RELEASE DATE: August 8, 2018

Manitoba

THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA

IN THE MATTER OF:

The Fatality Inquiries Act C.C.S.M. c. F52

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

Roy Thomas Bell, Deceased

Report on Inquest and Recommendations of
Judge Dale Schille
Issued this 2nd day of August, 2018

APPEARANCES:
Ronald Toews, Inquest Counsel
Kimberly Carswell, Counsel for the Winnipeg Police Service
Stephan Thliveris, Counsel for Darlene Bell

 Manitoba

THE FATALITY INQUIRIES ACT
REPORTED BY PROVINCIAL JUDGE ON INQUEST

RESPECTING THE DEATH OF: ROY THOMAS BELL

Having held an inquest respecting the said death on January 22, 2018, and
March 5, 2018, at the City of Winnipeg in Manitoba, I report as follows:
The name of the deceased is: Roy Thomas Bell.
The deceased came to his death on the 18th day of December, 2007, at the
City of Winnipeg, in the Province of Manitoba.
The deceased came to his death by the following means: multiple gunshot
wounds.
I hereby make no recommendations for the reasons set out in the attached
report.
Attached hereto and forming part of my report is a list of exhibits required to
be filed by me.

Dated at the City of Winnipeg, in Manitoba, this 2nd day of August, 2018.
“ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:”
_____________________________
Judge Dale Schille
Provincial Court of Manitoba

 Copies to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Dr. John Younes, A/Chief Medical Examiner (2 copies)
Chief Judge Margaret Wiebe, Provincial Court of Manitoba
Honourable Cliff Cullen, Minister Responsible for The Fatality Inquiries
Act.
Mr. David Wright, Deputy Minister of Justice & Deputy Attorney General
Michael Mahon, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Ronald Toews, Counsel to the Inquest
Kimberly Carswell, Counsel for the Winnipeg Police Service
Stephan Thliveris, Counsel for Darlene Bell
Exhibit Coordinator, Provincial Court
Aimee Fortier, Executive Assistant and Media Relations, Provincial Court

 Manitoba
THE FATALITY INQUIRIES ACT
REPORTED BY PROVINCIAL JUDGE ON INQUEST
RESPECTING THE DEATH OF: ROY THOMAS BELL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.

MANDATE OF THIS INQUEST ..............................................................1

II.

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................2

III.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF MR. BELL’S DEATH .......................................3

IV.

EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE USE OF FORCE ...............................4

V.

POLICE EVIDENCE CONCERNING DECEMBER 17, 2007 ................7
A. Constable Wesley Johnson ...............................................................7
B. Constable Saif Khan .........................................................................9

VI.

DELAY .................................................................................................... 11

VII. DISCUSSION OF EVIDENCE............................................................... 12
VIII. CONCLUSION........................................................................................ 15
EXHIBIT LIST

 Inquest: Roy Thomas Bell

I.

Page: 1

MANDATE OF THIS INQUEST

[1] By letter dated January 21, 2015, the Chief Medical Examiner for the Province
of Manitoba, Dr. A. Thambirajah Balachandra, (as he then was) directed that a
Provincial Court judge conduct an inquest into the death of Roy Thomas Bell for the
following reasons:
1.
To fulfill the requirement for an inquest as defined in Section 19(3)(b) of
The Fatality Inquiries Act;
2.

To determine the circumstances relating to Mr. Thomas’ death; and

3.
To determine what, if anything, can be done to prevent similar deaths from
occurring in the future.

[2] By virtue of section 33(1), The Fatality Inquiries Act requires that the
presiding provincial judge:
(a)
make and send a written report of the inquest to the minister
setting forth when, where and by what means the deceased person
died, the cause of the death, the name of the deceased person, if
known, and the material circumstances of the death;
(b)
upon the request of the minister, send to the minister the
notes or transcript of the evidence taken at the inquest; and
(c)
send a copy of the report to the medical examiner who
examined the body of the deceased person;
and may recommend changes in the programs, policies or practices of the
government and the relevant public agencies or institutions or in the laws of the
province where the presiding provincial judge is of the opinion that such changes
would serve to reduce the likelihood of deaths in circumstances similar to those that
resulted in the death that is the subject of the inquest.

