SIU Director’s Report - Case # 20-TCD-089
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
Mandate of the SIU
The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving police officers where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. The Unit’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.
Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation. If, after an investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the officer. Alternatively, in all cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director does not lay criminal charges but files a report with the Attorney General communicating the results of an investigation.
Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation. If, after an investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the officer. Alternatively, in all cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director does not lay criminal charges but files a report with the Attorney General communicating the results of an investigation.
Information Restrictions
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”)
Pursuant to section 14 of FIPPA (i.e., law enforcement), certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:- Confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by law enforcement agencies; and
- Information whose release could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.
- Subject Officer name(s);
- Witness Officer name(s);
- Civilian Witness name(s);
- Location information;
- Witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence; and
- Other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation.
Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (“PHIPA”)
Pursuant to PHIPA, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included. Other proceedings, processes, and investigations
Information may have also been excluded from this report because its release could undermine the integrity of other proceedings involving the same incident, such as criminal proceedings, coroner’s inquests, other public proceedings and/or other law enforcement investigations.Mandate Engaged
The Unit’s investigative jurisdiction is limited to those incidents where there is a serious injury (including sexual assault allegations) or death in cases involving the police.
“Serious injuries” shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. “Serious Injury” shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault. Where a prolonged delay is likely before the seriousness of the injury can be assessed, the Unit should be notified so that it can monitor the situation and decide on the extent of its involvement.
This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the death of a 32-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
“Serious injuries” shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. “Serious Injury” shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault. Where a prolonged delay is likely before the seriousness of the injury can be assessed, the Unit should be notified so that it can monitor the situation and decide on the extent of its involvement.
This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the death of a 32-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On April 17, 2020 at 11:10 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s death.According to TPS, on April 17, 2020, at 8:13 p.m., TPS received a 911 call regarding an assault in progress in a 12th floor apartment at 220 Victoria Street. The caller reported that two men were inside the apartment where loud voices were heard with one of the voices shouting, “He’s going to kill me!” The victim of the assault left the apartment unit while the other man [now known to be the Complainant] barricaded himself inside the apartment unit.
Four police officers from TPS 51 Division attended, along with two police officers from the TPS Priority Response Group (PRG). One of the police officers from the PRG spoke with the Complainant through the barricaded door.
TPS Emergency Task Force (ETF) police officers arrived at 9:07 p.m., and went up to the 12th floor. The ETF used a mechanical device to breach the door partially open whereupon they saw flames inside. They attempted to speak with the Complainant who was still inside the apartment unit but were unable to see or make verbal contact with him.
Toronto Fire Services (TFS) were requested, as the situation was rapidly developing, and arrived at the 12th floor at 9:18 p.m. The ETF backed away from the apartment unit and allowed firefighters to breach the door fully open. Firefighters located the Complainant inside the apartment unit. He needed emergency medical attention and was removed from the apartment to the lobby where he was pronounced deceased by a physician via telephone communications made between the Toronto Paramedic Services personnel who attended, and a physician who was at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.
The Team
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3 Number of SIU Forensic Investigators (FIs) assigned: 3
SIU investigators interviewed civilian and police witnesses, canvassed for additional witnesses, and searched for and obtained Closed-circuit Television (CCTV) data from 220 Victoria Street, Toronto. SIU FIs collected exhibits relevant to the incident.
SIU investigators reviewed cellular telephone video data submitted via the SIU’s website by a bystander who saw the fire; however, the video was of no probative value to advance the investigation of the incident and particularly what transpired on the 12th floor.
The injured man involved in the altercation with the Complainant was not interviewed as he was not in or near his apartment during the police officers’ and firefighters’ efforts to gain access to the Complainant after he barricaded himself in the apartment.
WO #2, WO #5, WO #6, WO #7, WO #9 and WO #10 were not interviewed. The named police officers’ memorandum book notes were reviewed. Their memorandum book notes indicated they had no information to advance the investigation that was not already known from the interview of the subject officer and review of his memorandum book notes, from civilian and other police witnesses, and from police and other data obtained and relevant to the incident.
