SIU Director’s Report - Case # 21-TFI-037
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Mandate of the SIU
Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.
Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:
- The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person.
- Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault.
- Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person.
- Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.
- Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.
- Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published.
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy ActPursuant to section14 (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 that 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 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:
- The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials;
- 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, 2004Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.
Other proceedings, processes, and investigationsInformation may also have 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.
A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.
In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.
This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injury a 18-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered during an interaction with the police.
Notification of the SIUOn February 3, 2021, at 6:00 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU and relayed the following information.
On February 3, 2021 at about 4:05 a.m., TPS officers responded to the area of 354 Richmond Street East, Toronto in relation to a suspicious male. Upon arrival, they located the male who was armed with a knife and threatening to harm himself. Officers discharged two Conducted Energy Weapons (CEWs); however, the weapons were ineffective. A less than lethal shotgun was also discharged at the male and again was ineffective. Officers did eventually disarm the male and took him into custody. The male was transported to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH) as a precaution. A preliminary diagnosis indicated that no serious injuries were suffered as a result of the interaction.
At 6:25 a.m., the TPS contacted the SIU and advised the male had been diagnosed as having suffered a fractured arm. He would be transported to 51 Division upon his release from hospital where he would be held for a bail hearing.
The male was identified as the Complainant and the officer who deployed the shotgun as the Subject Official (SO), who worked out of 51 Division. The TPS advised the involved CEWs and shotgun were secured at 51 Division.
The TeamDate and time team dispatched: 02/03/2021 at 7:09 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 02/03/2021 at 7:18 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):18-year-old male interviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on February 4, 2021.
Subject OfficialSO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed
The subject official was interviewed on February 19, 2021.
Witness Officials (WO)WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Interviewed
WO #6 Interviewed
WO #7 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed between February 9 and 13, 2021.
The Scene The scene where the Complainant fell to the ground a short time after having been shot by two less-lethal rounds from a shotgun was on Richmond Street East, about 50 metres east of George Street. The shooting with the less-lethal rounds occurred in the area of Richmond Street East at its intersection with Sherbourne Street.
The SIU Forensic Investigator did not attend the scene of the incident and, therefore, no scene examination was done and no scene diagram was generated.
Figure 1 – The SO’s less lethal shotgun
Figure 2 – The Complainant’s Knife
CEW DownloadsTaser X2 issued to WO #2 was discharged at 3:18:56 a.m. on February 3, 2021 for five seconds. 
Taser X2 issued to WO #3 was discharged at 3:21:22 a.m. for five seconds.
Taser X2 issued to WO #1 was discharged at 3:19:46 a.m. for five seconds, at 3:22:00 a.m. for two seconds, and at 3:22:03 a.m. for four seconds.
Communications RecordingsThe recordings were taken on February 3, 2021 and showed the following:
At 2:46:55 a.m., WO #2 and WO #1 attended at 460 Adelaide Street East for a damage in progress call occurring in the underground garage.
At 3:11:25 a.m., WO #2 changed his and WO #1’s location, indicating that they were checking 354 Sherbourne Street for the person [now determined to be the Complainant] damaging vehicles.
At 3:13:48 a.m., WO #2 yelled out, “Guy pulling knife on us.”
At 3:13:59 a.m., a man’s voice yelled out, “P1.”
At 3:14:11 a.m., a man’s voice, believed to be WO #2, said a man pulled a knife on him in the underground garage.
At 3:14:12 a.m., the dispatcher asked if any other units were clear.
At 3:14:13 a.m., a man’s voice repeated, “They said a guy in the parking garage pulled a knife on them.”
At 3:14:21 a.m., the dispatcher asked for more units to clear to attend to the call.
At 3:14:44 a.m., the dispatcher reported the police officer in distress gave the address of 354 Richmond Street.
At 3:14:46 a.m., a dog unit acknowledged the call.
At 3:14:48 a.m., WO #2, panting, said, “Richmond.”
At 3:14:56 a.m., a woman’s voice said, “Ontario and Richmond.”
At 3:15:05 a.m., a man’s voice said, “I’m listening to it in my car here.”