[3] Section 33(2) of The Fatality Inquiries Act directs that I not express an opinion
that any person is culpable in relation to the death under consideration. While the
Act contains no prohibition in relation to opinion absolving any person of culpability
in relation to the death under consideration, it is important to note that is not the
mandate of any inquest.

 Inquest: Roy Thomas Bell

II.

Page: 2

INTRODUCTION

[4] Roy Thomas Bell was fatally shot by police on December 17, 2007, following
a confrontation.
[5] A standing hearing was held on January 11, 2017, in which Darlene Bell, the
wife of the deceased, and the Winnipeg Police Service were granted standing. The
inquest was held on January 22, 2018, and March 5, 2018. The bulk of the evidence
was filed by agreement of counsel with the only testimony tendered coming from
the involved officers.
[6] An inquest in these circumstances is mandatory pursuant to section 7.1(1)(i)
of The Fatality Inquiries Act.
[7] This inquest commenced approximately a decade after the death under
consideration. Ten years is an unacceptable intervening period of time to precede
an inquest. The issue of delay will be discussed later in this report but as a
preliminary observation, the procedures applicable in similar circumstances have
undergone wholesale change and the exceptional delay present in this case is
unlikely to be repeated in my view.
[8] This inquest focused on the use of force by police which caused the death of
Mr. Bell. Extensive evidence about the use of force training and protocols was not
called including expert evidence. The bulk of the evidence concerning use of force
came from the testimony of the officers involved. Given that an inquest is
mandatory in relation to police involved fatalities, the unfortunate reality is there
have been numerous similar inquests where the issue of use of force by the police
has been the focus. In particular, a number of those inquests have dealt with the
Winnipeg Police Service (WPS) and scrutinized the training, policies and
equipment utilized by its members. Recognizing the comprehensive and proximate
nature of prior inquests, a similar scope of inquiry was consequently not required
in order to fulfill the mandate of this inquest. Given the significant time lapse
since this death it must also be recognized that intervening inquests have generated
recommendations.
[9] I extend thanks to counsel appearing in this matter for the efficient and
sensitive manner in which this inquest was conducted. The family of Mr. Bell and
the officers involved in his death were forced to relive this catastrophic event many
years later. The manner in which counsel conducted themselves reflected

 Inquest: Roy Thomas Bell

Page: 3

sensitivity to both the family of the deceased as well as the officers. As a result, to
the extent possible, further trauma was minimized.
[10] I indicate at the outset of this report that in relation to the third ground upon
which the inquest was directed, I make no recommendations to prevent similar
deaths in the future.
III.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF MR. BELL’S DEATH

[11] Mr. Bell was employed as a member of the Canadian Military for 23 ½ years
until he was medically discharged in 2004 due in part to post traumatic stress
disorder. Health records of the deceased were entered into evidence substantiating
that Mr. Bell suffered from a variety of mental health issues for which he was
seeking treatment which included medication. Given that this report has not
resulted in any recommendations, the privacy of Mr. Bell and his family is a
consideration not displaced by the need for a comprehensive review of his personal
circumstances in order to found recommendations. Medical records of Mr. Bell
were filed and subject to a sealing order. The review of Mr. Bell’s medical
circumstances will, by design, be brief. The evidence at this inquest confirms the
findings of the investigation conducted by the office of the Chief Medical
Examiner that Mr. Bell struggled with depression, anxiety and anger management
issues. Toxicology results of blood samples taken during the autopsy indicate the
presence of a street drug as well as a prescription drug in a quantity exceeding
therapeutic levels. These drugs may have exacerbated the otherwise emotionally
charged confrontation with police.
[12] Mr. Bell was married to Darlene Bell at the time of his death. The Bells
socialized with another couple with whom they spent the evening of Saturday
December 15, 2007. Although there was no verbal confrontation during the
evening, subsequent events made clear that Mr. Bell took offence to some
comment by his male guest, possibly in relation to the Canadian military.
[13] Mr. Bell demonstrated his upset by sending a series of text messages to his
friend. Mr. Bell initially indicated that he was upset and in subsequent emails the
tone escalated to threats. By Monday afternoon the couple was sufficiently
concerned to contact the police to report the threats.

