Halton Victim Services Unit

• Victim Services Wellington

The purpose of the MOU is to clarify the roles of Victim Services and the APP when the SIU has invoked its mandate, in order to avoid service gaps/overlaps and to ensure that continuity of services is provided to SIU complainants and witnesses.

AFFECTED PERSONS PROGRAM

16

This year also saw the expansion of the APP staff complement with the addition in November of an Affected Persons Coordinator. The Coordinator brings her skills, education and experience in the field of victim services to provide practical and emotional support services to meet the unique needs of the Unit’s affected persons.

Statistics

Throughout 2019, the APP was involved in 91 cases, including 23 cases that required court support services.

46

26

19

APP Involvement by Occurrence Type

Death Sexual Assault Injury

4

12

7

APP Court Support Services by Occurrence Type

Death Sexual Assault Injury

17

During the 2019 calendar year, SIU personnel participated in a variety of learning and development initiatives totaling approximately 2939 hours, eighty-seven percent of which was devoted to investigative and forensic training.

In keeping with past practice, the Unit continues to facilitate in-house seminars three times per year for frontline staff. These seminars included content such as peer case reviews, current trends in investigative technologies, and vicarious trauma and mental health first-aid for the SIU’s front-line staff.

SIU investigators also participated in the following external learning and development initiatives:

• The Canadian Police College (Expert Witness, Forensic Identification);

• The Ontario Police College (Criminal Investigators Training, Death Investigation, Investigative Interviewing and Sexual Assault Investigation);

• Osgoode Continuing Education Workshops (Courtroom Testimony: A Practical Skills Workshop for Police, Evidence in Criminal Investigations, 12th Annual Intensive Course on Drafting and Reviewing Search Warrants, and the 16th National Symposium on Search and Seizure Law in Canada);

• The Centre of Forensic Sciences (Biology, Firearms and Toolmarks and Toxicology Overview workshops);

• The Canadian Police Knowledge Network – (Courtroom Testimony Skills);

• The 27th Forensic Identification Seminar; and

• Attendance at both the Ontario Homicide Investigators Association and the Ontario Forensic Investigators Association yearly educational conferences.

The Unit’s lawyers attended various offerings facilitated by The Law Society of Ontario as follows:

TRAINING

18

• A Litigator’s Guide to Concurrent Criminal, Civil and Administrative Proceedings;

• Professionalism and Practice Management Issues in Administrative Law 2019; and

• The Six Minute Criminal Lawyer

To further understanding of Indigenous cultures and issues, Unit personnel participated in a number of learning and development offerings in 2019, including:

• Bimickaway Indigenous Training – Module #5; and

• Presentation by Jesse Thistle outlining the many facets of ‘homelessness’ suffered by Indigenous people, commencing with the loss of cultural identification. Mr. Thistle’s story is a powerful narrative on how the human spirit and determination can overcome a lifetime of obstacles. Mr. Thistle is Métis-Cree-Scot, from Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. He is an Assistant Professor in Métis Studies at York University in Toronto, where he lives. He won a Governor General’s Academic Medal in 2016 and is a Pierre Elliot Trudeau Scholar and a Vanier Scholar. He is also the author of From the Ashes, a national bestseller.

19

Cases Opened by the SIU

During the 2019 calendar year, 314 cases were opened by the Unit, a decrease from the 382 cases that were opened in the 2018 calendar year.

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Firearm Deaths

7 9 5 7 7 6 7 8

Firearm Injuries

8 10 3 8 7 5 12 14

Custody Deaths

32 17 19 27 25 20 36 19

Custody Injuries

229 194 169 188 197 229 202 174

Other Injuries/Deaths 4 3 6 1 3 7 19 5

Vehicle Deaths

9 7 10 4 8 4 6 7

Vehicle Injuries

44 39 37 37 37 41 42 32

Sexual Assault Complaints

49 39 43 40 43 68 58 55

Total 382 318 292 312 327 380 382 314

STATISTICALLY SPEAKING

20

Types of Occurrences by Percentage, 2019

Firearm Deaths3%

Firearm Injuries

4% Custody Deaths

6%

Custody Injuries55%

Other Injuries/Deaths2%

Vehicle Deaths2%

Vehicle Injuries10%

Sexual Assault Complaints18%

Firearm Deaths Firearm Injuries Custody Deaths Custody Injuries

Other Injuries/Deaths Vehicle Deaths Vehicle Injuries Sexual Assault Complaints

21

Number of Investigations Launched per Month

Total Occurrence Trend Since Inception

2522

19

29

24

39

19

33

28

19

33

24

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Num

ber o

f Inv

estig

atio

ns L

aunc

hed

Month

96

164

201232

176160 150

168 174159 163 163

186

136

195226

257276

312281 269

382

318292

312327

380 382

314

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Num

ber o

f Inv

estig

atio

ns L

aunc

hed

Year

22

How the SIU is Notified The majority of the time, the involved police service notifies the Special Investigations Unit. All police services in Ontario are legally obligated to immediately notify the SIU of incidents death or serious injury (including allegations of sexual assault) involving their officers. However, calls from police are not the only way the SIU can be notified. In fact, anyone can contact the Special Investigations Unit about an incident that falls within its mandate. Of the 314 investigations launched by the Unit in 2019, here is how the SIU was notified:

