(OTTAWA, ON) – An Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) officer has been arrested and charged under the Criminal Code of Canada after a four-month investigation. Project TADLEY began in March, 2020 as a result of allegations of misconduct against an OPP member.

On July 21, 2020, Provincial Constable Scott JOSEPH, a three-year member of the OPP currently serving at the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Detachment was arrested and charged with one (1) count of Breach of Trust by a Public Officer under the Criminal Code of Canada. He has been suspended with pay in accordance with the Police Services Act.

The accused was released from custody and is scheduled to appear at the Ontario Court of Justice in Cornwall on September 24, 2020.

(ORILLIA, ON) – Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) has charged an individual following a lengthy investigation into allegations of fraud.

In July 2016, the Lanark County OPP Detachment began receiving a number of fraud complaints from consumers in relation to the purchase of used motor vehicles, automotive warranties and automobile financing, from South Keys Auto Sales. This business was operated as The 4×4 Store, in Carleton Place, Ontario. 

Following an investigation by members of the Lanark County OPP Detachment – Crime Unit, the Anti-Rackets Branch – Ottawa Unit and with the assistance of the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (OMVIC), the OPP has charged the former business manager / salesperson at The 4×4 store.

David LAMOTHE, 53-years-old, of Drummond / North Elmsley Township, Ontario faces the following criminal charges:

• Fraud over $5,000 contrary to section 380(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada (31 counts);
• Fraud under $5000 contrary to section 380(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada (three counts); and with
• Knowing that a document is forged, cause any person to use, deal with or act on it as if it were genuine contrary to section CC 368(1)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada (23 counts).

The accused is scheduled to appear at the Ontario Court of Justice in Perth on September 28, 2020.

The OPP will not comment further in order to protect the integrity of the investigation and the court process.

Anyone with information should contact the OPP at 1-888-310-1122 or contact Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-8477 (TIPS).

Domestic Incidents – 15

On July 31, 2020, a victim of domestic abuse contacted the SD&G OPP. Officers conducted their investigation which resulted in the arrest and charge of the person’s ex-spouse, a 39 year old resident of Alexandria, Ontario with one counts of Spousal Assault, two counts of Adult Uttering Threats – Cause death or Bodily Harm and two counts of Adult Failure to comply with undertaking. The incidents were reported to have occurred between August 2019 and July 2020. 

The accused was held in custody (bail) and is scheduled to a court appearance at the Ontario Court of Justice in Cornwall. 

The name of the accused is being withheld in order to protect the identity of the victim.

On August 2, 2020, a victim of domestic abuse contacted the SD&G OPP. Officers conducted their investigation which resulted in the arrest and charge of the person’s ex-spouse, a 39 year old resident of Cornwall, Ontario with one counts of Adult Failure to comply with undertaking. 

The accused was released from custody and is scheduled to appear at the Ontario Court of Justice in Cornwall on September 15, 2020.

The name of the accused is being withheld in order to protect the identity of the victim.

On August 5, 2020, SD&G OPP were advised of a possible impaired driver in the village of Long Sault. Officers conducted their investigation which resulted in the arrest and charge of the person’s ex-spouse, a 42 year old resident of Cornwall, Ontario with three counts of Adult Failure to comply with undertaking. 

The accused was held in custody (bail) and is scheduled to a court appearance at the Ontario Court of Justice in Cornwall.

The name of the accused is being withheld in order to protect the identity of the victim.

Indecent Act – 1

On July 30, 2020, SD&G OPP were called to an address in South Stormont Township in relation to a complaint of an indecent act. Officers conducted their investigation which resulted in the arrest and charge of Dennis Randal CARSON, of North Glengarry Twp., Ontario with one counts of Adult Indecent Act- public place. 

The accused was released from custody and is scheduled to appear at the Ontario Court of Justice in Cornwall on October 6, 2020.

Break & Enter – 3

Theft – 6

Mischief – 5

Fraud – 10

Family Dispute – 14

Motor Vehicle Collisions – 24

Mental Health Act – 9

Neighbour Dispute – 9

Police Assistance/Information – 58

Suspicious Person/Vehicle – 8

Traffic Complaint – 44

EXCESSIVE SPEEDS

(SD&G) – On July 30 – August 6, 2020 Ontario Provincial Police officers conducted speed measuring enforcement in SD&G and intercepted the following vehicles for traveling at excessive speeds. The vehicles were impounded and their driver’s permits seized for seven (7) days in accordance to policy and were charged with Stunt Driving (Highway Traffic Act).

– August 2, 2020- 8:16am (South Dundas) vehicle stopped traveling 160km/h (100km/h zone) (Highway 401) – 44-year-old driver from Etobicoke, Ontario.

– August 3, 2020- 1:30pm (South Dundas) vehicle stopped traveling 153km/h (100km/h zone) (Highway 401) – 57-year-old driver from Sherbrooke, Quebec.

– August 3, 2020- 2:50pm (South Dundas) vehicle stopped traveling 157km/h (100km/h zone) (Highway 401) – 22-year-old driver from Montreal, Quebec.

– August 3, 2020- 3:08pm (South Glengarry) vehicle stopped traveling 155km/h (100km/h zone) (Highway 401) – 25-year-old driver from Montreal, Quebec.

– August 4, 2020- 7:38am (South Dundas) vehicle stopped traveling 157km/h (100km/h zone) (Highway 401) – 23-year-old driver from Montreal, Quebec.