SIU FIs made a digital photographic record of the scene, collected exhibits relevant to the incident, and submitted exhibits to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS).
The SIU requested and reviewed the report issued by the Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM).
The SIU also requested and reviewed CCTV data from 220 Victoria Street. A summary of the CCTV data is included in this report.
The Report of Postmortem Examination was received by the SIU from the Coroner’s Office on December 24, 2020.
Complainant:
32-year-old male, deceasedCivilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 Interviewed CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed
CW #6 Interviewed
CW #7 Interviewed
CW #8 Not interviewed (Next-of-kin)
Witness Officers (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed, notes received and reviewedWO #2 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary
WO #3 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed
WO #4 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed
WO #5 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary
WO #6 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary
WO #7 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary
WO #8 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed
WO #9 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary
WO #10 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary
WO #11 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed
WO #12 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed
Additionally, the notes from one undesignated officer were received and reviewed.
Subject Officer (SO)
SO Interviewed, notes received and reviewed Evidence
The Scene
On April 18, 2020, at 2:15 a.m., an SIU Forensic Investigator arrived at the scene. Numerous members of the TPS were at the scene securing it for investigative integrity. Firefighters with the TFS were also still at the scene. An OFM investigator was also present.It was agreed with the OFM investigator that a parallel investigation would be conducted. It was further agreed, regarding the clothing exhibits at the scene, that the OFM would secure those for submission to the CFS.
The Complainant, who was deceased, was in the lobby on the floor covered with an orange sheet and guarded by TPS police officers. Clothing items had been cut from his body by paramedics in an attempt to revive him. Electrocardiogram pads were located on his torso area and an airway that had been inserted in his mouth was still in place. Severe burns to the Complainant’s skin were also observed and a coroner’s tag was visible.
Two hundred and twenty Victoria Street was a multi-level condominium/apartment building with two elevators allowing access to the various floors. The main entrance was a controlled access with two concierge personnel in attendance at the front desk.
A large amount of water was located on the hall floor outside the involved apartment unit. Smoke damage was observed on the walls of the hall. A portion of a multi-coloured strap/rope was found tied to the external door handle for the apartment. The door appeared to have been forced open. In the area of the door lock, splintering of the door was present. The door opened inward and the door-frame in the area of the lock was also damaged.
On the floor on the bedroom was a large quantity of syringes where the Complainant was found initially by firefighters and TPS police officers. The entire unit had extreme fire, heat and smoke damage as well as substantial damage from water.
Physical Evidence
In-car Camera System (ICCS) Data
Forensic Evidence
OFM Report – July 6, 2020
The OFM deemed the cause of the fire fatality to have been that of a “fire-setter”.
CFS Chemistry Report - Submissions and Results
Report of Postmortem Examination
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence
The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence, and was able to locate the following sources:- CCTV footage from 220 Victoria Street; and
- Cellular telephone video taken by a bystander.
CCTV Data – 220 Victoria Street
ELEVATOR #1 April 17, 2020
The camera view encompassed most of the elevator and a view beyond the doors. There was no audio. Below are highlights that detail the presence and movement of various emergency response staff on the 12th floor and in the ground floor lobby.