 Inquest: Roy Thomas Bell

Page: 4

[14] Police were dispatched to the complaint just before 11:00 p.m. on December
17, 2007. Police arrived on scene and spoke to the complainants for approximately
25 minutes before a disturbance was heard outside. The complainant looked out the
window and identified Mr. Bell as the person outside the building causing the
disturbance. Mr. Bell appeared agitated and was armed with a baseball bat and
shouting for the complainant to come out of his apartment.
[15] The officers left the apartment and went outside to confront Mr. Bell.
Mr. Bell failed to follow repeated commands to put the bat on the ground and
continued to advance on the officers. One officer discharged his Taser however, it
was ineffective. The second officer discharged his handgun in response to what he
perceived to be an imminent threat to himself and his partner. Mr. Bell fell to the
ground after being struck by multiple gunshots. Mr. Bell was initially breathing
after he was shot but quickly succumbed to his injuries. The autopsy confirmed
that the cause of death was due to gunshot wounds.
[16] In addition to the baseball bat, police also located a handgun in close
proximity to Mr. Bell after he was shot.
[17] It is an understatement to describe the confrontation with the police as
constituting a short duration. Just 34 seconds elapsed between the police reporting
to the communications center that a male was present with a baseball bat and when
they reported that the male was down and unconscious.
IV.

EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE USE OF FORCE

[18] The following summary is based on the testimony of Constables Johnson
and Khan who were the two officers dispatched to the threat complaint. As
previously indicated, other inquests have examined in greater detail the WPS
policy on the use of force which generally reflects the national use of force
framework (see, for example, Inquest into the death of Craig Vincent McDougall
(May 7, 2017) para 228).
[19] The WPS trains officers to identify a threat and respond as necessary with
force proportionate to the nature of the threat. Use of force training is one aspect of
basic training that each recruit receives. Basic training also involves firearms
training. Firearms training primarily focuses on proficiency in operation and
handling of the weapon but also involves threat assessment as a component,

 Inquest: Roy Thomas Bell

Page: 5

identifying when it is appropriate to discharge the firearm. Use of force training is
not ongoing whereas officers are required to requalify in relation to firearms
annually which includes a component of threat assessment.
[20] The basic principle in use of force training is that the officer must identify
the level of resistance presented by the suspect and respond with an appropriate
level of force.
[21] Levels of resistance are described as consisting of the following escalating
levels:
-

Officer intimidation - glaring, aggressive posturing;

-

Verbal non-compliance, passive resistance (ie. suspect refusing to
support their weight as an officer assists them to their feet);

-

Active resistance (suspect pushing an officer’s hand away as they reach
to take hold of the suspect);

-

Active aggression;

-

Aggravated active aggression.

[22] Threat assessment consists of three components:
1.

Weapon - can be a traditional weapon such as a firearm, knife or a bat
but also includes hands and feet which can be used as a weapon.

2.

Intent - the officer is required to assess the intention of the subject. (ie. A
subject who is using a knife to prepare dinner during his interaction with
the police would not likely be assessed as intending to use the knife
against the police.)

3.

Delivery system - involves an assessment whether the suspect has the
present ability to carry out their intention. (ie. The suspect who is
threatening to punch an officer but has their hands cuffed behind them
would not possess a delivery system to carry out their intent.)

[23] The level of force available to an officer in ascending order is as follows:
Officer Presence - the presence of a uniformed officer often serves to
de-escalate the situation.