– August 5, 2020- 8:21am (South Stormont) vehicle stopped traveling 186km/h (100km/h zone) (Highway 401) – 22-year-old driver from Sackville, New Brunswick.

AUGUST 6, 2020 – The Ottawa Police Service has arrested and charged one of its members in relation to a domestic incident.

The male officer, a constable, has been arrested and charged criminally with possession of a weapon for committing an offence and uttering threats to cause death.

The Ottawa Police releases information when officers are charged to ensure transparency of the process.

As in any domestic incident, no name is being released in order to protect the identity of the victim.

The officer has been suspended from duty. The Ottawa Police Service Professional Standards Section has commenced a conduct investigation under the Police Services Act.

AUGUST 11, 2020 – This is one of the reasons why so many don’t feel safe shopping in Cornwall Ontario.

This writer, like many seniors, likes to do their errands early in the morning with the hope of avoiding #covidiots and special people that like to wear their masks under their noses.

With the EOHU not enforcing its own masking mandate Cornwall sadly is seeing more abuse and less protection of its community. Cashiers in local retail stores have even been told to not confront people not wearing masks properly, or at all!

This morning this writer attended the YOUR CREDIT UNION ATM on 2nd East. It is an indoor ATM only with the branch closed for COVID.

I got out of my vehicle and saw a man enter the kiosk ahead of me without a mask. He was driving a green Mitsubishi Outlander. As he exited I challenged him about not wearing a mask as I tend to do with #maskholes and #covidiots and lo and behold it was Maurice DuPelle who essentially shrugged his shoulders and sped off.

The scofflaw councilor had reached over the machine to do his business. It’s known that Covid can last hours on surfaces such as an ATM.

I held my breath, even with a mask on and then sanitized myself while leaving, but nobody should be put at undue risk. And sadly, until the bank does it’s clean up this morning many will be at risk using that machine as the bank does not provide any sanitizer at the ATM which they probably should.

It also begs the question that if Mr. Dupelle would so brazenly expose to the public and not observe such basic practice of using a mask in an indoor space how is he interacting with city officials, staff, and in his day job that includes those vulnerable to COVID?

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU

On September 23, 2019, at 9:00 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Detachment notified the SIU of the serious injury sustained by the 65-year-old Complainant during his arrest earlier that afternoon in Ingleside. The OPP Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Detachment reported that at 3:30 p.m., uniformed detachment police officers had gone to the Complainant’s home to arrest him on a warrant. The Complainant had come out of his house and threatened the police officers while carrying a shotgun. The police officers had retreated and called for reinforcements who quickly arrived and contained the area. The Tactics and Rescue Unit (TRU) eventually took control of the situation and arrested the complainant after a lengthy standoff. The Complainant suffered fractured ribs during the arrest.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned:  4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned:  1

Complainants

Complainant: 65-year-old male interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed

[Note : A complainant is an individual who was involved in some form of interaction with police, during the course of which the complainant sustained serious injury, died, or is alleged to have been sexually assaulted.] 

Witness Officers

WO #1  Interviewed
WO #2  Interviewed
WO #3  Interviewed
WO #4  Interviewed
WO #5  Interviewed
WO #6  Interviewed

[Note : A witness officer is a police officer who, in the opinion of the SIU Director, is involved in the incident under investigation but is not a subject officer.

Upon request by the SIU, witness officers have a duty under Ontario Regulation 267/10 of the Police Services Act to submit to interviews with SIU investigators and answer all of the SIU’s questions. The SIU is also entitled to a copy of their notes from the police service.]

Police Employee Witnesses

PEW  Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

[Note : A police employee witness is an employee of a police force who is not a police officer, such as a special constable, who, in the opinion of the SIU Director, is involved in the incident under investigation.

Police employee witnesses have a duty to cooperate with the SIU pursuant to the Police Services Act. Upon request by the SIU, police employee witnesses are required to submit to interviews with SIU investigators and answer all their questions. The SIU is also entitled to a copy of their notes from the police service.]

Subject Officers

SO #1  Declined to interview with the SIU or to release notes, as is a subject officer’s legal right
SO #2  Interviewed and notes received

[Note : A subject officer is a police officer whose conduct appears, in the Director’s opinion, to have caused the death or serious injury under investigation.

Subject officers are invited, but cannot be legally compelled, to present themselves for an interview with the SIU and they do not have to submit their notes to the SIU, pursuant to Ontario Regulation 267/10 of the Police Services Act.]

Evidence

The Scene

The incident occurred in front of a rural residence at an address on Dafoe Road, Ingleside. The residence was situated on a small farm and surrounded by thick brush and foliage. The scene was extensively photographed by the SIU forensic investigator.

Forensic Evidence

The Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) Download

A CEW deployed by WO #7 was discharged three times on September 23, 2019, as follows:

• 3:42:22 p.m., for a duration of five seconds;
• 3:43:06 p.m., for a duration of five seconds; and
• 3:43:19 p.m., for a duration of five seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

Videos recorded by a remotely-piloted aircraft system (RPAS) drone

The footage is from a RPAS operated by an OPP officer of the arrest incident/scene at the address on Dafoe Road, Ingleside, on September 23, 2019.