At 3:15:06 a.m., the dispatcher called police officers over the 51 Division radio frequency and said police officers had a knife pulled on them in an underground parking lot.
At 3:15:16 a.m., a man’s voice said, “Male holding a knife to his neck right now.”
At 3:15:20 a.m., a man’s voice said, “Have him at gunpoint, have ambo on standby.”
At 3:16:00 a.m., the dispatcher broadcast the Complainant had a knife to his neck and police officers had him at gunpoint.
At 3:16:03 a.m., a woman’s voice said, “Less lethal deployed, ineffective.”
At 3:16:07 a.m., the same woman’s voice said, “Deploy again.”
At 3:16:13 a.m., a woman’s voice said, “Less lethal deployed, ineffective, male westbound Sherbourne.”
At 3:16:16 a.m., the dispatcher said, “Confirm direction of travel.”
At 3:16:17 a.m., a woman’s voice [believed to WO #6] said, “We are heading over.”
At 3:16:19 a.m., a woman’s voice broadcast, “Suspect knife to neck.”
At 3:16:29 a.m., the dispatcher broadcast that police officers had deployed less lethal and it was ineffective.
At 3:16:31 a.m., a male police officer directed all police officers attending the call to kill their sirens as police officers at the interaction were trying to communicate with the Complainant.
At 3:16:40 a.m., the dispatcher sent more police officers to the interaction.
At 3:17:00 a.m., the dispatcher broadcast that police officers were with a man (the Complainant) trying to talk to him. They were heading westbound on Sherbourne Street, and the Complainant was not listening to police officers and holding a knife to his neck.
At 3:17:12 a.m., a male police officer said, “We are talking to male now, has knife to his throat. Male says he wants to kill himself.”
At 3:17:28 a.m., another unit said they were attending the interaction with a C8 on board.
At 3:17:37 a.m., a male’s voice broadcast over the radio system with an indiscernible message.
At 3:17:44 a.m., a woman’s voice asked if the call was on the screen and dispatcher said it was on the screen.
At 3:17:55 a.m., the dispatcher reported the Emergency Task Force (ETF) was rolling.
At 3:17:58 a.m., a man’s voice said, “ETF base, what locations so we can get the guys rolling there?”
At 3:17:58 a.m., the dispatcher said 51 Division police officers had back-up on the scene and were at Richmond and Sherbourne Street.
At 3:18:03 a.m., a man’s voice broadcast the location of Richmond and Sherbourne Street.
At 3:18:04 a.m., the dispatcher had a conversation with ambulance dispatch. The dispatcher provided an address of Richmond and Sherbourne Streets and said the Complainant had a knife to his neck, that less lethal had been deployed and was ineffective, and that police officers currently had the Complainant at gunpoint.
At 3:19:56 a.m., the dispatcher broadcast to all units an ambulance had been dispatched to attend.
At 3:20:09 a.m., a woman’s voice said, “He still has the knife on him.”
At 3:20:32 a.m., a woman’s voice asked for an update and the dispatcher said the Complainant had a knife to his neck, and ETF and ambulance were responding.
At 3:20:38 a.m., a woman’s voice broadcast police officers were talking to the Complainant who was walking backwards, west of Sherbourne Street.
At 3:20:47 a.m., the dispatcher repeated police officers were talking to the Complainant as he was walking backwards, west of Sherbourne Street.
At 3:20:52 a.m., a female police officer said to use caution, units had deployed less lethal force which had been ineffective, and the Complainant had the knife to his neck.
At 3:21:13 a.m., a woman’s voice said the Complainant was walking backwards on Richmond Street.
At 3:22:44 a.m., a man’s voice said, “Male just laid it on the floor, stand by.”
At 3:23:01 a.m., a man’s voice said, “We need an ambulance on scene now please.”
At 3:23:08 a.m., the same man’s voice said, “Male is on the ground, officers are safe.”
At 3:23:13 a.m., the dispatcher said the ambulance was attending and would be updated.
At 3:23:36 a.m., the dispatcher confirmed ETF was no longer required.