- At 8:38:35 p.m., four uniformed TPS police officers rode to the 12th floor. One of them had a less-lethal long gun;
- At 8:45:00 p.m., one of the police officers ran past the open elevator in the other direction;
- At 9:11:53 p.m., two ETF police officers approached the Complainant’s unit and retreated a short time later with a length of rope [now known to have been tied to the door handle];
- At 9:12:18 p.m., an ETF police officer was seen with a black pistol or conducted energy weapon pointed towards the door; there appeared to be another officer behind him. Other ETF police officers passed by at a non-rushed stride;
- At 9:16:50 p.m., an ETF police officer was seen with a battering ram;
- At 9:17:10 p.m., ETF police officers backed away from the unit;
- At 9:17:22 p.m., the elevator door closed and opened at the ground floor lobby;
- At 9:23:38 p.m., firefighters appeared to be boarding elevator #2;
- At 9:28:34 p.m., three firefighters rode to the 11th floor and got off the elevator;
- At 9:30:12 p.m., the elevator returned to the ground floor and remained open;
- At 9:46:10 p.m., two paramedics, their stretcher, a TPS uniformed police officer and a TFD captain rode to the 12th floor. All but the TFD captain exited. The hallway looked dark, flooded, and busy with movement of emergency response personnel;
- At 9:46:52 p.m., all who got off the elevator got back on and rode to the ground floor; and
- At 9:47:38 p.m., the elevator door opened to the ground floor with several emergency services workers and a TFD firefighter appearing to be doing CPR on the Complainant.
ELEVATOR #2 April 17, 2020
The camera view encompassed most of the elevator and a view beyond the doors. There was no audio. Detailed below are a few highlights, of little value to the SIU investigation but included for thoroughness.
- At 8:15:32 p.m., a woman and CW #6 arrived at the 12th floor; the doors were open and a man in dark pants with bare feet and light-coloured dress-shirt was partially seen in the hallway;
- At 8:27:27 p.m., the elevator door was open to the 12th floor, and a uniformed police officer was seen standing in the hallway;
- At 9:05:48 p.m., the elevator door was open to the lobby;
- At 9:25:45 p.m., a firefighter was on the 12th floor where the lights were on in the hallway, with no flooding; and
- At 10:01:04 p.m., the elevator door was open to the lobby. A portion of a yellow sheet was depicted covering the Complainant.
LOBBY April 17, 2020
The camera view encompassed most of the lobby, two elevator doors that opened into the lobby, and a view through to the front doors of the building.
- At 8:23:33 p.m., uniformed police officers arrived with less-lethal use of force equipment;
- At 8:34:19 p.m., a paramedic and a uniformed police officer appeared to be speaking with a woman [now known to be CW #2];
- At 9:10:09 p.m., additional TPS ETF police officers arrived;
- At 9:14:58 p.m., additional TPS ETF police officers arrived;
- At 9:21:06 p.m., firefighters boarded an elevator;
- At 9:43:06 p.m., firefighters, paramedics and the Complainant were in the lobby with CPR being done on the Complainant;
- At 9:45:22 p.m., two other paramedics returned to the lobby with an empty stretcher; and
- At 9:54:00 p.m., the Complainant was covered with a sheet.
Cellular Telephone Video taken by a Bystander
Police Communications Recordings
The chart below details the salient police radio calls. 8:12 911 caller – need police at a 12th floor apartment at 220 Victoria Street. Two men in the apartment – the door was locked – one was screaming for help – he was being attacked – the man was coming out – his head was bleeding.8:15 Dispatcher reported an assault in progress and called EMS.8:16 Second 911 call – reported one man was in an apartment. A second man was injured – he was conscious and breathing. The man in the apartment was going crazy. Another person took over the call and reported that the injured man was out of the apartment and in the lobby. The caller provided the Complainant’s first name.8:18 Third 911 call – reported two tenants had been fighting in a 12th floor apartment. One man was injured and bleeding but not too badly. The man in the apartment was very aggressive. It was unknown if weapons were involved.8:12 Dispatcher called for available units for an assault in progress. Provided address and reported that someone was being attacked.8:17 Second dispatcher reported an assault in progress. Two males involved. Unknown weapons. One male said he would kill the other male.8:30 A TPS unit asked to be placed on the call.8:32 Radio notified ETF of the call and asked them to monitor.8:32 Officer reported the male in the apartment was throwing things that sounded like dishes or glassware.8:34 Officer requested information about