Arrest Video #1 (No Audio)
This footage has no dates or times on it and is nine minutes and 30 seconds in length. At six minutes and 40 seconds into the footage, the Complainant is seen to exit the front of his residence in a southerly direction. He is carrying a long gun in his right hand with the barrel pointing up to the sky.

At six minutes and 57 seconds into the footage, the camera pans up and out and the Complainant is no longer in the frame. An OPP Armoured Rescue Vehicle (ARV) can be seen about three metres south of the front door of the residence and it is parked pointing in a northwesterly direction. Four police officers, all in grey/green tactical uniforms and helmets are standing around the ARV focused on the front of the residence. As all police officers are wearing identical uniforms and helmets and are very similar in physical appearance, it is not possible from the video footage to distinguish one officer from the other.

At seven minutes and four seconds into the footage, the camera pans back to where the Complainant was last seen walking southbound and the Complainant can now be seen rolling around on the grass about three metres in front of his residence. The long gun he had been carrying was lying on the grass about one metre to his left. He is rolling around on the ground kicking violently at a police dog that is engaged with him, biting at his legs.

At seven minutes and six seconds into the footage, the Complainant was successful in kicking the dog off him. The Complainant was now in a kneeling position with his head down to the ground and facing the group of four tactical police officers walking towards him. The police dog was now on the right side of the Complainant biting at his right shoulder and arm trying to re-engage.

One of the tactical police officers has his right hand and arm fully extended and a CEW in that hand. When that police officer gets to within about a metre of the Complainant, who is still on his knees with his head bowed towards the ground, the police officer deploys the CEW into the back of the Complainant. The wires from the CEW are clearly seen.

At seven minutes and nine seconds into the footage, the Complainant rolls over onto his right side on the grass, exposing his left side immediately after being struck by the probes from the CEW. The dog immediately re-engages the left shoulder and upper arm of the Complainant. Two other tactical officers join the original four and all six tactical officers engage the Complainant, kneeling over him. The Complainant is on his back but is still rolling around on the grass.

At seven minutes and 21 seconds into the footage, one of the tactical officers raises his right hand in a fist over his head and delivers three rapid punches down into the direction of the Complainant. Because of the crowd of officers kneeling over the Complainant it is difficult to see the position the Complainant is in at the time the punches are delivered or where on his body they land.

At seven minutes and 24 seconds into the footage, that same police officer delivers another four punches down in the direction of the Complainant with his right fist. This makes now seven punches this same police officer has delivered to the Complainant. The Complainant’s hand can be seen on the ground at the feet of the police officers who are around him and it appears that he may possibly be on his left side or stomach when the punches are contacting him and that those punches may be possibly landing on his left side or back.

At seven minutes and 28 seconds into the footage, the camera immediately pans out, up and away from the police officers and the Complainant to a position where they are no longer in the frame. No further interaction between the Complainant and police officers is seen in the footage.

Arrest Video #2 (No Audio)This footage has no dates or times and is 11 minutes and 27 seconds in length. The video is taken from a much greater altitude than Arrest Video #1 and it is very difficult to see the interaction between police officers and the Complainant. The deployment of the CEW and the punches being delivered by one of the tactical officers cannot be seen on this video. The majority of the video is of the outbuildings on the property and the surrounding countryside/foliage.

At one minute and one second into the footage, five tactical officers can be seen standing over the Complainant who is lying on his stomach on the ground about ten feet in front of his residence. At one minute and 20 seconds into the footage, one of the tactical officers can be seen with his right hand and arm outstretched and a CEW in that hand. He is standing about one metre to the southeast of the Complainant who is now kneeling on the ground. All five police officers are standing then kneeling over the Complainant.

At three minutes into the footage, all of the tactical police officers are standing up over the Complainant who is now lying face down on the ground with both of his hands handcuffed behind his back. At four minutes and 34 seconds into the footage, two tactical police officers bring the Complainant to his feet and walk him in a southerly direction off the property towards Dafoe Road, out of the frame, still with both hands handcuffed behind his back.

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the OPP Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Detachment:

• Event Details;
• Intergraph-Computer Assisted Dispatch (ICAD) Event Chronology;
• Letter from the Complainant to his daughter;
• Negotiator’s Log Book regarding incident-September 23, 2019;
• Notes of all WOs;
• Notes of the PEW;
• Data downloaded from CEW used in incident;
• Video recordings of incident captured by police drones; and
• Occurrence Summary.

Materials obtained from Other Sources

In addition to the materials received from the OPP, SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials from other sources:

• Medical reports for the Complainant from the Cornwall and Ottawa Civic Hospital.

Incident Narrative

The events in question are largely apparent on the weight of the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the Complainant, several WOs who participated in the operation culminating in the Complainant’s arrest, and one of the two SOs – SO #2. As was his legal right, SO #1 declined to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes. The investigation further benefitted from a review of data downloaded from a CEW discharged during the incident and video footage of parts of the arrest captured by a police drone.