At 3:27:15 a.m., a man’s voice asked for a second ambulance to be dispatched to Richmond and Sherbourne Street. A second ambulance was called to check on a police officer who had no injuries, was conscious, and was breathing.
At 3:31:15 a.m., a male voice notified the dispatcher the ambulance had the Complainant on board and a police officer was accompanying the Complainant.
At 3:32:26 a.m., the dispatcher asked if a CEW was deployed during the interaction.
At 3:32:30 a.m., a man’s voice answered a CEW had been deployed twice during the interaction.
At 3:41:16 a.m., a police officer advised the ambulance was at SMH.
In-car Camera System (ICCS) Video FootageThe recordings were made on February 3, 2021.
WO #5’s Cruiser
At 3:14:00 a.m., the video began.
At 3:14:30 a.m., WO #5 turned on her roof lights and siren. She stopped just east of Sherbourne Street, on Richmond Street.
At 3:15:22 a.m., the sound of a CEW being deployed was heard.
At 3:15:28 a.m., a female police officer stood in front of WO #5’s cruiser with her gun drawn.
At 3:15:30 a.m., the sound of a CEW being deployed could be heard.
At 3:15:37 a.m., the sound of a less lethal shotgun round being deployed was heard.
At 3:15:54 a.m., the sound of a less lethal shotgun round being deployed was heard.
At 3:21:48 a.m., WO #5 got into her cruiser and re-positioned her vehicle.
At 3:23:05 a.m., she stopped her cruiser at a group of police officers.
At 3:23:14 a.m., a police officer was kneeling beside the Complainant lying on the roadway. Another police officer was standing on and directly beside the Complainant on the other side. There were at least eight other police officers in the immediate area.
At 3:23:33 a.m., it appeared police officers were searching the Complainant.
At 3:23:53 a.m., paramedics brought a stretcher to the immediate area.
At 3:25:08 a.m., a male police officer got into WO #5’s cruiser. He said everyone was okay and that a soft round had been deployed.
At 3:25:50 a.m., the Complainant was brought to his feet by police officers.
At 3:27:00 a.m., a paramedic supervisor arrived and the Complainant was placed on a stretcher and placed inside an ambulance.
At 3:31:20 a.m., a voice believed to be WO #5 mentioned that a CEW was on the ground.
At 3:36:18 a.m., the recording ended.
Officer #1’s Cruiser
At 3:14:45 a.m., the cruiser drove with siren and roof lights on.
At 3:16:04 a.m., the police cruiser stopped at Richmond Street and Sherbourne Street, facing west on Richmond Street. Multiple police officers were seen with guns drawn and pointed at the Complainant who was moving back and forth.
At 3:17:29 a.m., the police officers stood in front of the police cruiser with the Complainant facing them, pacing and holding a knife to his neck.
At 3:18:01 a.m., three more police officers came into view, one of whom was the SO, holding a less lethal weapon.
At 3:18:10 a.m., police officers started to backup, trying to get away from the Complainant.
At 3:18:49 a.m., the interaction between the Complainant and the police officers went out of view onto Sherbourne Street.
At 3:19:30 a.m., the interaction came back into view, with the Complainant walking backwards on Richmond Street, westbound.
At 3:22:18 a.m., a police cruiser and an ambulance came from opposite sides of Sherbourne Street and travelled westbound on Richmond Street, after which nothing more of evidentiary value was gleaned from the video.
WO #6’s Cruiser
At 3:18:54 a.m., the cruiser was driving with roof lights and siren activated.
At 3:20:26 a.m., the cruiser stopped on Sherbourne Street, across from the Tim Horton’s, south of Richmond Street.
At 3:21:05 a.m., an interaction can be seen ahead in the distance.
At 3:21:30 a.m., WO #6 exited her cruiser and ran towards the interaction.
At 3:22:24 a.m., she returned to her cruiser and drove northbound on Sherbourne Street, north of Richmond Street, and pulled the cruiser across the roadway to create a roadblock in front of “The Richmond.” The roof lights were left on.
At 3:26:44 a.m., two police officers walked past the front of the cruiser, after which no further evidentiary information was gleaned.
WO #1’s Cruiser
At 2:52:32 a.m., the video began with WO #1’s cruiser stopped behind WO #2’s cruiser.
At 3:07:15 a.m., WO #1 stopped his cruiser at 354 Sherbourne Street, a parking garage, behind WO #2’s cruiser.
At 3:13:32 a.m., WO #2’s personal priority alarm was activated. He was heard saying a man [now determined to be the Complainant] had pulled a knife on the police officers.
At 3:14:46 a.m., the Complainant exited the parking garage and ran westbound on Richmond Street followed by WO #1 and WO #2.
At 3:15:33 a.m., the Complainant reached the intersection of Sherbourne Street and Richmond Street, followed by WO #1 and WO #2. Other police cruisers arrived in the area.
At 3:16:46 a.m., multiple police officers and cruisers were in view but there were no details discernible because of the distance they were from the camera.
At 3:22:27 a.m., two police cruisers parked on Richmond Street began moving and travelled westbound on Richmond Street, out of sight.
At 3:22:51 a.m., an ambulance drove from Sherbourne Street onto Richmond Street travelling westbound, after which nothing of further of evidentiary value was gleaned.
The SO and WO #3’s Cruiser
At 3:13:10 a.m., the cruiser was traveling through a number of streets. The cruiser stopped in front of Tim Hortons. WO #5 was standing outside her cruiser.
At 3:14:21 a.m., a male police officer was directly in front of the cruiser with his CEW drawn and pointed.
At 3:14:24 a.m., the police officer backed up.
At 3:14:46 a.m., the Complainant walked between the SO’s and WO #5’s cruisers, coming close to WO #5 who had to move backwards to avoid him. At 3:14:54 a.m., a male police officer wearing a toque and holding a CEW moved in front of the SO’s cruiser. A female police officer, believed to be the SO, was in front of her own cruiser holding a less lethal firearm shotgun.
At 3:16:01 a.m., many voices were heard yelling about two less lethal firearm discharges.
At 3:21:20 a.m., WO #5 got into her cruiser and left.
At 3:25:00 a.m., nothing further of evidentiary value was gleaned from the video.
WO #2’s Cruiser
At 3:07:25 a.m., WO #2 stopped his cruiser behind WO #1’s cruiser outside the Sherbourne Parking Garage.
At 3:07:36 a.m., WO #2 and WO #1 went inside the building.
At 3:10:29 a.m., the police officers exited the building and as they stood on the sidewalk, a car alarm went off.
At 3:10:44 a.m., both WO #2 and WO #1 re-entered the parking garage.
At 3:13:12 a.m., there was yelling in the parking garage.
At 3:14:02 a.m., the Complainant came running out of the garage and ran toward Richmond Street. He was followed by either WO #2 or WO #1. Two police cruisers with roof lights and sirens on drove past the intersection off Sherbourne Street and Richmond Street towards the people running.
At 3:14:58 a.m., either WO #2 or WO #1 exited the parking garage and ran towards Richmond Street.
At 3:15:19 a.m., the sound of a CEW being deployed was heard. A voice shouting, “Drop the knife,” was heard.
At 3:15:40 a.m., the sound of a CEW being deployed was heard. Shortly thereafter, the sounds of a less lethal firearm being fired twice was heard.
At 3:16:24 a.m., two police officers, both men, arrived in a cruiser.
At 3:17:40 a.m., flashing lights, and bodies could be seen in the distance, but no distinguishing details were seen.
At 3:17:59 a.m., the video stopped.
WO #4’s Cruiser
At 3:18:11 a.m., the police cruiser stopped on Sherbourne Street. Multiple police officers had their firearms drawn and pointed at the Complainant who was moving in the middle of the road.
At 3:18:40 a.m., WO #4 exited his cruiser and walked towards the Complainant. The Complainant started advancing towards WO #4 who immediately retreated.
At 3:19:18 a.m., the Complainant was yelling at police officers.