 Inquest: Roy Thomas Bell

Page: 6

Verbal Direction - when a police officer provides a suspect direction it is
generally highly effective.
Soft Empty Hand Control - consists of such contacts as taking hold of a
person’s shoulder to effect an arrest, taking their arm to guide them or taking
hold of their hand in order to apply handcuffs. It also encompasses more
aggressive actions such as joint locks intended to immobilize and cause
discomfort.
Hard Hand Control - encompasses any contact with the potential to cause
physical injury to the suspect such as striking blows or joint locks applied to
the point that tissue damage may result.
Intermediate Weapons - those available to WPS officers consist of:
Collapsible baton - a metal baton worn on the officer’s belt which
extends to a length of approximately 18 inches.
Pepper spray - designed to irritate the eyes and nasal system of the
suspect and partially incapacitate them. This weapon has limitations as it
can be overcome by a suspect who is immune to the effects, has
decreased pain sensitivity such as results from drug or alcohol
consumption. Pepper spray cannot be used in close proximity (within 3
feet) or at a distance exceeding approximately 10 feet.
Taser - Constables Johnson and Khan provided a general description of
how the Taser works, when it would be used as well as its limitations.
Other inquests have dealt with functioning and use of the Taser in
significantly more detail (see Inquest into the death of Craig Vincent
McDougall (May 7, 2017) and Inquest into the death of Michael Brian
Langdon (July 11, 2016)). The Taser is a barrelled weapon designed to
deliver an electrical charge. The Taser fires two probes with wires
connected to the weapon. If the probes deploy appropriately on the
suspect and lodge in close proximity to the skin a sufficient distance
apart a circuit is created and a jolt of electricity is delivered. The
electrical shock temporarily incapacitates the suspect.

 Inquest: Roy Thomas Bell

Page: 7

Deadly force - use of firearm. Officers are trained to target center mass of the
subject as this is most likely to stop the threat and it represents the greatest
potential to successfully strike the target in a high stress situation.
V.

POLICE EVIDENCE CONCERNING DECEMBER 17, 2007

A.

Constable Wesley Johnson

[24] In December of 2007 Constable Johnson had been a member of the WPS for
three years. On this date he was partnered with Constable Saif Khan who had been
a police officer for two years. Constable Johnson was the passenger in the police
car and according to standard WPS practice he assumed the role of primary
investigator, notetaker as well as operating the onboard computer terminal,
inputting and monitoring incoming information. Both officers were in uniform.
[25] At 10:41 p.m. the officers were dispatched to a complaint of threats received
with the reporting person located at 34 Langside Street. Dispatch information
included the name of Roy Thomas Bell as the person alleged to have made the
threats and identified him as ex-military, suffering from mental health issues and
known to carry a pocketknife. Officers arrived on scene at 10:46 p.m. and prior to
entering the apartment building received additional information from the
complainants that Mr. Bell had sent a subsequent text message indicating he was
enroute to their location.
[26] The police went up to the apartment and spoke with the complainant and his
girlfriend. It was explained to the officers that the couple were friends with
Mr. Bell and his wife. On the previous Saturday they had been to the Bell
residence to socialize. Although there was no verbal confrontation that evening,
subsequent events clearly indicated that Mr. Bell had taken offence at something
that occurred. After arriving home the couple started to receive angry text
messages from Mr. Bell. The messages continued and escalated to threats to attack
the complainant. On Monday, December 17, 2007, the couple was sufficiently
concerned to contact the police to report the matter. Constable Johnson viewed
some of the text messages which confirmed information received. Police were also
told that Mr. Bell held a second-degree black belt in martial arts and had access to
firearms. The complainants did not want the police to take any action other than
generating a report to document the threats. It was felt that any action by the police