Shortly after 11:00 a.m. on September 23, 2019, members of an OPP TRU team were mobilized to deal with a situation in the Town of Ingleside at an address on Dafoe Road. Local OPP officers had earlier that morning attended at the address to arrest the Complainant for mischief to public property. Upset at the township over a municipal grievance, the Complainant had intentionally dug up the roadway in front of his home. Greeted with profanity, the sound of a shotgun being racked and a threat by the Complainant that he would not be taken alive, the officers had left the property in the interests of everyone’s safety. OPP Emergency Response Team officers were then deployed to surround and contain the property pending the arrival of the TRU.
Within an hour of being notified of the incident, the TRU team were further advised that the Complainant was holed up in his residence with a gun and refusing to come out.
The OPP set up a command post near the intersection of Dafoe and Aultsville Roads. From that location, the TRU team commander and a couple of Critical Incident Commanders developed a plan whereby the TRU team would approach the property in an ARV, first stopping to clear several outbuildings on the Complainant’s land before proceeding to the house. Two snipers would also be set up in the outbuildings to monitor the Complainant’s movements in and out of the home, reporting their intelligence to the other team members via radio.

SO #2 was the team leader. With him were WO #6 – a dog handler with his dog; WO #7, whose role it would be to discharge his CEW, if necessary; SO #1, tasked with wielding an ARWEN during the operation; WO #3, responsible for operating the ARV; and WO #5 and WO #4. Also in the ARV were trained crisis negotiators – WO #8 and WO #1 – and the PEW, a tactical paramedic.

The outbuildings having been successfully cleared, the ARV approached to within several metres of the front of the Complainant’s residence. From that position, with the use of the vehicle’s loudhailer, WO #4, WO # 8 and WO #1, the latter two in English and French, repeatedly directed the Complainant to disarm himself and exit the home with his hands up. Their entreaties were ignored, as were WO #4’s efforts to attract the Complainant’s attention by periodically activating the vehicle’s emergency lights and siren. One of the two snipers, WO #2, reported that he could see the Complainant seated in the kitchen holding a long gun.

As the standoff continued, the officers decided to deploy a throw phone next to the front door of the home in the hopes that the Complainant would collect the phone and use it to speak with police. He did not. A distractionary device was set off outside the home at about 3:22 p.m., but it too failed to elicit a response from the Complainant.

At about 3:48 p.m., with officers in and out of the ARV, the Complainant emerged from the front of his home. He was holding a loaded shotgun and walking toward the front of the ARV. Multiple officers ordered the Complainant to drop his firearm and put his hands in the air, to no effect. As the Complainant continued forward, SO #1, from a position in front of the Complainant, fired his ARWEN multiple times. The Complainant was struck, dropped his shotgun, and fell to the ground.

At SO #2’s direction, WO #6 quickly released his dog, who bit onto the Complainant’s lower right leg. The Complainant kicked the dog away with his left foot and made it to his knees before his left arm area was bit by the dog.

The Complainant was on his knees with his torso bowed forward when WO #7 approached to within a metre or two of the Complainant and discharged his CEW into the Complainant’s back. The Complainant immediately lunged forward onto his front but was not incapacitated. He tucked his arms into his chest, rolled quickly onto his back and then again onto his front, his arms and legs moving throughout these movements.

WO #7, SO #1, WO #6 and WO #4 were surrounding the Complainant at this time, standing over him. The dog, who had disengaged, returned and bit into the right upper arm / shoulder area of the Complainant, appearing to pull the Complainant a short distance on the ground. The Complainant was temporarily back onto his knees before he appears to have been dragged back to the ground onto his right side by the dog, shortly after which SO #1, from a kneeling position behind the Complainant on the ground, delivered three punches to the Complainant’s back.

It was at this time that SO #2 arrived and entered the fray. The Complainant’s upper body appeared to be prone on the ground and his arms close to his chest. As SO #2 attempted to pry the Complainant’s left arm out from under him, SO #1 punched the Complainant’s back a further four times.

The struggle persisted for a period in what was largely a wrestling match by this time, punctuated some 25 and 38 seconds after the last of SO #1’s punches with two additional CEW discharges from WO #7’s weapon. Shortly thereafter, with WO #4’s help, SO #2 managed to handcuff the Complainant.

Relevant Legislation

Section 25(1), Criminal Code — Protection of persons acting under authority

25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law(a) as a private person,(b) as a peace officer or public officer,(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or(d) 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.

Analysis and Director’s Decision

The Complainant suffered multiple rib fractures in the course of his arrest on September 23, 2019 by the OPP. Among the arresting officers, SO #2 and SO #1 were 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 officer 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 immune 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 required or authorized to do by law. By the time the TRU team entered onto the Complainant’s property, they had secured a warrant authorizing their presence at the address for the purpose of arresting the Complainant. Accordingly, I am satisfied the officers had a lawful basis to seek the Complainant’s arrest. The issue turns to the propriety of the force used by the officers in taking the Complainant into custody.

There are no qualms to be had with respect to the police operation preceding the immediate circumstances of the Complainant’s arrest. Knowing that the Complainant was armed with a firearm and had threatened officers earlier in the day when they arrived at his home to arrest him, the deployment of the TRU team was reasonable. With their specialized training and array of weapons, the team was best equipped to attempt to negotiate the Complainant’s peaceful surrender while ensuring their safety, as well as his, as they did so. The team moved prudently toward the home, clearing outbuildings in the process, and approaching with the protection of an ARV. They patiently tried to resolve the situation, employing trained crisis negotiators to engage the Complainant, all to no effect. A distractionary device and a throw phone were used to solicit a response, but none was forthcoming from the Complainant. In all of this, there is nothing to suggest that the police acted other than professionally.