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Complainant

Family/Friend

Lawyer

Media

Medical

Police

Witness

11

3

0

0

0

299

1

23

Cases Closed by the SIU

From January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019, the SIU closed 363 cases. The number of closed cases includes occurrences from the previous year that were closed in 2019 and does not include cases that remained open at the end of 2019. The average number of days to close all cases was 136.40 days.4 With respect to full-blown SIU investigations, namely, those resulting in Director’s Reports or charges (see below), the average length of case was 187.59 days, down from 201.79 days the year before. The average length of discontinued investigations, that is, those ending with closure memos, was essentially the same year-to-year: 28.79 days in 2019 versus 27.61 days in 2018. During the year, the SIU made significant inroads in reducing its backlog of open investigations. On December 31, 2018, there were 231 open investigations on the SIU’s books. As of December 31, 2019, the figure was 151.

4 The SIU incorporates a practice of “stop/restart dates” to calculate the length of its cases from start to finish. There are times during the course of certain cases where the SIU investigation is on hold pending some action of a third party over which the SIU has no control. This can happen, for example, when an outside expert has been retained to provide an opinion regarding physical evidence and the investigation cannot proceed further until the expert’s opinion has been received. In that case, a “stop date” is indicated when the expert is retained and a “restart date” is indicated when the opinion is received. The interval of time between the stop and restart dates is excluded from the overall length of the case. By subtracting periods of time during which an investigation is on hold pending some action by a third party, which is outside the control of the SIU, the data more accurately reflect the time spent by the SIU investigators on active investigations.

363 cases closed

233 full investigations; no

reasonable grounds to lay charges

117 terminated by memo

13 cases led to charges

24

Cases Closed with No Reasonable Grounds to Lay Charges In most cases investigated by the SIU, the director concluded that the evidence did not establish reasonable grounds to believe that there had been criminal wrongdoing on the part of the officers, and hence, no charges were laid. In 2019, 233 investigations ended in this manner.

Cases Closed by Memo Of the 363 cases closed in 2019, 117 were closed by memo, accounting for 32% of the total number of cases. In some SIU cases, information is gathered at an early stage of the investigation which establishes that the incident, at first believed to fall within the SIU’s jurisdiction, is in fact not one that the Unit can investigate. It may be that the injury in question, upon closer scrutiny, is not in fact a “serious injury” according to the definition of serious injury that the SIU has established. In other cases, although the incident falls within the SIU’s jurisdiction, it becomes clear that there is patently nothing to investigate. Examples of such incidents include investigations in which it becomes evident early on that the injury was not directly or indirectly caused by the actions of a police officer. In these instances, the SIU director exercises his/her discretion and “terminates” all further SIU involvement, filing a memo to that effect with the Deputy Attorney General. When this occurs, the director does not render a decision as to whether a criminal charge is warranted in the case or not. These matters may, on occasion, be referred to other law enforcement agencies for investigation.

Charge Cases

Criminal charges were laid by the SIU director in 13 cases, against a total of 15 officers, accounting for 3.6% of the 363 cases that were closed in 2019. These charge cases included investigations that were launched in prior years, but for which charges were laid in 2019.

25

Information About Complainants Complainants are individuals who are directly involved in an occurrence investigated by the SIU in that, as a result of interactions with police, they have died or were seriously injured, or allege that they have been sexually assaulted. There may be more than one complainant per SIU case.

Percentage of Complainants by Gender5

5 In three SIU cases, SIU investigators were not able to locate the complainant; thus, the SIU could not confirm the complainant’s gender.

77%

22%1%

Male Complainants (243)

Female Complainants (71)

Unknown (3)

26

Number of Male and Female Complainants by Case Type

Average Age of Complainant by Case Type

3237 37

42

3340

45

29

1

42

2

5

2

19

2

11

6

26

18

160

8

12

2

1

Other Injuries/Deaths

Sexual Assault Allegations

Vehicular Deaths

Vehicular Injuries

Custody Deaths

Custody Injuries

Firearm Deaths

Firearm Injuries

Female Male Unknown

27

Investigative Response To assist in understanding the required investigative response in an SIU incident, the SIU tracks the time it takes for investigators to respond to an incident and the number of investigators deployed to a scene. Speed of response and the number of investigators initially dispatched to an incident are important in many cases because of the need to secure physical evidence and to meet with witnesses before they leave the scene.

28

*The times calculated were for those cases that required an immediate dispatch of investigative personnel and resources. Cases in which an immediate response was determined to not be necessary were not included in this calculation.

Western Region

Toronto Region

Central Region

Eastern Region

Northern Region

1:50

1:50

1:31

2:15

8:56

Average Response Time by Region(hh:mm)

Western Region

Toronto Region

Central Region

Eastern Region

Northern Region

3.53

3.78

3.62

3.63

3.06

Average Number of Investigators Assigned per Case by Region

29

*The times calculated were for those cases that required an immediate dispatch of investigative personnel and resources. Cases in which an immediate response was determined to not be necessary were not included in this calculation.