At 3:20:20 a.m., the Complainant walked from Sherbourne Street back onto Richmond Street. All involved police officers in the area followed the Complainant when he did.
At 3:20:55 a.m., the interaction went out of camera view.
At 3:21:38 a.m., police officers were yelling at the Complainant to get to the ground.
At 3:21:38 a.m., the video ended.
Booking VideoThe recording was made on February 3, 2021 and showed the following:
On February 3, 2021, the Complainant was transported back to TPS 51 Division by two officers.
At 8:20:55 p.m., the Complainant arrived at the booking hall and sat down on a bench.
At 8:22:04 p.m., the two officers updated the staff sergeant regarding the Complainant and Covid screening protocols.
At 8:22:34 p.m., the staff sergeant was notified of the charges against the Complainant.
At 8:23:30 p.m., the staff sergeant asked the Complainant if he understood he was under arrest, read him his rights to counsel, and asked if he would like to call a lawyer, at which point the Complainant requested Duty Counsel be contacted.
At 8:24:50 p.m., the staff sergeant asked about any injuries and the two officers said the Complainant had been treated at SMH. The Complainant was diagnosed with a broken bone in his right wrist. The staff sergeant asked the Complainant standard medical booking questions. The Complainant said he had attempted suicide or had mental health issues in the past. He further explained that during the week, prior to February 3, 2021, he cut his wrists. The Complainant said he was not under any medical care and was not taking prescribed medications. He did say he smoked five joints of marijuana at 11:00 a.m., prior to his arrest.
At 8:28:05 p.m., the staff sergeant told the Complainant he would undergo a level three strip search.
At 8:28:28 a.m., ankle restraints were removed from the Complainant’s legs.
At 8:28:55 a.m., he stood against the wall. He took off his shoes and sweater. His pants were also searched.
At 8:31:52 a.m., the staff sergeant explained the strip search to the Complainant.
At 8:33:38 a.m., the Complainant was escorted out of the booking hall to a cell by the two officers.
The recording ended at 9:06:00 p.m.
Closed-circuit Television (CCTV) VideoThe CCTV videos were made on February 3, 2021 and captured the following:
CCTV at Business #1 on Richmond Street East
At 0122:06 hrs into the recording a person, believed to be the Complainant, came into view walking west on the roadway.
At 0122:15 hrs into the recording a uniformed police officer followed the Complainant. That police officer was then followed by eight other police officers. All the police officers were spaced apart and across the roadway and sidewalk. The police officers walked and appeared to congregate a short distance, but out of camera view.
At 0122:51 hrs into the recording, another police cruiser arrived, and two police officers exited the cruiser.
At 0122:58 hrs into the recording, an ambulance arrived and stopped where the police officers were congregating. Thereafter, there was nothing further of evidentiary value relevant to the investigation.
CCTV at Business #2 on Richmond Street East
The video did not capture anything of evidentiary value relevant to the investigation.
CCTV at Business #3 on Richmond Street East
The video did not capture anything of evidentiary value relevant to the investigation.
CCTV at Business #4 on Richmond Street East
This video did not capture anything of evidentiary value relevant to the investigation.
CCTV at Business #5 on Richmond Street East
There were two cameras at this location. There was no time stamp and both cameras only captured interior views. The reflection of a police cruiser’s emergency lights could be seen in the window. There was nothing of evidentiary value to further this investigation observed.
CCTV at Business #6 on Richmond Street East
The first file contained video running from 1:58:45 a.m. to 2:49:30 a.m. At 2:38:41 a.m. into the recording a man in a green down jacket with backpack enters a building. After which nothing more of evidentiary value was evident.
The second file contained video running from 3:17:45 a.m. to 4:00:02 a.m. The reflection of emergency lights from the street were visible. After that there was no further evidentiary value gleaned from this video.
Untitled Cell Phone Video ClipThis was a 45 second cell phone video clip sent to the SIU. The person who recorded the video refused to provide their details to the SIU.