When the Complainant emerged after a standoff with the officers of close to two hours, he was met with what in my view was appropriate force. The use of the ARWEN and the dog, and the initial CEW discharge, were reasonable. The Complainant was armed with a shotgun, walking toward the officers positioned in and around the ARV and disregarding repeated commands that he drop his weapon. In the circumstances, the officers cannot be faulted for attempting to neutralize the Complainant at a distance. While the ARWEN discharges were successful in felling the Complainant and dispossessing him of the shotgun, the weapon remained in close proximity to the Complainant on the ground providing the officers good reason to fear that he remained a serious threat as the dog and the CEW were deployed.

Thereafter, I am further satisfied that the punches struck by SO #1 and the additional CEW discharges fell within the ambit of lawful force in the circumstances. Though he was by this time on the ground and surrounded by multiple officers, the Complainant continued to struggle against the officers’ efforts to secure his arms. In fact, he held one of his hands closed – his left hand – and his arms tucked by his chest for periods of time, leading the officers to fear that he might still be in possession of, or attempting to access, a weapon on his person. The fear was not without merit. By his conduct throughout the day, the Complainant had made it clear that he had no intention of being arrested peaceably and that he was ready, willing and able to brings weapons to bear against the police. On this record, while a total of seven punches delivered by SO #1 might appear excessive, considered in context and given the fact that the Complainant had yet to be subdued at the time the punches were thrown, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officer’s force crossed the line. In arriving at this conclusion, I am mindful of the common law principle that police officers in dangerous situations are not expected to 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. C.A.). The same, I am satisfied, may be said of WO #7’s additional CEW discharges, following which the officers were able to overcome the Complainant’s resistance and secure him in custody. No further hostilities were exchanged after the Complainant was handcuffed.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant was subjected to significant and even severe force in the course of his arrest, suffering multiple broken ribs as a result, I am not satisfied on reasonable grounds that either of the SOs, or any of the involved officers for

that matter, acted unlawfully in the incident. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case and the file is closed.

Date: August 10, 2020

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit

SEPTEMBER 9, 2020 – We covered the July 2020 numbers HERE.

1363 Calls for Service July 2020

1376 Calls for Service August 2020

Unwanted Person 42 Trouble with Youth 24 Threats 20

Theft 52 Sudden Death 5 Shop Lift 29

Sexual Assault 7 Neighbor Disputes 29 Motor Vehicle Collision 95

Mental Health Act 33 Landlord Tenant 16 Impaired 19

Family Dispute 20 Disturb the Peace 44 Break & Enter 17

Assault 29 Animal Complaint 13

Info@cornwallfreenews.com

SEPTEMBER 25, 2020 –

OPP SEIZES OVER 2000 CANNABIS PLANTS IN RIDEAU LAKES TWP

(RIDEAU LAKES TWP, ON) – Members of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) East Region Community Street Crime Unit (CSCU) have seized more than 2000 cannabis plants in Rideau Lakes Township.

CSCU officers, along with members of the OPP Organized Crime Enforcement Bureau (OCEB), OPP Emergency Response Team (ERT), OPP Canine Unit and the OPP Assets Forfeiture Unit executed a warrant on September 23, 2020 at a location on Whitmore Road, west of Frankville.

In addition to the cannabis plants, officers also seized a pick-up truck and a backhoe, as well as growing equipment. Seven people were arrested at the location and charged with Cultivate propagate or harvest more than four cannabis plants under section 12(4)(b) of the Cannabis Act (CA).

Charged are:

• Shuilo HUANG, age 62 of Scarborough
• Van Vong NGUYEN, age 57 of Rideau Lakes Township
• Xuan An TRUONG, age 50 of Rideau Lakes Township
• Li YAN, age 23 of Scarborough
• Mei Jian YE, age 49 of Markham
• Hai Wei ZHANG, age 45 of Markham
• Ming ZHAO, age 53 of Scarborough

All of the accused were released on an undertaking and are scheduled to attend the Ontario Court of Justice in Brockville on October 30, 2020.

OPP SEIZES OVER 2500 CANNABIS PLANTS IN ELIZABETHTOWN-KITLEY

(ELIZABETHTOWN-KITLEY TWP, ON) – Members of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) East Region Community Street Crime Unit (CSCU) have seized more than 2500 cannabis plants in Elizabethtown-Kitley Township.

CSCU officers, along with members of the OPP Organized Crime Enforcement Bureau (OCEB), OPP Emergency Response Team (ERT), OPP Canine Unit and the OPP Assets Forfeiture Unit executed a warrant on September 23, 2020 at a location on Kitley Line-7, north of Athens.

The plants were being grown both indoors and outdoors.

Several people were arrested at the scene, but were later released unconditionally.

Hydro One was called to the location, after it was determined that unsafe electrical connections were being utilized. Crews confirmed the situation was hazardous and power was disconnected.

A new media release has been made by the OPP for Leeds County. The release content is below. If you wish to unsubscribe from these alerts, log into the OPP News Release Portal and select “Manage Account”.

FROM: Community Street Crime Unit DATE: September 25, 2020

OPP SEIZES OVER 6500 CANNABIS PLANTS NEAR TOLEDO

(RIDEAU LAKES TWP, ON) – Members of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) East Region Community Street Crime Unit (CSCU) have seized more than 6500 cannabis plants near Toledo.

CSCU officers, along with members of the OPP Organized Crime Enforcement Bureau (OCEB), OPP Emergency Response Team (ERT), OPP Canine Unit and the OPP Assets Forfeiture Unit executed a warrant on September 23, 2020 at a location on Townline Road in Rideau Lakes Township.

In addition to the plants, which were being grown both indoors and outdoors, officers seized a high end sport utility vehicle, generators and a variety of growing equipment. Three people were arrested at the scene and charged under section 12(4)(b) of the Cannabis Act with Cultivate, propagate or harvest more than four cannabis plants.

Charged are:

• Jinrong CHEN, age 66 of Rideau Lakes Township
• Jie LIN, age 27 of Rideau Lakes Township
• Na ZHU, age 44 of Markham

The accused have all been released from custody and are scheduled to appear at the Ontario Court of Justice in Brockville on October 30, 2020.

Hydro One was called to the location and determined some electrical wiring was unsafe. The power was disconnected.

OCTOBER 1, 2020 – Members of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) East Region Community Street Crime Unit (CSCU) have seized more than 2100 cannabis plants in Elizabethtown-Kitley Township, north of Brockville.

CSCU officers, along with members of the OPP Emergency Response Team (ERT) and OPP Canine Unit executed a warrant on September 30, 2020 at a location on Kavanagh Road.

In addition to the plants, which were being grown outdoors, officers seized over two kilograms of harvested cannabis, as well as a 22-calibre rifle, generators and a variety of growing equipment. Officers also located a large indoor growing operation that was no longer in operation. One person was arrested at the scene.

Yoon Fatt LOO, age 60 of Elizabethtown-Kitley Township is charged under section 12(4)(b) of the Cannabis Act with Cultivate, propagate or harvest more than four cannabis plants and section 86(1) of the Criminal Code with Carless storage of a firearm.

The accused has been remanded in custody and is scheduled to appear at the Ontario Court of Justice in Brockville on October 1, 2020.

Hydro One was called to the location and determined some electrical wiring was unsafe. The power was disconnected.

OCTOBER 14, 2020  – The Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (SD&G) Detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) is investigating a reported home invasion at a home in South Glengarry Township.

Officers were called to the home on First Street shortly after 1:30 a.m. on October 14, 2020.

The resident, who was alone in the house, reports that two males broke into the home and assaulted them. It’s believed at least one of the individuals was bitten by a dog in the home before they fled on foot. The resident was not seriously hurt.

The OPP Canine Unit and OPP Forensic Identification Services Unit are assisting the SD&G OPP Crime Unit with the investigation.

The attackers are described as being dressed identically in black cargo pants, black hoodies and red face coverings. Both are believed to be white with slim builds.

If you have any information on this incident, please call SD&G OPP at 1-888-310-1122

OCTOBER 14, 2020 – Members of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) East Region Community Street Crime Unit (CSCU) have seized illegal drugs from a vehicle and home in Alfred & Plantagenet Township.

 On October 13, 2020, CSCU officers, along with members OPP Emergency Response Team (ERT), conducted a traffic stop on County Road-17 in Alfred. One person was arrested and officers then executed a search warrant at an apartment on County Road-17.

Officers seized nearly 350 suspected methamphetamine pills, well over 100 grams of illicit cannabis, as items and equipment typically associated with drug trafficking. 

Cheyenne CRAIG-FURLOTTE, age 41 of Alfred and Plantagenet Township has been charged with:

• Possession of property obtained by crime – Criminal Code sec. 355(b)
• Possession of a Schedule 1 substance for the purpose of trafficking – Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) sec. 5(2)
• Possession of illicit cannabis – Cannabis Act (CA) sec. 8(1)(b)
• Possessing cannabis for the purpose of selling – CA sec. 10(2)

The accused has been released and is scheduled to appear before the Ontario Court of Justice in L’Orignal on December 9, 2020.

The investigation is continuing.

OCTOBER 15, 2020 – 53 year old woman charged under the Federal Quarantine Act

(Ottawa) – On October 2, The Ottawa Police Service received a complaint concerning a woman that had disobeyed the Quarantine Act. 

Information was received indicating that an Ottawa woman had travelled abroad.  She returned to Canada on September 26 and was required under the Act to quarantine until October 9.  The woman decided not to respect this order and went to work on September 30^th, 2020 at a long-term health facility in Ottawa. When management was apprised of the situation, she was immediately sent home. The facility immediately activated mitigating self isolation and cleaning protocols and informed all persons that had been in contact with the subject.   To date, none of residents of this long term care facility have tested positive for COVID-19 as a result of this breach of the Quarantine Act requirements. 

A 53 year old woman, of Ottawa was charged with:

• Failing to comply with entry condition (Self isolate for 14 days) under section 58 of the Quarantine Act.
• Cause risk of imminent death or serious bodily harm under section 67(1) of the Quarantine Act. 

She will have her first court appearance on the 24^th of November, 2020.

The Ottawa Police would like to remind the population the utmost importance of respecting the

Quarantine Act in order to protect public health and prevent the introduction and spread of communicable diseases. 

Breach of the Quarantine Act should be reported to the Ottawa Police. 

Non-compliance of the City of Ottawa Mandatory Mask By-Law or Provincial Public Health measures and restriction such as gathering limits should be reported to the City of Ottawa By-Law Services (311). 

OCTOBER 15, 2020 – Members of the Leeds County and Grenville Detachments of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) located and charged a driver after a vehicle failed to remain at the scene of a collision. 

On October 14, 2020 at about 5:35 p.m. Grenville officers responded to single vehicle collision near Water Street and Edward Street in Prescott. A crane was observed striking a power line, trees and posts surrounding a water fountain and fleeing the area.

The crane operator drove westbound on Highway 401, near Brockville followed by an accompanying vehicle. Both vehicles were stopped by police for investigation.

Matthew HINTON, 62 years old of Collingwood, Ontario was arrested and charged with:

• Operation while impaired – Criminal Code 320.14(1)(a)

Under the Highway Traffic Act:

• Fail to remain

• Drive motor vehicle , no plate

• Drive motor vehicle, not equipped with an ignition interlock device

• Fail to keep log book

• Drive commercial motor vehicle – no valid CVOR certificate

• Driver commercial motor vehicle – improper licence

Furthermore, the company was charged with:

• Permit person with improper licence to driver commercial motor vehicle

• Permit operation of vehicle with air brakes- no endorsement on licence

• Permit person to drive commercial motor vehicle not in accordance with the regulations

• Operate commercial motor vehicle – no valid CVOR certificate

The driver of the accompanying vehicle was charged under the Highway Traffic Act with:

• Class G1 licence holder – drive on prohibited highway

• Class G1 licence holder – unaccompanied by qualified driver

• Class G1 licence holder

• Novice driver – B.A.C above zero

The accused was released and is scheduled to appear at the Ontario Court of Justice in Brockville at a future date.

November 20, 2020 – One would think a boutique that caters to children would be one of the safest shopping experiences during a World Wide pandemic, but for several shoppers in Cornwall Ontario who contacted this newspaper they were shocked and now want to go get Covid tests.

Complaints of the owner not wearing mask, coughing profusely and than using the payment control device without washing it and no social distancing are the major complaints.

“Omg….I just came out of Kid’s Corner toy store. It was packed. 3 people were coughing including the manager/owner who had a dry cough. It was nervewracking!”

“Easily 15 people on their main floor I don’t know if you’ve ever been in there but it’s quite small it was like deathly video game going through the aisle with my baby”

“The owner is usually there was behind up plexiglass coughing the dry cough wiping his nose and face and then handing me the keypad after he dialed his little code in it to hand it over to me I kind of helped my breath and I sent it twice immediately after but I find that he’s like a big brother to my goodness I hope he doesn’t have it”

“One lady left the store and as she was walking out she coughed her guts out as though she was holding it back the whole time”

“ It was literally nerve-wracking obviously they don’t care there’s no way there should be 15 people on that main floor Several times I was stuck couldn’t go anywhere because I was trapped between people with a baby“

“He wore no gloves, touched interac pad after wiping his face without a mask on and was dry coughing behind plexiglass“

“One of my favorite stores but I’m concerned they may be aiding the spread of COVID19 especially with Christmas shopping“

CFN spoke with Kevin Ouderkirk who suggested the complaints were nit picking and that the health unit had ok’d all of his store procedures while doling out anti mask rhetoric.

He also stated that he has one employee who doesn’t wear a mask because they have a health condition. IE, rather than staying home if their condition is flaring they attend work without a mask.

As well he thought it was fine as long as people were separated by at least one meter.

He did not deny any of the allegations via telephone.

Sadly in Cornwall you can’t really report COVID-19 violations. Calls to the CPS were met with directions to call the EOHU. You cannot visit the unit, only call which leads to a maze of telephone voicemail suggestions.

There is no covid directives for complaints on their main website page.

CFN did confirm via phone with another nearby merchant that they in fact have a NO MASK, NO ENTRY rule. The Health Unit has even written on its web page that store owners are not obliged to let those exempted or anyone in their businesses without a mask.

This newspaper suggests staying out of any business that doesn’t enforce the wearing of minimum 3 play masks as stated from PHAC regardless of exemptions, proper social distancing, and following other protective measures.

We all have to work together to protect our economy, community, and health care system.

If you have more information related to this story you can email jamie@cornwallfreenews.com

DECEMBER 21, 2020 – On June 18, 2020 shortly before 5:00 p.m, Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry (SD&G) Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) officers responded to a two vehicle collision on Highway 401 Westbound (between Dickinson Road and Upper Canada Road ), South Dundas Township.

Shortly before 5:00 p.m, a westbound passenger vehicle collided with a westbound tractor trailer on Highway 401.

The passenger, Richard HESSE-ANDRE (age 22) of Cornwall, Ontario of the westbound vehicle was pronounced deceased at scene.

SD&G OPP continued to investigate with the assistance of OPP Traffic Collision Investigators (TCI) and OPP Reconstructionist.

On December 15, 2020 SD&G OPP arrested and charged the driver of the westbound passenger vehicle.

Taisha MARTELL (age 20) of Cornwall, Ontario is charged with;

–             Causing death by criminal negligence Criminal code (CC) Sec. 220(b)

–             Impaired Operation causing death CC Sec. 20.14(3)

–             Driving motor vehicle with open container of liquor – Liquor Licence Act Sec. 32(1)

–             Novice driver B.A.C above zero – Highway Traffic Act – Sec. 44.1(3)

The accused was held in custody and was scheduled to appear at the Ontario Court of Justice in Cornwall court on December 15, 2021.

Anyone having information on the above incidents or any other crime is asked to call SD&G OPP at 1-888-310-1122 or Seaway Valley Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-TIPS(8477) 

JANUARY 28, 2021 – A frustrated former Olymel worker shared a letter dated January 21, 2021 which confirms the Company which has over 15,000 workers across Canada paid a ransom after being hacked.

