Director's Report Details

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.

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. 

Pursuant to section 21 of FIPPA (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this document. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• Subject Officer name(s);
• Witness Officer name(s);
• Civilian Witness name(s);
• Location information; 
• 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.

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 a serious injury sustained by a 24-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On June 30, 2020, at 8:50 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of an individual suffering a firearm injury during his arrest earlier that day.

According to the PRP, robbery investigators had followed a vehicle involved in an earlier carjacking in York Region to Torbram Road and Williams Parkway in Brampton. At 7:46 p.m., a takedown was attempted in a Petro Canada gas station lot. During the incident, a police officer discharged his firearm and one of the occupants of the vehicle was struck in the arm.

The injured party had been transported to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC). His identity had not yet been determined.

The Scene

The incident occurred in a Petro Canada gas station located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Torbram Road and Williams Parkway. There were a number of gasoline pumps and the cashier’s kiosk in the main area of the gas station lot. There was a carwash to the east of the cashier’s kiosk.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

A black Ford Mustang was parked facing northbound, between a gas pump and the cashier’s kiosk. A civilian’s vehicle was positioned behind the Ford Mustang, oriented southward. At the front of the Ford Mustang were two PRP tactical vehicles. A black Ford Expedition SUV was parked at the front passenger corner of the Mustang, and a black Ford F350 pickup truck at the driver’s front corner of the Mustang.



Figure 1 - The black Ford Mustang with two black unmarked police vehicles to its front.

The following scenario emerges on the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the Complainant and the SO, as well as a number of other officers and civilian witnesses who observed parts of the events in question. The investigation also benefitted significantly by video recordings from a police helicopter and a commercial premises that captured the incident.

In the evening of June 30, 2020, a team of PRP tactical officers, led by the SO, was asked by PRP robbery investigators to assist in the arrest of persons suspected of committing a series of violent carjackings. There had been a spike of these crimes in recent weeks in Peel Region and the Greater Toronto Area, often times targeting Range Rovers. Typically, the suspects would stage a minor collision with the vehicle, whereupon they would accost the driver after he or she exited the vehicle brandishing a gun or knife, beat them if there was any resistance, and drive off with the vehicle. By June 30, 2020, a number of vehicles used by the perpetrators of these crimes, including a black Ford Mustang, as well as several suspects, had been identified by PRP robbery investigators. The Complainant was among the suspects.

Earlier in the day, PRP robbery investigators had received word from York Regional Police officers, with whom they were collaborating on the carjacking investigation, of one such incident in Markham. Two men had approached a black Range Rover, pistol whipped the owner in the head, and drove off in his vehicle. The Ford Mustang was involved in the robbery. Several hours later, PRP learned from the Halton Regional Police Service that the same Ford Mustang had followed a woman in her white Range Rover to her residence in Oakville. As the driver pulled into her garage, a male exited the Mustang, ran up to the Range Rover and attempted to open the door. The driver reversed out of the garage and the male fled the scene in the Mustang. The male was the Complainant. Finally, about an hour later, PRP investigators were informed that the Mustang had been seen striking the rear of a red Range Rover. The female driver asked the driver of the Mustang – the Complainant – to follow her home to discuss the damage. He did so. However, arriving at the woman’s address to find her husband at the bottom of the driveway inspecting the damage to the car, the Complainant fled the area.

By the time of the last attempted carjacking, PRP robbery investigators, together with the SO and his team of officers, were in their vehicles monitoring the movements of the Ford Mustang, which had been seen to enter the City of Brampton. At one point, the Complainant stopped to let out a passenger in the rear seat before he made his way onto Torbram Road and travelled north. As he approached Williams Parkway, the Complainant turned into the Petro Canada gas station at the southeast corner of the intersection and stopped his vehicle at the northern most gas pump just west of the cashier’s kiosk.

The SO was the passenger in a Ford Expedition SUV being driven by WO #7. The officer conferred with the lead PRP detective in charge of their robbery investigation and decided they would attempt to stop the vehicle and arrest its occupants at this time. He called the takedown signal. The time was about 7:45 p.m.

The Ford Expedition entered the gas station lot from Torbram Road, travelled around the east side of the cashier’s kiosk and drove up to the front passenger side of the Mustang, bumping it as it came to a stop. The SO exited through the Expedition’s passenger door, gun in hand and pointed at the Mustang, just as a Ford F350 pickup truck with WO #1 and WO #8 aboard pulled up and stopped front first at a 90-degree angle with the Mustang in front of the driver’s front corner of the vehicle.

At the sight of the SO and the vehicles surrounding his Mustang, the Complainant accelerated in reverse trying to evade the blockade. The Mustang did not get very far though as it struck the rear of a civilian SUV which had stopped for gas at the southern pump. At about the same time, the SO was making his way across the front of the Mustang, handgun still pointed at the Complainant and yelling out at the driver to stop the vehicle. The officer had noticed another civilian vehicle on the opposite side of the gas pump and was headed in that direction concerned that the Complainant might attempt to steal it to make good his escape.

After striking the vehicle behind him, the Complainant accelerated and travelled forward in a northwest direction toward the SO. As the officer moved to his right to avoid the vehicle, he discharged his firearm three times in quick succession at the direction of the Complainant. The final shot occurred around the time that the Complainant’s vehicle made contact with the SO and sent him to the ground. The Ford F350 moved up a short distance and collided with the Mustang’s front end.