Vehicular Deaths

Vehicular Injuries

Custody Deaths

Custody Injuries

Firearm Deaths

Firearm Injuries

1:38

2:50

1:56

2:02

1:12

2:47

1:36

1:23

Average Response Time by Case Type(hh:mm)



Vehicular Deaths

Vehicular Injuries

Custody Deaths

Custody Injuries

Firearm Deaths

Firearm Injuries

4.33

2.44

5.5

5.39

5.35

2.85

7.75

7.15

Average Number of Investigators per Case by Case Type

30

The nature of the SIU’s mandate means that the Unit often deals with complex and traumatic situations involving police and civilians. Examining these situations, and arriving at a decision, is rarely easy. Under section 113(7) of the Police Services Act, the director, who cannot be a police officer or a former police officer, has the sole authority at the SIU to decide whether or not charges are warranted. The director relies on many years of experience in the area of criminal law and takes into consideration all aspects of an investigation, arriving at a decision by applying established legal principles. The director’s job is not to decide whether the police officer, who is the subject of an investigation, is innocent or guilty, but rather whether the evidence satisfies the director that there are reasonable grounds to pursue criminal charges. If a charge is laid, the courts will ultimately determine guilt or innocence by deciding whether the charge has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Examples of investigations carried out by the SIU in 2019 can be found below.

CHARGE: 19-PSA-0276

Incident Overview The SIU was contacted by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) on February 5, 2019 regarding a complaint received that same day of a sexual nature against a police officer with the Thunder Bay detachment. The alleged sexual assault of a woman reportedly occurred sometime between April of 2001 and March of 2002. The Investigation The SIU assigned two investigators and one forensic investigator to examine the circumstances surrounding the incident. As part of the investigation, the SIU interviewed the woman who made the allegation, two civilian witnesses and two witness officers. The subject officer declined to be interviewed and did not provide a copy of his notes to the SIU, as was the subject officer’s legal right.

6 Officers charged by the SIU are presumed innocent and are only guilty of the offence charged if a court of law renders a verdict to that effect.

CASES AT A GLANCE

31

Director’s Decision Based on the evidence collected in relation to this incident, then SIU Interim Director Joseph Martino concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe an officer with the OPP Thunder Bay detachment committed a criminal offence. As a result, on June 25, 2019, the officer was charged with one count of sexual assault, contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code. The case was then referred to the Justice Prosecutions Branch of the Crown Law Office—Criminal, for prosecution.

CHARGE: 19-OCI-026

Incident Overview The SIU was contacted by the Guelph Police Service (GPS) on February 4, 2019 regarding the arrest of a 45-year-old man that morning in Guelph. The SIU investigation found that at approximately 3 a.m. that day, GPS officers attended a residential building on Carden Street in Guelph to conduct an investigation. Outside the main entrance of the building, a GPS officer became involved in an interaction with a man unrelated to the incident being investigated. The man was arrested and transported to the police station. He was later taken to hospital where he was diagnosed with serious injuries. The Investigation The SIU assigned three investigators and one forensic investigator to examine the circumstances surrounding the incident. As part of the investigation, the SIU interviewed the 45-year-old man and three witness officers. The subject officer declined to be interviewed and did not provide his notes, as was his legal right. A canvass conducted in the area of the arrest revealed several closed-circuit camera recordings. In addition, the Unit reviewed the arrest report, dispatch reports and various policies.

Director’s Decision Based on the evidence collected in relation to this incident, then Interim Director Joseph Martino concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe a sergeant with the GPS

32

committed a criminal offence. As a result, on July 3, 2019, the sergeant was charged with one count of assault causing bodily harm, contrary to section 267(b) of the Criminal Code. The case was referred to the Justice Prosecutions Branch of the Crown Law Office—Criminal, for prosecution.

CLOSURE MEMO: 19-OCI-180 Incident Overview In the early afternoon of August 2, 2019, a 21-year-old man was in the custody of the Brantford Police Service (BPS) at the Brantford courthouse, awaiting his bail hearing. While lodged in a cell, the man started to repeatedly punch the concrete walls. The man was transported to hospital where he was diagnosed with a broken bone in his right hand. The Investigation The SIU assigned two investigators to probe the circumstances of the incident. As part of the investigation, the 21-year-old man was interviewed. Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the CCTV7 footage from Brantford Courthouse. Director’s Decision Then Interim Director Joseph Martino terminated the investigation, saying, “The SIU’s preliminary inquiries included a review of the video recording of the man’s time in cells. It is patently clear that the man is solely to blame for his self-inflicted injury, and as such, the investigation is hereby discontinued, and the file closed.”

CLOSURE MEMO: 19-OCI-276 Incident Overview In the early morning of November 20, 2019, Peel Regional Police officers were conducting an investigation at an apartment building located at 4050 Dixie Road in Mississauga. When a 36-

7 Closed-Circuit Television.

33

year-old man – a person of interest – saw the officers, he fled down a stairwell. In an effort to get away, the man attempted to leap an entire flight of stairs resulting in him landing awkwardly. He was arrested within seconds of the jump and taken to hospital for treatment of a leg injury. The Investigation The SIU assigned two investigators to probe the circumstances of the incident. As part of the investigation, the 36-year-old man was interviewed, but he declined the SIU access to his medical file. Director’s Decision Then Interim Director Joseph Martino said, “While the exact nature of the man’s injury remains unknown, he having declined to release his medical records, it is clearly serious in nature given his leg was rigidly casted in the wake of the incident and surgery had been scheduled. What is clear is that the man jumped of his own volition and is the author of his own misfortune. Accordingly, the investigation is hereby discontinued, and the file closed.”