 Inquest: Roy Thomas Bell

Page: 8

would further inflame the situation and it was the intention to ask Darlene Bell to
intervene in an attempt to de-escalate the situation.
[27] Constable Johnson indicated that he and his partner were preparing to leave
approximately 25 minutes after arriving when yelling was heard downstairs outside
the apartment. The complainants looked outside and identified the person yelling
as Mr. Bell and indicated he had a baseball bat. Constable Johnson notified
dispatch that the suspect was on scene with a baseball bat. Constable Johnson
assessed that Mr. Bell intended to attack the complainant and he instructed the
couple to stay in their apartment. Constables Johnson and Khan went downstairs to
confront Mr. Bell. Constable Johnson indicated he drew his firearm and his partner
drew his Taser as they made their way downstairs. Exiting the side door of the
apartment building with his partner, Constable Johnson observed Mr. Bell 30 - 40
feet away approaching from the rear of 38 Langside Street. Mr. Bell was carrying
an orange aluminum baseball bat held in both hands in a ready cocked position.
Constable Johnson yelled, “Roy it’s Winnipeg Police drop the bat and get on the
ground and show us your hands.” Mr. Bell responded, “Fuck you I’m not doing
anything.” Constable Johnson also heard his partner issuing verbal commands. Mr.
Bell continued to walk towards the officers down the sidewalk at the rear of 38
Langside Street and stopped in close proximity to the rear door of that building.
Once stopped Mr. Bell commenced swinging the baseball bat and continued to yell
at police. As Mr. Bell had stopped advancing Constable Johnson seized the
opportunity to notify police dispatch they were in standoff with a male armed with
a bat. Both officers continued issuing verbal commands to drop the baseball bat
and Mr. Bell responded that he would drop the baseball bat if they dropped their
guns. Constable Johnson responded, “That is not going to happen.” Mr. Bell
recommenced a slow advance towards the officers while swinging the baseball bat
and ignoring commands to put the baseball bat down. Constable Johnson indicated
that Mr. Bell came within the 15 - 21 foot security zone. The security zone was
described as constituting a minimum distance at which sufficient time still exists to
react to physical threat. When Mr. Bell was estimated to be 12 - 15 feet from the
officers Constable Johnson advised Mr. Bell, “Stop and drop the bat or you will be
shot.” Mr. Bell commenced yelling repeatedly for the officers to shoot him. It
appeared to the officer that Mr. Bell made a decision to attack as he commenced
what he described as a charge, running towards them while swinging the baseball

 Inquest: Roy Thomas Bell

Page: 9

bat. Constable Johnson indicated that he made the decision to fire his handgun as
the window to respond to the threat was evaporating with Mr. Bell’s continued
advance.
[28] Constable Johnson indicated he feared for his safety and that of his partner
so he fired his handgun four times at the center mass of Mr. Bell who immediately
fell to the ground not moving.
[29] Constable Johnson did not see his partner fire the Taser but he saw the Taser
had been fired when he looked over to check on his partner’s wellbeing after he
had discharged his firearm.
[30] Constable Jonson called dispatch requesting an ambulance and additional
police units before attending to Mr. Bell to administer first aid. As he was placing
Mr. Bell in the recovery position he noticed a black handgun approximately six
feet from his head which was seized by his partner.
B.

Constable Saif Khan

[31] At the time of this incident Constable Khan had been a member of the WPS
for two years.
[32] Constable Khan confirmed the testimony of his partner concerning the
information received through dispatch and from the complainants as well as time
frames involved.
[33] Constable Johnson described hearing a loud bang on the window of the
apartment. The complainant looked out and identified Mr. Bell present outside.
The complainant looked out the window and indicated to officers that Mr. Bell was
outside. Constable Khan looked out and saw a male yelling and swinging a
baseball bat. He was not able to hear what Mr. Bell was yelling. Constable Khan
confirmed that they went outside immediately after seeing Mr. Bell and directed
the complainants to stay in the apartment. Constable Khan confirms the officers
exited the side door of the building. Constable Khan indicates he drew his Taser
prior to exiting the building while Constable Johnson drew his firearm once they
had exited the building.
[34] On exiting the building Mr. Bell is observed approximately 25 feet away still
yelling and swinging the baseball bat.