the tenant so they could determine whom they were talking to.8:37 Officer requested information about the floor plan of the apartment and whether there was a key available.8:37 Officer reported that they had a first name for the tenant.8:40 Officer reported that the man in the apartment might be on “meth”.8:41 Officer requested ETF be dispatched.8:42 Dispatcher reported the Complainant by name as the male in the apartment and provided a date of birth.8:45 Officer reported that the man was still inside the apartment; he was very agitated and smashing various items against the door.8:49 Officer reported that the man said he would flood the unit, and that he would not come out peacefully but would come out swinging. The officer reported that he was still throwing objects at the door.8:56 ETF was en route.9:03 ETF officer requested a 2nd unit to bring the “rope bag” up.9:05 Dispatcher reported that the tactical paramedics had checked their database and found no record of COVID cases in that building.9:07 ETF sergeant arrived on scene.9:10 ETF broadcast information from previous transmissions regarding known situation. ETF would take over containment from uniformed officers.9:16 Officer reported that the man was still throwing objects at the door, some sounded metallic and others were glass. The same officer reported smoke coming from the apartment.9:18 Officer reported fire and requested TFS attend.9:18 Dispatcher notified TFS of situation and suggested they approach southbound on Victoria Street from Dundas Street.9:19 Officers reported they were about to evacuate the building.9:20 ETF officer requested gas masks.9:20 Dispatcher reported TFS was on the way.9:21 Officer requested Victoria Street be blocked off.9:23 Officer reported that the building management wanted the entire building evacuated.9:24 Officer requested their ‘HAZMAT’ kits be delivered to the scene.9:25 911 callers from 200 and 210 Victoria Street reported the fire.9:26 ETF reported they were about to make an approach on the apartment.9:28 ETF officer reported fire on the balcony of the 12th floor unit.9:29 ETF reported TFS were present, that the fire was still active, and they were waiting to make entry.9:29 Officer reported they still had minimal contact with the male inside.9:30 Officer reported that TFS were making an assessment at the apartment door.9:31 Fire captain told officers that the remaining residents should shelter in place.9:32 Officer reported TFS was about to make entry.9:33 ETF reported they were holding their position in the stairwell.9:34 ETF officer reported he was on the balcony of a neighbouring apartment.9:37 Officer requested the duty inspector be notified.9:39 ETF officer requested that a neighbouring apartment be cleared and another officer yelled, “Holy!”9:43 Officer requested a marked unit be on the ground below the subject apartment so that the person might be less inclined to jump.9:44 ETF reported that a subject had been found inside the apartment vital signs absent.9:45 ETF requested that the injured man in the lobby be moved away while the deceased was brought downstairs.
Remainder of radio traffic dealt with scene security and clean up.
Materials obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the TPS:- Civilian Witness List;
- Communications audio recordings;
- ETF Incident Report;
- General Occurrence and Supplementary Reports;
- ICCS data;
- Intergraph Computer Aided Dispatch Report;
- Notes-WO #2;
- Notes-WO #4;
- Notes-WO #9;
- Notes-WO #3;
- Notes-WO #5;
- Notes-WO #7;
- Notes-WO #12;
- Notes-WO #1;
- Notes-WO #8;
- Notes-WO #11;
- Notes-WO #10;
- Notes-WO #6;
- Notes-undesignated officer;
- TPS General Occurrence and Supplementary Reports;
- TPS Interview Video of the man injured by the Complainant;
- TPS Policy-Emotionally Disturbed Persons; and
- TPS Policy-Incidents Requiring ETF.
Materials obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from non-police sources:- CCTV footage from 220 Victoria Street;
- Floorplans - 220 Victoria Street;
- Cellular telephone video taken by a bystander;
- OFM Report;
- Report of Postmortem Examination of the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service, including CFS Toxicology and Stat Carboxyhemoglobin Reports; and
- CFS Chemistry Report.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the SO, other officers who participated in police efforts to remove the Complainant from the apartment, and a number of civilian witnesses. The investigation also benefited from video recordings captured by surveillance cameras in the apartment complex, a forensic examination of the scene (including a review of the findings of the Office of the Fire Marshal’s investigation of the fire), police communication recordings, and the postmortem examination.