NON-CHARGE: 19-PVI-067 Incident Narrative At about 4 p.m. on April 3, 2019, the 63-year-old complainant, together with civilian witness (CW) #2 and CW #3, had come off Wawa Lake on their snowmobiles and were stopped north of Highway 101 looking to cross south over the roadway into town. At the same time, the subject officer (SO) was in his cruiser travelling west along Highway 101 toward Wawa in response to a reported theft at a shop in town. As the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) officer negotiated a rightward bend in the road approaching the snowmobilers’ position, he observed the complainant in his lane ahead of him and attempted to avoid a collision by swerving to the left. Moments prior, the complainant had accelerated forward onto the roadway. The impact between the vehicles occurred in the westbound lane of Highway 101 at the roadway’s intersection with Gladstone Avenue. The front passenger side of the cruiser struck the front left side of the snowmobile, sending it west and north until it came to rest on the westbound shoulder of the highway several metres from the point of impact. The complainant was thrown from the snowmobile and landed on the roadway. The SO stopped his cruiser in the eastbound lane of the highway, exited and went to check on the complainant. The officer

34

sustained minor injuries in the collision, apparently the result of his cruiser’s airbag deployment. The Investigation The SIU assigned two investigators to probe the circumstances of the incident. In addition to examining the scene and collecting evidence, SIU investigators interviewed the complainant, two civilian witnesses and one witness officer. The SO declined to be interviewed and did not provide a copy of his notes to the SIU, as was the SO’s legal right. Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials from the OPP Wawa Detachment (Superior East):

• Dispatch / Event Details report; • Crash Data Recorder report; • GPS data associated with the SO’s cruiser; • Notes of a witness officer; • OPP draft diagrams; • Google Earth photograph of the scene; • Preliminary photo-brief prepared for the SIU; and • The OPP Reconstruction Report.

Director's Decision The complainant was seriously injured on April 3, 2019 while on a snowmobile trip with a couple of friends. He was on his snowmobile attempting to cross Highway 101 in Wawa when he was struck by an OPP cruiser being operated by the SO. The complainant was transported to hospital where he was treated for multiple fractures of his left leg. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the collision. The offence that arises for consideration is dangerous driving causing bodily harm contrary to section 320.13(2) of the Criminal Code. As an offence of penal negligence, liability under the section rests on conduct that, in addition to being objectively characterized as dangerous, amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have observed in the circumstances: R. v. Beatty, [2008] 1 SCR 49; R. v. Sharp (1984), 12 CCC (3d) 428 (Ont. C.A.). While I have no doubt that the SO was driving dangerously in the moments before the collision, and that his dangerous driving was largely responsible for what occurred, I am of the view that the evidence falls just short of justifying criminal charges against the officer. The central issue in the liability analysis is with the SO’s speed. While traveling west on Highway 101 some six kilometres from the scene of the collision, there was a pronounced increase in the

35

officer’s velocity to about 136 km/h from 111 km/h eight seconds earlier, presumably in response to the theft call in Wawa. The SO continued apace westward at speeds between 121 km/h and 152 km/h over the course of the next five and a half kilometres, traveling for the most part at 140 km/h and above against a 90 km/h speed limit. Some 450 metres east of the collision site, there was a traffic sign for westbound motorists indicating a drop in the speed limit from 90 km/h to 50 km/h as the highway wound its way into the Town of Wawa. The SO appears to have entered this zone at about 138 km/h, thereafter decelerating to 113 km/h within a span of 250 metres. At the point of impact, a further 150 metres down the road, the SO was travelling at about 71 km/h. I am satisfied that the SO’s speeds as he responded to the theft call, which were significantly in excess of the speed limits that governed the roadway over which he travelled, constituted a risk to traffic around him. I am further satisfied that the officer’s speed was the pivotal factor in the collision that occurred. The complainant appears to have done little if anything wrong in relation to the accident, and I do not believe he saw the SO’s cruiser before entering the roadway. Travelling as fast as it was, it is conceivable that the cruiser would not have been visible to the complainant until just before impact. On the other hand, the SO appears to have seen the complainant’s snowmobile entering onto the roadway but was unable to avoid a collision owing, in my view, to the speed at which he was travelling. Further aggravating the danger caused by the SO’s speed was the officer’s failure to activate his emergency lights and/or siren. He ought to have known, particularly as he crossed into the 50 km/h zone, that traffic around him would have little time to react to his cruiser given how fast it was going. In the circumstances, the officer ought to have activated his emergency lights and/or siren to alert the public as early as possible to his presence. One is left to speculate, reasonably in my view, that the complainant might well have not ventured onto the roadway when he did had he been given advance notice of the cruiser via its siren or emergency lights. Finally, when considering the inculpatory impact of the SO’s speed, it is important to bear in mind that a police officer’s foremost duty is at all times the preservation of life. It does a police officer no good if in responding to a call for service his or her conduct unduly endangers public safety. I fully appreciate that police officers are frequently faced with difficult choices with little time in which to make them, and that allowance must be made for less than exacting decisions made in the heat of the moment. That said, in the context of an officer who had travelled several kilometres over approximately three minutes before the collision occurred, it is difficult to countenance the persistence of the SO’s excessive speed to get to the scene of what was, after all, a property offence. On the other side of the ledger, while one might question the wisdom of traveling as fast as the SO was to get to the scene of a reported theft, the fact remains that he was engaged in the execution of his duty and therefore exempt from the speed limits pursuant to section 128(13)(b) of the Highway Traffic Act. This is not to suggest that the SO had carte-blanche to speed as he wished without regard to public safety; however, quite apart from whether the SO paid sufficient heed to public safety as he sped westward on Highway 101, it is important to