 Inquest: Roy Thomas Bell

Page: 10

[35] Constable Khan indicates that he yelled to Mr. Bell, “Winnipeg Police drop
the bat.” At the same time his partner was yelling similar directions. At this point
Constable Khan indicates that Mr. Bell stopped advancing at approximately 15 - 20
feet distance with the baseball bat raised over his left shoulder and said to police,
“Are you going to shoot me?” Constable Khan indicated he responded, “Winnipeg
Police drop the bat or I will taser you.” Constable Khan indicated that Mr. Bell
commenced moving towards him again with his partner on angle approximately
three feet away. As the advance recommenced Constable Khan had his Taser ready
and Constable Johnson had his handgun trained on Mr. Bell. Constable Khan
indicated to Mr. Bell again, “I will taser you – drop the bat.” Mr. Bell responded,
“Are you going to shoot me - shoot me - I will take you guys down.” The accused
also looked up at the window of the complainants’ apartment yelling, “Come down
you bitch.”
[36] Constable Khan indicates that Mr. Bell had advanced to within 7 - 10 feet
before he deployed the Taser. The Taser discharged two probes only one of which
lodged in the clothing that Mr. Bell was wearing and the other falling to the
ground, resulting in the Taser being ineffective. Mr. Bell was wearing thick winter
clothing. In discharging the Taser, Constable Khan indicated he feared that
Mr. Bell would strike him or his partner and cause grievous harm or death. Once
the Taser was fired Mr. Bell stopped walking and looked at the probe that had
lodged in his clothing and started to yell something at Constable Khan.
Immediately thereafter Mr. Bell recommenced his advance walking even faster
causing Constable Khan to attempt to retreat. As he retreated, Constable Khan
threw away his Taser and attempted to reach for his firearm. His partner was still
yelling directions at Mr. Bell.
[37] Mr. Bell swung the baseball bat and appeared to release his grip throwing
the baseball bat away while at the same time appeared to reach for something in his
rear waistband. Constable Khan describes Mr. Bell as pretty close to him when he
heard the sound of his partner discharging his firearm. He is not sure of how many
shots were fired.
[38] Immediately after the shots were fired Mr. Bell fell to the ground. Constable
Khan directed his partner to secure his firearm and attend to Mr. Bell indicating he
would stand guard. Constable Khan saw his partner turn Mr. Bell from his side to
his back into the recovery position. As Mr. Bell was moved a handgun became

 Inquest: Roy Thomas Bell

Page: 11

visible in a location on the ground where he had previously lay. Constable Khan
warned his partner about the presence of a handgun while kicking it away.
Constable Khan retrieved the handgun and placed it in his waistband. Constable
Johnson called for paramedics and other police units.
[39] When other police units arrived, Constable Khan was separated from his
partner and transported separately to the police detachment pending preparation of
a statement in relation to the incident. The separation of officers involved in a
shooting is standard police procedure.
VI.

DELAY

[40] This inquest took place 10 years after the death that is the subject of inquiry.
The primary goal of any inquest is to generate recommendations that might later be
implemented to prevent similar deaths in the future. The primary purpose of the
inquest is significantly undermined if helpful recommendations are significantly
delayed. The delay is perhaps best considered in terms of the lives that may be put
at risk or lost as a result of potential changes not implemented in a timely manner.
[41] The calling of an inquest is a function of the office of the Chief Medical
Examiner of Manitoba pursuant to The Fatality Inquiries Act. In circumstances
where criminal charges are being considered or have been laid, the custom has
been that the inquest will not be directed until such time as it is confirmed no
charges will be laid or the charges have been dealt with in court. Without delving
into the rationale, suffice to say logical justification exists for delaying until
criminal charges are determined.
[42] This case is remarkable as Dr. A. Thambirajah Blachandra Chief Medical
Examiner for the province of Manitoba (as he then was) declined to follow
protocol and wait for a final decision to be reached concerning potential criminal
charges. The letter dated January 21, 2015, addressed to the Chief Judge of the
Provincial Court by the Chief Medical Examiner states: “As this case has been
deferred for over six years; I have decided to proceed with calling the inquest,
regardless of this office’s former practice and the reasons for the delay.”
[43] The bulk of the delay in this matter was associated with the process then in
place governing determination of criminal charges. At the time, the process
consisted of the WPS conducting an internal review and preparing a report which

 Inquest: Roy Thomas Bell

Page: 12

was then considered by senior command. The report was then provided to an
independent outside police agency for review and preparation of a separate report.
The police reports were then provided to the Manitoba Prosecution Service for
consideration. The Manitoba Prosecution Service in turn referred the case to the
prosecutions branch of another province as the final arbiter regarding potential
charges. This process frequently resulted in significant delay in calling an inquest.
[44] This procedure has been displaced by the establishment of the Manitoba
Independent Investigations Unit (IIU). Among other functions the IIU investigates
police involved fatalities and pursues criminal charges in a manner similar to most
police agencies. In the McDougall inquest Mr. Zane Tessler, the director of the
IIU, testified that his office had a staff of eight investigators and they try to resolve
the investigation “in as timely a manner as possible”. Based on these
developments my optimistic view is that the length of delay present in this case is
unlikely to be repeated.
[45] In McDougall there were other circumstances that delayed proceedings apart
from consideration of criminal charges. In McDougall Associate Chief Judge
Krahn made a series of recommendations aimed at expediting the inquest process.
[46] Recognizing that the bulk of the delay in this matter results from
consideration of criminal charges associated with a process no longer in place, as
well as the fact previous recommendations have been offered to address delay, I
decline to make any recommendations in this regard.
VII. DISCUSSION OF EVIDENCE
[47] At the outset I indicate that there are no credibility concerns arising on the
evidence.
[48] Despite some discrepancies arising on the evidence of Constables Johnson
and Khan, I accept their evidence. Constable Johnson never saw his partner fire the
Taser or Mr. Bell throw the baseball bat away and reach toward the waistband of
his pants. Constable Johnson actually discharged his firearm five times, not four as
he testified at this inquest. Despite the material nature of these discrepancies they
are understandable in my view given the differing vantage points of the officers,
the pace at which the events unfolded and the passage of time. The testimony of
the officers is supported in material ways by statements of independent witnesses