At about 8:13 p.m. on April 17, 2020, the TPS received a 911 call from a 12th floor resident of the building at 220 Victoria Street. The woman – CW #1 – had heard cries for help coming from one of the male residents in another unit on her floor. As CW #1 approached the door of the unit to investigate, she identified the screams as coming from one of her neighbours and concluded that he was being assaulted by the other male resident – the Complainant. She attempted to open the door but it pushed back against her and then latched. Moments later, the door flung open and an injured man rolled into the hall. His head was bleeding. Hearing the commotion, other residents on the 12th floor emerged from their units. They were confronted by an angry Complainant, who did not want them assisting the injured man and started throwing items in their direction. One of them tended to the injured man. She escorted him into the elevator and down to the lobby to await the paramedics. The Complainant returned to the unit he emerged from.
WO #1 and his partner were the first officers to arrive on scene. They spoke with the injured man in the lobby and learned that the Complainant, who had been staying with him for a few days, became upset when he was asked to leave. The officers made their way to the 12th floor unit. Though the door to the Complainant’s unit was slightly ajar, something had been placed against it from the inside preventing it from opening any further. WO #1’s partner spoke with the Complainant through the door. The Complainant was not receptive to conversation; he spewed profanity at the officers and threatened to assault them if he emerged.
Some five to ten minutes after they had arrived at the unit, WO #1 and his partner were joined at the front door by the SO and WO #4 at about 8:38 p.m. They too had spoken with the injured man in the lobby and were informed that the Complainant was high on crystal methamphetamine. As the SO was a member of the TPS Mobile Crisis Intervention Team (MCIT), he took over all communication efforts with the Complainant. The officer attempted to assuage the Complainant. He assured him that the police were there to help with his distress and would secure medical attention to assist him. The Complainant responded that this “was not his first rodeo” and that he knew how “these things end”. He continued to threaten the officers and hurl objects about in the apartment.
After approximately half-an-hour, the SO gave way to ETF officers arriving on scene. Among their ranks was an officer, who tried speaking with the Complainant. Within minutes of their arrival, smoke began to seep through the door of the unit and the officers realized that a fire had been set. An ETF officer, WO #8, attempted to gain entry into the unit through the rear balcony sliding glass doors. He was able to enter onto the balcony via an adjoining balcony and had partially shattered the glass of the door when the entire door blew out on him. WO #8 was enveloped in smoke and could not see or hear anything coming from within the unit. With the help of his partner, WO #9, the officers made it back into the adjoining unit and moved into a stairwell to recover. In the meantime, efforts to force the front door open with a hydraulic ram were abandoned given the intensity of the heat coming from inside the unit and the risk of a flashover. It was decided that the focus of the operation was now one of fire suppression and firefighters were called to the scene.
TFS firefighters arrived at the apartment at about 9:25 p.m. They made their way into the apartment and managed to put out the fire. The Complainant was located lying on the floor of the unit; he was VSA.
The Complainant was removed from the apartment by firefighters and transferred to waiting paramedics in the hall. Despite their efforts at resuscitation, the Complainant was pronounced deceased at the scene.
Cause of Death
The pathologist at autopsy attributed the Complainant’s death to carbon monoxide toxicity. According to the pathologist, “The elevated blood carboxyhemoglobin indicates that this man was alive and breathing during the time of the fire.”
Cause of Fire
Following their investigation of the fire, the OFM concluded that the fire was ignited by an open flame, meaning matches or lighter, to combustible material, meaning the fabric, cardboard and paper products located on the couch inside the apartment. According to their report, the cause of the fire fatality was a “fire-setter”.
At about 8:13 p.m. on April 17, 2020, the TPS received a 911 call from a 12th floor resident of the building at 220 Victoria Street. The woman – CW #1 – had heard cries for help coming from one of the male residents in another unit on her floor. As CW #1 approached the door of the unit to investigate, she identified the screams as coming from one of her neighbours and concluded that he was being assaulted by the other male resident – the Complainant. She attempted to open the door but it pushed back against her and then latched. Moments later, the door flung open and an injured man rolled into the hall. His head was bleeding. Hearing the commotion, other residents on the 12th floor emerged from their units. They were confronted by an angry Complainant, who did not want them assisting the injured man and started throwing items in their direction. One of them tended to the injured man. She escorted him into the elevator and down to the lobby to await the paramedics. The Complainant returned to the unit he emerged from.