36

recognize that he was a police officer responding to the scene of a reported crime. In other words, if the officer’s conduct was ill-guided, it was not without rhyme or reason. It is also true that most of Highway 101 over which the SO travelled in response to the reported theft was predominantly rural in nature with little development on either side of the road. It was only as the SO approached the Town of Wawa and the speed limit became 50 km/h for westbound traffic, some 450 metres from the collision scene, that the officer’s speed coalesced with the environment around him to create a clear and present danger of accident. In the circumstances, while I am unable to characterize the gravamen of the SO’s transgressions as fleeting or momentary, it was relatively short-lived – about half-a-kilometre and some 13 seconds. The evidence further suggests that snowbanks on the shoulder of the highway, trees and shrubs on both sides of the snowmobile trail, and a “no parking” sign just east of the location where the complainant attempted to cross the roadway may have obstructed his line of sight toward the approaching cruiser, thereby contributing to the accident. In fact, the obstructions may well have detracted from the SO’s sightlines as well. All of which is to suggest that the officer’s speed was likely not the only factor at play in the collision. Lastly, it would not appear that the environmental conditions that prevailed at the time exacerbated the risks to public safety inherent in the SO’s speed. The roadway was dry and in fair condition, and visibility was good. In the final analysis, while one may legitimately criticize the SO for the manner in which he operated his police cruiser in the moments leading to its collision with the complainant and his snowmobile, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officer’s conduct was so substandard as to amount to a marked deviation from a reasonable level of care. Accordingly, there are no grounds for proceeding with charges in this case and the file is therefore closed. The Director’s Decision found here has been condensed from its original version. The full analysis, along with details on the evidence collected and relevant legislation, can be found at https://www.siu.on.ca/en/directors_report_details.php?drid=634.

NON-CHARGE: 19-TCI-139 Incident Narrative Shortly before 10 p.m. on June 18, 2019, the Toronto Police Service (TPS) received a call from the resident of a house on Torrens Avenue (CW). The CW indicated that a male (complainant) had forced his way into the residence and was currently barricaded in a bedroom in the

https://www.siu.on.ca/en/directors_report_details.php?drid=634

37

possession of a knife or fork, which he had used to threaten him. According to the CW, the complainant appeared intoxicated and was very angry. Police officers were dispatched to the address. Officers began arriving at the scene at about 10:10 p.m. A number of them entered the house but quickly exited when, from behind the closed bedroom door, the 36-year-old complainant was heard to threaten them with death. The house was contained from the outside pending the arrival of the Emergency Task Force (ETF). At approximately 10:30 p.m., a team of ETF officers entered the home and convened outside the barricaded bedroom door. The subject officer (SO), a member of the team, took the lead in attempting to communicate with the complainant through the door. The complainant shouted, moaned and banged around. His responses to the officers were largely unintelligible. Concerned for the complainant’s well-being, the ETF officers forced the bedroom door open and stepped inside. The complainant was quickly located on the floor next to the bed. The officers had no difficulty in securing the complainant in handcuffs, whereupon he was removed from the bedroom and placed on a stretcher in the kitchen. Following his arrest, the complainant was taken to hospital where he was treated for stab wounds and a collapsed lung. Forensic examination of the bedroom revealed the presence of five knives and a barbeque fork. The Investigation The SIU assigned four investigators and one forensic investigator to probe the circumstances of the incident. In addition to examining the scene and collecting evidence, SIU investigators interviewed the complainant and one civilian witness. Three witness officers were interviewed, and the notes from seven other police officers were received and reviewed. The SO participated in an SIU interview and provided a copy of his notes. Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials from the TPS:

• Charge List-the complainant; • General Occurrence report; • Dispatch / Event Details reports (x4); • Communication recordings; • Injury Report (Police)-the complainant; • Motor Vehicle Accident Report; • Notes of the SO and witness officers; • TPS Procedure-Arrest; • TPS Procedure-ETF; and

38

• TPS Procedure-Use of Force.