The video appeared to be filmed from the vantage point of a balcony located at a residence on Richmond Street East. It was taken a few floors up from street level. It captured the following:
The street appeared to be dry and there was no precipitation. It was dark outside, and the only lighting was from streetlights. A man [known to be the Complainant] was walking north from the north sidewalk, opposite an alley, onto Richmond Street East. He continued walking west. At 21 to 45 second mark into the video a uniformed police officer was following the Complainant. The police officer was about 9 metres from the Complainant. A man’s voice was heard saying, “You’re somebody’s brother…” The voice was muffled, and sirens were heard in the background. Another man’s voice was heard but the words were muffled as well. Several more police officers into view spread across Richmond Street East. None of the police officers were anywhere closer than the leading police officer approaching the Complainant. At the 35 to 45 second mark of the video the Complainant suddenly fell to the ground. Police officers continued walking towards him. The first police officer got to within about 1 to 2 metres of the Complainant and the video stopped.
Cross-referencing the video with Google Earth, it appeared that the Complainant was recorded walking 42 to 43 metres in total before falling to the roadway. When he fell to the roadway, the nearest police officer was about 9 metres east of him.
Materials Obtained from Police ServiceUpon request, the SIU received the following materials and documents from the TPS between February 4 and 22, 2021:
- Computer-assisted Dispatch Event Details Report;
- Communications Recordings;
- Civilian Witness List;
- Less Lethal Shotgun Qualification – the SO;
- CCTV – Business #1 on Richmond Street East;
- CCTV – Business #2 on Richmond Street East;
- CCTV – Business #3 on Richmond Street East;
- CCTV – Business #4 on Richmond Street East;
- CCTV – Business #6 on Richmond Street East;
- CCTV – Business #5 on Richmond Street East;
- CCTV – GOM Player;
- General Occurrence;
- Injury Report;
- Notes-WO #1;
- Notes-the SO;
- Notes-WO #5;
- Notes-WO #4;
- Notes-WO #3;
- Notes-WO #6;
- Notes-WO #2;
- Notes-WO #7;
- ICCS footage-Officer #1;
- ICCS footage-WO #6;
- ICCS footage-WO #5;
- ICCS footage-Officer #2;
- ICCS footage-WO #1;
- ICCS footage-WO #3;
- ICCS footage-WO #2;
- ICCS footage-WO #4;
- ICCS footage-WO #7;
- Scene Photos;
- Booking Video;
- Policy-Use of Force;
- Policy-Use of Force Appendix A;
- Policy-Use of Force Appendix B;
- Policy-Less Lethal Shotguns;
- Policy-CEW; and
- Data downloaded from the CEWs.
Materials Obtained from Other SourcesThe SIU obtained the following record from other sources on February 3, 2021:
- Cellphone video sent to SIU via Twitter.
At about 3:16 a.m., while standing on Richmond Street East in and around the Sherbourne Street intersection, the Complainant was shot twice by the SO. A short time later, the Complainant collapsed to the ground on Richmond Street East, east of George Street, after which he was handcuffed by police officers.
A half-hour or so prior to the shooting, WO #2 and WO #1 had responded to a condo at 460 Adelaide Street for a report of a person – the Complainant – damaging vehicles in the underground garage. Not finding the Complainant at the address, the officers set about searching the vicinity and decided to check the Green P parking garage on Richmond Street East, across from the Ford Dealership, east of Sherbourne Street.
Located in the Green P parking garage and told he was under arrest by the officers, the Complainant fled from WO #2 and WO #1. The officers gave chase and watched as the Complainant retrieved a knife from his person. The Complainant turned variously in the directions of WO #2 and WO #1, and was met by CEW discharges by both officers. WO #1 was the first to deploy his weapon. Having ordered the Complainant to stop and drop the knife, the officer fired his CEW. The discharge had no effect on the Complainant. WO #2 deployed his CEW at about the same time; it too had no impact on the Complainant, who remained standing, knife in hand. The Complainant picked up a CEW that had been discarded by one of the officers after it had been deployed, and aimed it at WO #2 before fleeing up the garage ramp onto Richmond Street. 