WO #1 and his partner were the first officers to arrive on scene. They spoke with the injured man in the lobby and learned that the Complainant, who had been staying with him for a few days, became upset when he was asked to leave. The officers made their way to the 12th floor unit. Though the door to the Complainant’s unit was slightly ajar, something had been placed against it from the inside preventing it from opening any further. WO #1’s partner spoke with the Complainant through the door. The Complainant was not receptive to conversation; he spewed profanity at the officers and threatened to assault them if he emerged.
Some five to ten minutes after they had arrived at the unit, WO #1 and his partner were joined at the front door by the SO and WO #4 at about 8:38 p.m. They too had spoken with the injured man in the lobby and were informed that the Complainant was high on crystal methamphetamine. As the SO was a member of the TPS Mobile Crisis Intervention Team (MCIT), he took over all communication efforts with the Complainant. The officer attempted to assuage the Complainant. He assured him that the police were there to help with his distress and would secure medical attention to assist him. The Complainant responded that this “was not his first rodeo” and that he knew how “these things end”. He continued to threaten the officers and hurl objects about in the apartment.
After approximately half-an-hour, the SO gave way to ETF officers arriving on scene. Among their ranks was an officer, who tried speaking with the Complainant. Within minutes of their arrival, smoke began to seep through the door of the unit and the officers realized that a fire had been set. An ETF officer, WO #8, attempted to gain entry into the unit through the rear balcony sliding glass doors. He was able to enter onto the balcony via an adjoining balcony and had partially shattered the glass of the door when the entire door blew out on him. WO #8 was enveloped in smoke and could not see or hear anything coming from within the unit. With the help of his partner, WO #9, the officers made it back into the adjoining unit and moved into a stairwell to recover. In the meantime, efforts to force the front door open with a hydraulic ram were abandoned given the intensity of the heat coming from inside the unit and the risk of a flashover. It was decided that the focus of the operation was now one of fire suppression and firefighters were called to the scene.
TFS firefighters arrived at the apartment at about 9:25 p.m. They made their way into the apartment and managed to put out the fire. The Complainant was located lying on the floor of the unit; he was VSA.
The Complainant was removed from the apartment by firefighters and transferred to waiting paramedics in the hall. Despite their efforts at resuscitation, the Complainant was pronounced deceased at the scene.
Cause of Death
Cause of Fire
Relevant Legislation
Sections 219 and 220, Criminal Code -- Criminal negligence causing death
219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.
(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.
Analysis and Director's Decision
The Complainant died in the evening of April 17, 2020, the result of smoke inhalation when the apartment unit he was in became engulfed in flames. The Complainant had barricaded himself in the 12th floor apartment and refused the repeated requests of TPS police officers to come out when the fire broke out. Among the officers who attempted to negotiate the Complainant’s surrender into police custody was the SO. He was identified as the subject officer for purposes of the SIU investigation. 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 death.
The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 220 of the Criminal Code. The offence is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was any want of care on the part of the SO or any of the other officers which caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death and was sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction. In my view, there was not.
At the outset, it is important to note that the officers were engaged in the lawful execution of their duties when they arrived at the apartment and attempted to have the Complainant surrender into police custody. By all accounts, the Complainant had just committed a violent crime against a man in his unit. He was clearly subject to arrest for that assault. Aside from their law enforcement duties, however, police officers are primarily charged with the protection and preservation of life. As negotiations at the front door developed, it appears that the officers were acting as much to address what was clearly a mental health crisis, particularly as they came to understand that the Complainant was high on crystal methamphetamine.