Director's Decision The complainant suffered a collapsed lung and stab wounds on June 18, 2019 shortly before he was arrested by TPS officers. Among the arresting officers was the SO. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the complainant’s arrest and injuries. Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are protected from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were authorized or required to do by law. The officers who responded to the home on Torrens Avenue were engaged in the lawful exercise of their duties. The complainant had forcibly entered the home, armed himself with an edged weapon and barricaded himself in a bedroom. He was clearly subject to lawful arrest. Once inside the home, the team of ETF officers attempted to communicate with the complainant but quickly discerned that the complainant was not of sound mind and incapable of responding rationally. Knowing that he had a knife or fork with him, and concerned for his safety, the officers forced the bedroom door open and quickly took the complainant into custody. Aside from taking hold of the complainant to secure him in handcuffs, little if any force was used in his arrest. In the result, it is apparent the officers did not use excessive force in effecting the complainant’s lawful arrest. I am further satisfied that there is no viable suggestion of liability on the part of the officers rooted in criminal negligence. The complainant’s health was as much a concern motivating the officers’ conduct as was the need to apprehend an alleged offender. To reiterate, the SO and his colleagues acted quickly to apprehend the complainant; 10 to 15 minutes had elapsed between the moment the ETF officers entered the home and their entry into the bedroom – a relatively short period of time given information at the officers’ disposal of a weapon in the complainant’s possession and the need to exercise some caution in the circumstances. Tactical paramedics were at the ready and able to assess the complainant promptly following his arrest, at which time the complainant’s wounds were noted and he was taken to hospital. On this record, I am satisfied the ETF officers acted with due care and regard for the complainant’s well-being. In the final analysis, there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the officers are criminally responsible by way of unlawful force or a want of care for what appear to have been the complainant’s self-inflicted injuries. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case and the file is closed. The Director’s Decision found here has been condensed from its original version. The full analysis, along with details on the evidence collected and relevant legislation, can be found at https://www.siu.on.ca/en/directors_report_details.php?drid=654.

https://www.siu.on.ca/en/directors_report_details.php?drid=654

39

NON-CHARGE: 19-OFI-074 Incident Narrative On April 10, 2019, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) to seek their assistance. They were tracking a white pickup truck heading north toward the Sudbury area. Its occupants, the 22-year-old complainant and his passenger, civilian witness (CW) #1, were wanted in connection with a recent armed robbery and firearms offences. The GSPS were cautioned that the complainant was suspected of having a shotgun in his possession and was known to have fled from attempted police stops in the past, striking police vehicles in the process. The GSPS tactical team was mobilized and met at the police station to discuss the situation and plan their intervention. Officers in unmarked tactical trucks would deploy ahead of the suspects’ path of travel and intercede to take them into custody after they had come to a stop. At about 10:45 p.m., the tactical team received word from the OPP, whose officers were still tailing the complainant and CW #1, that they were traveling north on Long Lake Road in Sudbury toward the Four Corners intersection. The tactical officers convened in the area. Witness officer (WO) #4, WO #12 and WO #13 were together in a tactical truck, and WO #1, WO #2 and the SO in another. They followed the pickup truck as it turned into Plaza 69 on the northwest corner of the intersection before exiting to cross Regent Street into the Esso gas station. As the pickup truck parked with its front pointed toward a propane gas tank display cabinet against the wall of the gas station shop, the decision was made to box it in with the use of the tactical vehicles. Arriving first on scene some 30 seconds after the pickup truck came to a stop, WO #12 drove to within a metre of the vehicle’s rear. Seconds later, trucks driven by WO #1 and WO #11 came to a stop with their front ends adjacent to the pickup on its passenger and driver sides, respectively. The officers exited their vehicles with guns drawn, surrounded the pickup truck and ordered its occupants to show their hands. Realizing that he had been cornered by the police, the complainant started his engine and accelerated rearward directly into the front of WO #12’s vehicle. The force of the impact sent the tactical vehicle backward a short distance. The complainant continued to accelerate backward against the tactical truck, spinning his wheels, but failed to create any further space between the vehicles. Some 15 seconds after the initial collision, the complainant accelerated forward and crashed into the propane gas tank display. Immediately thereafter, an SUV, with the OPP officers who had followed the suspects into Sudbury and onto the gas station, used its front end to push the rear passenger side of the pickup truck about a metre or more. Seconds after that, the SO opened the driver’s door whereupon the complainant emerged from the pickup truck and went to the ground. The complainant was subsequently handcuffed by WO #12 and taken to hospital having sustained bullet wounds to his left arm and leg. CW #1 was also removed from the pickup truck and arrested.

40

The SO was the only officer who discharged his firearm – a C8 rifle. The weight of the evidence, including a count of the rounds contained in his firearm after the shooting (25), information about the customary number of rounds loaded by tactical team officers in their C8 rifles (28) and the number of spent cartridge cases found at the scene (3), indicates that the SO fired his weapon three times. While the evidence regarding the officer’s position at the time the shots were fired is imprecise, it suggests the SO was standing in front of the pickup truck when he first fired and had travelled to the driver side of the vehicle near the driver’s door when the second two rounds were let off in quick succession. The Investigation The SIU assigned five investigators and three forensic investigators to probe the circumstances of the incident. The SIU interviewed two civilian witnesses, but not the complainant as he declined to be interviewed and did not consent to the release of his medical records. Eleven witness officers were interviewed, and the notes from an additional 26 police officers were received and reviewed. The SO declined to be interviewed and did not provide his notes, as was the subject officer’s legal right. Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials from the GSPS and OPP Sudbury Detachment:

• Arrest Report-the complainant; • Arrest Report-CW #1; • Communications recordings; • Dispatch report; • Crash Data Retrieval data; • Crown Brief; • Daily Arrest Record; • Event Details report; • Field Sketch; • GSPS Witness List; • GSPS Internal Memo regarding SIU investigation; • GSPS Involved Officer List; • GSPS note regarding ESSO station's staff; • GSPS Officer Schedule; • GSPS scene video; • GSPS Total Station data; • Information for Bail Hearing-the complainant; • Notes of all witness officers and 24 undesignated officers; • Occurrence Report; • Involved Officers;

41

• OPP aerial video; • Probation Order – CW #1 (x2) • Procedure-Use of Force; • Procedure-Arrest; • Scene Registry; • Team Use of Force Report; • Training Record-Defence Tactics-the SO; and • Training Record-Firearms Qualifications-the SO.

Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the Sudbury Emergency Medical Services and the Health Sciences North:

• Ambulance Call Report (x2); and • Medical records for CW #1.

Upon request, the SIU obtained CCTV video collected from the ESSO gas station.

Director's Decision In the evening of April 10, 2019, the complainant was in a pickup truck with his girlfriend parked at an Esso gas station on Regent Street in Sudbury when his vehicle was suddenly surrounded by the police. Officers with the GSPS had followed the truck to the location intending to arrest its occupants. Within seconds of the officers’ arrival, the complainant was shot and wounded by gunfire discharged by the SO – the subject officer in the SIU investigation that ensued. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the shooting. Whether considered pursuant to section 25(3) of the Criminal Code, setting out the limits of permissible force used by police officers that is intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or section 34, prescribing the boundaries of justifiable force in the defence of oneself or another from an actual or threatened attack, I am satisfied on reasonable grounds that the SO acted lawfully when he discharged his firearm and caused injury to the complainant. The former provides police officers with immunity from criminal liability provided the force in question was reasonably necessary in aid of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law and they acted under a reasonable apprehension that said force was necessary to meet a threat of death or grievous bodily harm to oneself or another. The latter requires that the defensive act be reasonable with reference to the relevant circumstances, including the nature of the force or threat, whether there were other means to protect oneself or another, and whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon.

42

As was his legal right, the SO declined to be interviewed by the SIU or authorize the release of his notes. The SIU is therefore without first-hand information regarding the officer’s state of mind at the time he fired his rifle. That said, I accept that the SO feared for his life when he discharged his weapon based on the circumstantial evidence and an utterance he made to a fellow officer in the wake of the incident. A GSPS officer was among the tactical officers deployed that night. He, together with two team members, arrived at the Esso station in their vehicle moments after the shooting had occurred. In an exchange with the SO, says the GSPS officer, the officer told him he was scared he was going to be run over by the pickup truck and believed he had to stop the complainant. I have no reason to doubt the reliability of the GSPS officer’s evidence. Nor do I doubt that the SO’s statements accurately reflect how he felt at the time of the shooting. While potentially self-serving, those statements attract a level of authenticity for their relative contemporaneity with the events in question. Their reliability is further bolstered by the perceptions of similarly situated officers present at the time. For example, several officers in and around the pickup truck when the shooting happened believed the complainant represented a real and present risk to their lives and safety should he manage to free his vehicle from the police blockade. Specifically, they feared that the complainant would strike an officer with the pickup truck, particularly those situated on the driver side of the vehicle which was his most likely escape route. To reiterate, the SO was positioned on the driver side of the pickup truck in close proximity to the vehicle. The analysis turns to the reasonableness of the SO’s apprehensions and the action he took. The officer was positioned in front of the pickup truck when he first shot at the complainant through its windshield. The complainant was in the process of accelerating rearward into the tactical truck behind him at the time. That action would have given the officers the impression, and did in fact so impress the witness officers who spoke with the SIU, that the complainant was bent on escaping police custody by ramming his truck free of the police vehicles. While one might question the wisdom of taking up such a vulnerable position, the fact remains that the SO was completely exposed to an immediate and potentially lethal risk in the event the complainant decided to accelerate forward. The shot did not incapacitate the complainant and, as it turns out, he did in fact travel forward mere seconds after the SO’s initial discharge, smashing into the propane gas tank display cabinet with significant force. Fortunately, the SO had re-positioned himself beside the driver side of the truck by that point. In the circumstances, I have no difficulty in concluding that the SO’s beliefs and corresponding action in relation to the first discharge were reasonable. More difficult is the question of reasonableness in connection with the second two shots discharged by the SO. These were fired at close range into the driver’s seat compartment of the pickup truck some 16 seconds after the first shot. At that time, the SO was not in front of the pickup truck; he was standing along the driver side within a metre or so of the driver’s door. Arguably, he was no longer in any imminent peril by the movement of the truck. In the circumstances, was a resort to lethal force and the SO’s belief in its necessity reasonable? I believe they were.