 Inquest: Roy Thomas Bell

Page: 13

who either saw or heard the events. The physical evidence consisting of the
handgun and baseball bat possessed by Mr. Bell as well as the discharged Taser are
confirmatory of the central aspects of the officers’ evidence.
[49] In framing the issues under consideration it is important to note that while
both officers articulated that that they feared imminent grievous bodily harm when
they acted, their threat assessment was not based on the fact that Mr. Bell was in
possession of a handgun. Neither officer was aware that Mr. Bell was in possession
of a handgun until after Constable Johnson had discharged his firearm. The
handgun was confirmed to belong to Mr. Bell and later identified as an airsoft
handgun replica of a 9 millimetre firearm.
[50] In an attempt to provide recommendations aimed at avoiding similar deaths
in the future, this inquest focused on the actions of the officers involved. It is
important to recognize that the WPS conducted a thorough review of this death
scrutinizing the actions of the officers. That review was conducted by Sergeant R.
S. Bell of the WPS Homicide Unit and concluded both officers acted in accordance
with training and procedures and were justified in the actions taken. The WPS
report was forwarded to an independent police agency for review. Acting Staff
Sergeant R. Tuza of the Calgary Police Service reviewed the report prepared by
Sergeant Bell and concurred that the officers were justified in the actions taken. It
bears mention that Acting Staff Sergeant Tuza disagreed with the conclusion of
Sergeant Bell that Mr. Bell was not deliberately provoking the police to shoot him.
I disagree with Sgt. Bell’s opinion that this is not suicide by cop. I believe there is
insufficient information to make a classification. There is no doubt that Mr. Bell was
armed with three weapons and therefore prepared for a violent confrontation. Mr.
Bell knew he was dealing with the police, Mr. Bell taunted the police to shoot him,
and Mr. Bell’s actions forced the officers into using deadly force against him.

[51] The other issue raised by Acting Staff Sergeant Tuza is the failure of the
responding officers to call for backup when they received the update that Mr. Bell
might be attending to the home of the complainant. Constable Khan recognized in
his testimony that the failure to call for backup is something that could have been
done differently and he would have done if he had the ability to do things over.
The standard to which any professional should be held is not that of perfection. In
my view, the failure to call for backup is not reflective of any systemic WPS issue
that could be addressed through a recommendation issued in this report.

 Inquest: Roy Thomas Bell

Page: 14

[52] While the focus of the two police reviews was different from the mandate of
this inquest, any issues identified by police were quite likely to be issues of
concern in this proceeding. This proceeding is completely separate and
independent of the police reviews but it bears mention that this inquest is by no
means the first scrutiny regarding the circumstances surrounding the death of
Mr. Bell.
[53] The WPS is not static in training procedures and equipment provided to
members. The WPS appears to be diligent in keeping abreast of any enhancements
that might better equip officers to serve the public. Constable Johnson indicated
that the police are now using a different model of Taser with significantly
enhanced capabilities. The new Taser can deploy two separate sets of probes
before requiring reloading versus one set in the Taser that was in use at the time.
The current Taser also projects a red laser dot onto the target indicating where each
of the probes is projected to land versus a single dot on the old Taser. In 2007 only
one officer of a team of two would be equipped with a Taser, now both officers
carry Tasers.
[54] An example of enhancements is the training related to verbal commands.
The police receive training in a technique known as tactical communication. In this
case both officers engaged in tactical communication with Mr. Bell. Tactical
communication is aimed at enhancing compliance by informing the suspect of
potential consequences of non-compliance. In this case, Constable Johnson told
Mr. Bell “stop and drop the bat or you will be shot” as opposed to simply “stop and
drop the bat”. Constable Khan was using tactical communication when he said to
Mr. Bell, “I will taser you – drop the bat.” In 2007 officers received four hours of
training on tactical communication. By 2017 the time devoted to tactical
communication training had been tripled (see McDougall). The McDougall inquest
released May 9, 2017, also included a recommendation that police evaluate tactical
communication training to assess whether it is adequate.
[55] The officers’ use of tactical communication in this case represents an
adherence to best practices in the face of rapidly developing, highly stressful
events. Unfortunately, the use of tactical communication did not invoke
compliance and actually appeared to further agitate Mr. Bell.