An Olymel rep confirmed to CFN that the letter, signed by Martin Juneau, was legit.

While the worker that shared this with CFN only received it this week the leak was reported to have occurred last October.

Olymel confirmed that the personal data of employees, former employees and those who applied for positions had been stolen.

The company was quoted as saying:

“We had, by paying a sum of money to the perpetrators of the cyberattack, proof in return that this data had been destroyed. We have experts who monitor sites and networks so for the moment, it does not appear to us, if it was the case an employee will tell us. As a precaution, our experts recommend that we be careful and offer protection to all our employees who wish to subscribe to it. It’s not in our best interest to disclose the amounts that have been paid. ”

We can be reached at info@cornwallfreenews.com

Friday, February 12, 2021   – The Ottawa Police Service has charged one of its members in relation to recent domestic incidents – one in December 2020 and one in February 2021.

The officer was charged with Assault (x2), Mischief and Careless storage of a firearm. The charges relate to off-duty incidents.

The officer has been suspended from duty.

As with any domestic violence incident, no name is being released in order to protect the identity of the victim.

The Ottawa Police Service Professional Standards Unit has commenced a conduct investigation under the Police Services Act.

The Ottawa Police releases information when officers are charged to ensure transparency and trust in the process.

The Ottawa Police Service takes the issue of violence against women very seriously.

FEBRUARY 25, 2021 – CFN collates Covid-19 info on our main facebook page. As many know, yours truly has been focused on Covid since December 2019 and trying, many times facing abuse, to get authorities and stores in Cornwall to take the Pandemic seriously. Many times it feels like Noah’s Ark meets Groundhog Day.

While shopping at Freshco here in Cornwall I had a cashier step away from her cash and waive me to her lane. I shooed her away explaining that she couldn’t just wear a faceshield. No mask, don’t come near me.

Their manager on Duty claimed that the EOHU said that they were fine using just a shield which isn’t true, but calls to their health unit have repeatedly not been returned to me and until only recently the CPS was refusing Covid complaints.

The EOHU’s own website echoes that shields are not enough. PHAC has stated since the Fall that people should wear a minimum of a 3 ply mask. Shield work great with masks, but on their own aerosols escape and with the risk of the variants this will prove deadly.

So it was surprising again when I was at the Freshco in Cornwall this week that the same manager doubled down, again citing the EOHU and that not one, but two cashiers were wearing just shields. Again, no response to my call from the Health Unit, but this time a by law officer did call me back saying that they emailed the health unit and that they would look into it.

But based on the allegations of the store’s acting manager the EOHU itself should be charged if in fact they gave the store the greenlight. They certainly should not be the arbiter in this situation.

From the EOHU website:

“A mask is defined as a face covering that can filter respiratory droplets, and that securely covers the nose, mouth, and chin without gapping. A mask may be a non-medical mask, medical mask or other face covering (e.g. a bandana, scarf or cloth face covering).”

Not up to PHAC standards which is scary, but clearly faceshields do not fit that minimum description as the by law officer agreed. He also stated his boss was the one that instigated him reaching out to the EOHU while admitting that the faceshield use was confirmed.

Clearly in February 2021 we are far past education. Stores like Freshco need to be fined, and publicly so we can be aware of their practices.

Same with Kiddie Korner which saw a picture in the Seaway News with the owner’s wife not wearing any covering with the owner claiming that she’s exempt. Those exemptions are not for staff that come into contact with the public. And they certainly are not obligatory or mandatory.

We are about to see the beginning of the Third Wave of Covid which will see the toughest lockdowns to date because of the severity of the Variants. This isn’t a maybe situation, especially with the insane capitulation to our Friends in Akwesasne who have numbers as high as Cornwall while having less than 25% of our population. While nearly 400 Million Canadians and Americans are not allowed to drive over the border unless they are essential workers, 23,000 Akwesasne residents drive freely, regardless of their exposure which just might be a factor in Cornwall & SD&G’s numbers being so high.

We need to all pull together to get through this Pandemic, especially as governments across the board have let us down, from failing to get vaccines rolling, to having flimsy rules that aren’t even enforced strongly enough, if at all.

In the meanwhile, because of such behavior, people aren’t able to get medical procedures they need and our economy gets impacted.

Frankly it’s insane and clearly shows that we truly do get the government we collectively deserve.

We can and must do better.

jamie@cornwallfreenews.com

MARCH 16, 2021 – The Lanark County Detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) and Lanark County Crime Unit have laid charges in a major fraud investigation which began in November 2019.

As a result of the initial complaint in Lanark County, the investigation into this incident led to the identification of over ten separate victims with a total reported financial loss of over $500,000. The complaints were in relation to deposits made for construction of tiny homes that were never built. Victims were from different jurisdictions across Ontario.

Richard WHEATLEY, age 61 of the Town of Carleton Place is charged under the Criminal Code with the following offences:

– Fraud over $5000 – nine counts

– Fraud under $5000

– Theft over $5000 – eight counts

– Theft under $5000

– Obstruct Peace Officer

The accused is scheduled to appear in the Ontario Court of Justice in Perth on April 12, 2021.

Investigators believe there may be additional victims. If you have any information on the investigation, or believe you may have been a victim of a similar fraud, contact Lanark OPP at .1-888-310-1122