The SO and her partner, WO #3, were among multiple officers that began arriving in the area of Richmond Street East and Sherbourne Street in response to WO #2’s emergency assistance call. The SO drove past WO #1, who had emerged onto Richmond Street following the Complainant westward. His attention drawn to the SO’s cruiser, which had stopped beside him, the Complainant approached the vehicle’s driver side and started tapping on the SO’s window with the knife. WO #3, who had exited and come around the cruiser, yelled at the Complainant to drop the knife and then fired his CEW at the Complainant when he did not do so. Unaffected by the discharge, the Complainant walked away from the cruiser and continued to make his way westbound on Richmond Street East. 
A group of officers, including the SO, who was armed with a less-lethal firearm, followed the Complainant in a line formation to his east. WO #3 took the lead in speaking with the Complainant, attempting to have him drop the knife. The Complainant was not receptive. He occasionally advanced in the direction of officers before retreating and resuming his westward travel, holding the knife to his chest and neck as he did so while indicating he wanted to hurt himself. As the procession reached the area of the Richmond Street East and Sherbourne Street intersection, the SO took aim at the Complainant and fired a beanbag round from her less-lethal shotgun. Seconds later, she fired a second time. Both rounds appeared to strike the Complainant but he remained standing.
A few minutes after the second of the SO’s discharges, the Complainant, who had by then progressed a further distance west on Richmond Street East and was west of the intersection, collapsed to the ground. Officers approached his location, kicked the knife  out of his reach, and placed him in custody.
Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken from the scene to hospital where he was reportedly diagnosed with a fractured right forearm/wrist before being returned to police custody.
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,
Analysis and Director's Decision
Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law. I accept that the Complainant was subject to arrest when he was first confronted by WO #2 and WO #1 in the Green P parking garage. By that time, the officers had seen the Complainant on a security video recording of his time in a condo parking lot causing damage to vehicles – committing the offence of mischief – and knew what he looked like. When he then proceeded to pull a knife on the officers, there were additional grounds to seek his arrest.
With respect to the less-lethal rounds that were fired at the Complainant, one or the other of which likely caused his forearm/wrist fracture, I am satisfied that it was no more than was reasonably necessary to effect his arrest. The Complainant was armed with a large knife that was capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm or death. By outward appearances, he was also of unsound mind at the time and constituted a clear and present danger to himself and others. He had advanced on police officers in a threatening fashion with the knife, and also held it to his neck and chest while saying he wished to do himself harm. Moments before the shooting, he had pointed a CEW at WO #2. Prior attempts to incapacitate the Complainant with the use of CEWs had been ineffective, as had repeated verbal exhortations that he drop the knife. In the circumstances, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO’s attempt to neutralize the Complainant from a distance with the use of her less-lethal shotgun was unreasonable. While the officers might have continued to play for time, hoping the Complainant would unilaterally disarm himself without the need for force, he had already been given a reasonable opportunity to desist and there was a pressing public safety imperative to resolving the matter as quickly as possible in the interests of the Complainant’s wellbeing and others. Indeed, even after the shots fired from the SO’s firearm, the officers exercised restraint by continuing to following the Complainant for several minutes without any additional resort to force, until he collapsed for reasons that remain unclear.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported herself other than lawfully in her encounter with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: June 3, 2021
Electronically approved by
- 1) The CEW times are derived from the internal timeclocks of each weapon, which are not necessarily synchronized with actual time or with other CEWs. [Back to text]
- 2) Both WO #2 and WO #1 discarded their CEWs after indicating they had discharged their weapons once. As the data downloaded from WO #1’s CEW indicates it was discharged two more times about two minutes after the initial discharge, it may be that the Complainant picked up his weapon and is responsible for those additional discharges. [Back to text]
- 3) Though WO #2 did not mention it in his statement to the SIU, it appears he had picked up WO #1’s CEW (which the officer had discarded) when exiting from the parking lot and, arriving in the area of Sherbourne Street and Richmond Street East, discharged it twice at the Complainant shortly after WO #3’s CEW deployment. [Back to text]
- 4) The knife had a blade measuring 19 centimetres. [Back to text]
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.