 Inquest: Roy Thomas Bell

Page: 15

[56] A critical feature of the events culminating in the death of Mr. Bell is
Constable Khan discharging his Taser in an attempt to incapacitate Mr. Bell
without resorting to lethal force. Unfortunately, the Taser was not effective as one
of the probes failed to lodge on the bulky clothing that Mr. Bell was wearing. This
death occurred in Winnipeg in December and Mr. Bell was wearing winter
clothing. Effective deployment of the Taser is negatively effected by multiple
layers of heavy clothing. Unfortunately, multiple layers of heavy clothing
constitutes both necessity and commonplace reality during the winter in Manitoba.
As previously indicated, other inquests - including two relatively proximate in time
- have examined in significant detail the functioning and use of the Taser. As
described earlier, there have been enhancements to the Taser equipment since this
death. On the evidence before me I would concur in the conclusion reached by
Associate Chief Judge Krahn in McDougall at page 51, “I am satisfied that there
has been continuous improvement to the weapons and tools made available to the
officers of the WPS allowing them to do their jobs in a safer, more effective
manner.” The Taser, while less than ideal, presently represents state of the art
technology to immobilize a suspect via non-lethal force.
VIII. CONCLUSION
[57] Objective consideration of the evidence taken at this inquest does not
support the view that modification or enhancements need to be implemented by the
WPS in order to avoid similar deaths in the future. More specifically, it is my view
that the tools the officers had to address the situation that confronted them were
appropriate including: training, procedures and equipment. Accordingly, as
indicated earlier in this report I offer no recommendations.
I respectfully conclude and submit this Report on this 2nd day of August,
2018, at the City of Winnipeg, in the Province of Manitoba.
“ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:”
Judge Dale Schille
Provincial Court of Manitoba

 Manitoba
THE FATALITY INQUIRIES ACT
REPORT BY PROVINCIAL JUDGE ON INQUEST
RESPECTING THE DEATH OF: ROY THOMAS BELL
EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit No.

Description

1-1

Letter from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner dated
January 21, 2015

1-2

Report of the Medical Examiner (Autopsy Report), dated
April 7, 2008

1-3

Toxicology Report, dated July 24, 2008

1-4

Transcript of Sworn Statement of Derek Woosley, dated
December 18, 2007

1-5

Transcript of Sworn Statement of Chelsea Pajot, dated
December 18, 2007

1-6

Transcript of Sworn Statement of Darlene Bell, dated
December 18, 2007

1-7

Transcript of Sworn Statement of Kimberly McLelland, dated
December 18, 2007

 1-8

Transcript of Sworn Statement of Patrick Murdock, dated
December 18, 2007

1-9

Transcript of Sworn Statement of Alayna Moore, dated
December 18, 2007

1-10

Psychological Assessment Report from Dr. N. Prober, dated
October 26, 2006

1-11

Cst. R. Manguba’s Winnipeg Police Service Forensic Identification
Report, dated December 18, 2007

1-12

Sgt. R. S. Bell’s Winnipeg Police Service Memorandum (Homicide
Unit Review), dated September 18, 2009

1-13

Staff Sgt. R. Tuza’s File Review of Police Related Shooting –
Mr. Roy Thomas Bell, dated September 16, 2010

2

Winnipeg Police Service Call Log