Once at the unit, it appears the officers conducted themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s health and well-being. The SO was a member of the MCIT [1] and trained in techniques of de-escalation. During the half-hour or so that the SO led the negotiations with the Complainant, he appears to have put his training to use attempting to defuse the situation. As attested by residents in the neighbouring apartments, the SO spoke calmly and reassuringly to the Complainant. His posture was one primarily focused on helping the Complainant with whatever was causing him upset as opposed to law enforcement. That the SO was ultimately unable to mollify the Complainant was not for want of trying.
I am also unable to find fault with the deployment of the ETF. The team is specifically trained to handle high-risk barricade situations of the type involving the Complainant. They had just assumed carriage of the operation when the Complainant started a fire in the unit and quickly shifted focus on a rescue operation. Officers were directed to evacuate neighbouring units as ETF personnel attempted to force their way into the residence via the front and rear doors. Regrettably, those efforts were stymied by what appears to have been a fast spreading fire and they prudently pulled back to allow firefighters to deal with the situation. Though the firefighters acted quickly to suppress the fire, the damage to the Complainant, unfortunately, had been done.
On the aforementioned-record, there is little if anything to suggest that the officers fell short in their duty of care to the Complainant. Their decision-making throughout the intervention was reasonable, as was the manner in which they set about trying to safely take him into custody, first, and then rescue him from the fire. Accordingly, as I am not satisfied on reasonable grounds that the SO or any of the other officers were derelict in their conduct, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.
Date: February 1, 2021
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 220 of the Criminal Code. The offence is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was any want of care on the part of the SO or any of the other officers which caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death and was sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction. In my view, there was not.
At the outset, it is important to note that the officers were engaged in the lawful execution of their duties when they arrived at the apartment and attempted to have the Complainant surrender into police custody. By all accounts, the Complainant had just committed a violent crime against a man in his unit. He was clearly subject to arrest for that assault. Aside from their law enforcement duties, however, police officers are primarily charged with the protection and preservation of life. As negotiations at the front door developed, it appears that the officers were acting as much to address what was clearly a mental health crisis, particularly as they came to understand that the Complainant was high on crystal methamphetamine.
Once at the unit, it appears the officers conducted themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s health and well-being. The SO was a member of the MCIT [1] and trained in techniques of de-escalation. During the half-hour or so that the SO led the negotiations with the Complainant, he appears to have put his training to use attempting to defuse the situation. As attested by residents in the neighbouring apartments, the SO spoke calmly and reassuringly to the Complainant. His posture was one primarily focused on helping the Complainant with whatever was causing him upset as opposed to law enforcement. That the SO was ultimately unable to mollify the Complainant was not for want of trying.
I am also unable to find fault with the deployment of the ETF. The team is specifically trained to handle high-risk barricade situations of the type involving the Complainant. They had just assumed carriage of the operation when the Complainant started a fire in the unit and quickly shifted focus on a rescue operation. Officers were directed to evacuate neighbouring units as ETF personnel attempted to force their way into the residence via the front and rear doors. Regrettably, those efforts were stymied by what appears to have been a fast spreading fire and they prudently pulled back to allow firefighters to deal with the situation. Though the firefighters acted quickly to suppress the fire, the damage to the Complainant, unfortunately, had been done.
On the aforementioned-record, there is little if anything to suggest that the officers fell short in their duty of care to the Complainant. Their decision-making throughout the intervention was reasonable, as was the manner in which they set about trying to safely take him into custody, first, and then rescue him from the fire. Accordingly, as I am not satisfied on reasonable grounds that the SO or any of the other officers were derelict in their conduct, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.
Date: February 1, 2021
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) Per the TPS policy on Emotionally Disturbed Persons: The MCIT program is a collaborative partnership between participating hospitals and the Toronto Police Service. The program partners a specially trained police officer and a mental health nurse that may assist in responding to calls for service involving individuals experiencing a mental health crisis. The MCIT will assist responding officers with: • assessing the situation • attempting to stabilize and diffuse the crisis • providing supportive counselling as needed • connecting the individual to appropriate follow-up services When feasible and consistent with officer and public safety, members with MCIT training and/or additional mental health training may take the lead role in situations involving an individual experiencing a mental health crisis. [Back to text]
Note:
The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.