43

The law countenances an officer’s mistaken belief in the necessity of force of one kind or another so long as the belief was reasonably held. That is, might a reasonable person in the officer’s shoes have been similarly mistaken? Moreover, the law does not require that officers caught up in volatile and dangerous situations measure their responsive force with precision; what is required is a reasonable response, not an exacting one: R. v. Nasogaluak [2010] 1 SCR 206; R. v. Baxter (1975), 27 CCC (2d) 96 (Ont. CA). Consider the SO’s situation. He would have been briefed that the complainant was considered armed and dangerous. He was wanted for armed robbery, suspected of having a shotgun in his possession and known for forcing police vehicles out of the way during attempted stops. As the SO left his tactical truck and moved toward the pickup truck, it would have become immediately clear that the complainant had no intention of surrendering peacefully. He had rammed the police vehicle behind him around the time the SO initially discharged his weapon and continued to operate the pickup truck following the first shot despite armed police officers ordering him to stop at gunpoint. In fact, it appears the pickup was accelerating forward when the SO let off two additional rounds in quick succession into the driver’s door window just before it smashed into the propane gas tank display. Was retreat an option? Perhaps, but I am unable to find fault with the SO’s decision to not give way as the complainant attempted to maneuver out of the police barricade. The complainant had in recent days engaged in a course of violent and reckless behaviour that threatened the lives and safety of the public around him. His conduct on the day in question when faced with an overwhelming show of force by the police was no different. Indeed, I am persuaded that the complainant would not have willingly desisted but for the SO’s intervention. I am further persuaded that the complainant would have remained a grave risk to public safety had he managed to escape. On this record, the officers, including the SO, were within their rights in seeking to effect the complainant’s arrest as soon as possible and to stand their ground in doing so. There is also the matter of the sawed-off shotgun that was recovered from the pickup truck following the shooting. To be clear, there is no indication in the evidence that the complainant ever wielded the firearm during the incident. None of the police witnesses questioned by the SIU mentioned seeing a gun in the complainant’s possession and the SO said nothing of a firearm when explaining to a GSPS officer why he did what he did. Nevertheless, most if not all of the witness officers who were present at the time alluded to the likely presence of a shotgun in the pickup truck in describing the danger they were facing. The shotgun’s presence in the pickup truck gives credence to the officers’ concerns. I am satisfied that the same concerns would have weighed on the SO’s mind to some degree as he approached the truck. While it may be in the cold light of hindsight that the SO’s life was not in any immediate danger when he fired his second and third rounds, the officer’s belief to the contrary and his corresponding firearm discharges were in my view reasonable nonetheless. On the aforementioned record, confronted with a violent and armed individual determined to escape police apprehension and seemingly without any qualms about using his pickup truck to effect

44

his purpose, the SO had good cause in the heat of the moment to believe that the truck’s continued operation represented a threat to life and limb necessitating the use of lethal force to disable its driver. For the foregoing reasons, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the shooting was anything other than lawful force in aid of the complainant’s arrest pursuant to section 25(3) and/or section 34 of the Criminal Code. Consequently, there is no basis to proceed with charges in this case and the file is closed. The Director’s Decision found here has been condensed from its original version. The full analysis, along with details on the evidence collected and relevant legislation, can be found at https://www.siu.on.ca/en/directors_report_details.php?drid=676#fn.

https://www.siu.on.ca/en/directors_report_details.php?drid=676#fn

45

CASE BREAKDOWN CHART

49

* Population information provided by 2016 Census Canada. Statistics Canada excludes First Nations data where enumeration was incomplete. For further information, please refer to the Statistics Canada website. The total population for each region includes a population figure for counties in which no SIU cases took place, and therefore are not listed on the chart. † Inconsistencies in total percentages are due to rounding. ~ Numbers do not match total cases and reflect subject officers and their respective police services, or the reporting police service if there was no subject officer.

50

Total Annual Expenditures for the year ended March 31, 2020 were $8,830,139.07 Errors in percentage totals due to rounding.

2019-2020 FINANCIALS

Expenditures by Type

Salaries and Wages$6,549,042 / 74%

Benefits$883,734 / 10%

Transportation andCommunication$402,070 / 5%

Services$931,430 / 11%

Supplies and Equipment$63,863 / 1%

51

Expenditures by Section

Investigative Services$5,393,423 / 61%

Identification Services$1,133,241 / 13%

Office of the Director$1,076,325 / 12%

Administrative Services$680,506 / 8%

Communications, Outreach &Affected Persons$438,755 / 5%

Training Services$107,889 / 1%

52

*Includes staff Salaries/Wages & Benefits for Administrative Manager - Investigations, Transcribers, Central Registry and Investigative Secretary ^ Includes training for SIU Training services

Training Expenditures Expenditures related to training in 2019-20 were 2% of the SIU's final budget

Investigative Services*$123,556 / 67%

Identification Services$51,834 / 28%

Office of the Director$3,367 / 2%

Communications, Outreach andAffected Persons$4,102 / 2%

Administrative Services^$374 / 0.2%

53

SIU ORGANIZATION CHART

AGENDA 07 22 PUBL… · Windsor Police Service Directive #761-01 – Effective Date: 2019-01-21...

Documents

Transcript of AGENDA 07 22 PUBL… · Windsor Police Service Directive #761-01 – Effective Date: 2019-01-21...