With the Mustang now at a standstill, WO #1, exiting the passenger door of the F350 with a C8 rifle in hand, and WO #6, the latter a dog handler who was part of the operation and had driven into the gas station lot bringing his vehicle to a stop south of the cashier kiosk, approached the driver’s door and ordered the Complainant out of the vehicle. When the Complainant failed to do so and instead continued to rev his engine, WO #6 lifted his police dog and placed him inside the vehicle through the shattered driver’s door window. The dog bit into the Complainant’s left upper arm / shoulder area and held on. Shortly thereafter, WO #6 discharged his CEW at the Complainant, as did WO #1. This was followed by two punches to the Complainant head by WO #6, after which the officers extricated the Complainant from the Mustang and placed him on the ground. The dog, still with a hold of the Complainant as he exited the Mustang, was released by WO #6. The Complainant was subsequently handcuffed.

As the Complainant’s was being arrested, so too was his front seat passenger, CW #1. CW #1 was removed from the Mustang by WO #7 and WO #8. Once CW #1 was on the ground and handcuffed, WO #8 noticed a gun next to the front passenger seat of the Mustang. Upon examination, it was learned that the gun was an air pistol.

The three shots fired by the SO struck the Mustang. One of them struck the driver’s side hood of the vehicle, another struck the driver’s side lower corner of the windshield, and the final shot impacted the driver’s door slightly below its top edge.

Only one of the bullets fired by the SO struck the Complainant. The projectile entered the Complainant’s right arm.

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

(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,

On June 30, 2020, the Complainant was shot and seriously injured by a PRP officer in the course of his arrest. The officer in question – the SO – 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 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 authorized or required to do by law. Where the force in question was intended or likely to cause grievous bodily harm or death, section 25(3) further provides that such force will not be justified unless the officer reasonably believed it was necessary to prevent grievous bodily harm or death coming to the officer or a person under the officer’s charge. I am unable to reasonably conclude on the evidence that the SO acted without the legal justification of this section when he discharged his firearm at the Complainant.

The SO was in the execution of his lawful duties when he took part in a police operation to stop the Mustang in the gas station and arrest its occupants. The PRP robbery investigators had briefed the SO and his tactical team, informing them of the carjacking and attempted carjackings that had occurred that date involving the Mustang and the Complainant. They were also apprised of the string of violent carjackings in which the Complainant had been involved in the weeks prior to the takedown involving the use of guns and knives to intimidate and assault victims. On this record, and having personally
viewed the video recording captured by a YRP helicopter camera as it surveilled the Complainant and his Mustang on the day in question, there is little doubt that the Complainant was subject to arrest for any number of violent offences.

The SO says that he fired at the driver of the vehicle believing it was necessary to protect himself from being run over as the Mustang accelerated in his direction. The circumstantial evidence bears him out. As was vividly recorded by a gas station camera, from the moment the SO exited the Ford Expedition until he discharged his weapon at the Complainant, not more than ten seconds had elapsed. During this time, the Complainant had given every indication that he was not about to surrender peacefully. Instead, the Complainant accelerated rearward and struck a vehicle behind him, almost hitting a male who was fueling the SUV. As the SO then made his way across the front of the Mustang toward its driver’s side, gun pointed at the Complainant and shouting at him to stop, the Complainant accelerated forward aggressively in the officer’s direction. In fact, the Mustang’s front and rear driver’s side tires jumped the curb of the platform housing the gas pump before its forward movement was stalled when it collided with the front passenger corner of the F350. It was during this time, as the SO maneuvered to his right to avoid the Mustang traveling in his direction, that the officer fired his weapon at close range. On this record, confronted by a vehicle bearing down on him from which he was not more than two to three metres at the moment of gunfire, I am satisfied that the SO reasonably believed that shooting at the driver and incapacitating the Mustang’s operating mind was necessary if he was going to preserve himself from death.

Taking a step back, I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself reasonably in the moments that preceded the shooting. The officer had good reason to exit his vehicle with his firearm drawn. The SO and the rest of the tactical officers had been briefed on the violence with which the carjackings had been executed, which included the use of guns and knives to threaten and assault the victims. In fact, an air gun was recovered from the Mustang after the Complainant and CW #1 had been arrested. The officer also had cause to believe that the Complainant, in trying to escape police apprehension, might exit the Mustang and enter a vehicle stopped on the opposite side of the pump. Thus, I am unable to fault the officer for making his way in that direction to foreclose that possibility even though it meant placing himself in the Mustang’s path of travel.

The CEW discharges, the use of the police dog, and the two punches delivered by WO #6, in my view, also did not run afoul of the limits of reasonably necessary force. To reiterate, the officers had information that the occupants of the Mustang were likely armed with a gun and had shown a disposition to brandish weapons in violent assaults on carjacking victims. When, as the evidence suggests, the Complainant continued to rev his engine even after he was shot, the officers were entitled to resort to a measure of force to subdue him and control his movements. In the fraught atmosphere that existed at the time, I am not satisfied on reasonable grounds that this use of force crossed the line. This is particularly so as the weight of the evidence indicates the CEW discharges and dog bite failed to deter the Complainant, whose resistance was only quelled after the two punches delivered by WO #6.

In the result, as I am satisfied for the foregoing reasons that the SO and the other officers who participated in the operation that resulted in the Complainant’s arrest conducted themselves lawfully throughout the incident, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: February 16, 2021


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit