Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

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, 2019

Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following: 

Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.

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 discharge of a firearm at a 33-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On April 17, 2021 at 9:02 p.m., the Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) notified the SIU that two Anti-Riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN) weapons had been discharged at a suicidal woman.

According to the DRPS, at approximately 8:00 p.m. that evening, the DRPS received a 911 call regarding a suicidal person. Officers located the Complainant near the Whitby Public Library. The woman had her hand in her purse and, at some point, took a knife from the purse. DRPS tactical officers discharged ARWEN weapons and the Complainant was disarmed. The Complainant was transported to the Lakeridge Health Oshawa.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 04/17/2021 at 9:27 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 04/17/2021 at 10:43 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

The Scene

The incident occurred in front of the main branch of the Whitby Library. At the northeast end of the library there was a coffee shop, called Presse Café.

Between the café and Dundas Street, a series of posts along the sidewalk supported a raised architectural structure (two of the posts are marked in the scene diagram). The Complainant was reportedly standing next to the first of the posts, immediately in front of the Presse Café.

• A copy of the telephone and radio communications;

• General Occurrence report;

• Incident Narrative Reports from the three witness officials;

• The notebook entries of the three witness officials;

• Photos of the scene; and

• ARWEN requalification training records for SO #1 and SO #2.

• Surveillance camera recordings from the Whitby Library – Main Branch; and

• A screen shot from a Facebook posting from the Complainant.

The material events in question are clear on the evidence gathered by the SIU, which included an interview with the Complainant, and may be briefly summarized.

At about 6:41 p.m. of April 17, 2021, the DRPS received a 911 call from a woman. The woman was calling to report that her friend – the Complainant – had confided in her that she intended to end her life by cutting her throat with a knife. The Complainant was reported to be in the area of the Whitby Central Library. Officers were dispatched to the scene.

WO #2 was among the first officers at the library, arriving at about 6:47 p.m. The Complainant was leaning against a pillar in front of the Presse Café that was part of the library building. The officer exited his vehicle and, from a distance east of the Complainant’s location, began to speak with her. The Complainant confirmed that she had a knife and was intent on ending her life by cutting her throat. After several minutes of conversation, the Complainant pulled a knife from her purse. She ignored repeated requests from WO #2 that she drop the knife, and spoke of being tired and depressed.

Members of the DRPS Tactical Support Unit (TSU), including SO #1 and SO #2, were also dispatched to the scene, arriving at about 7:00 p.m. One of their members took over from WO #2 as the lead officer in conversation with the Complainant. Other tactical officers stood by with their ARWENs at the ready. It was decided that negotiations would be given every opportunity to resolve the situation, but that ARWENs would be used if, necessary, to prevent harm coming to the Complainant. As she had done with WO #2, the Complainant talked about her struggles with mental health and previous suicide attempts. She expressed frustration that the hospitals she had been to had failed to help her. SO #1, who had taken over the negotiation, assured the Complainant that they would get her the medical help she needed and that she would be seen by different doctors. Despite the officers’ repeated requests, the Complainant refused to drop the knife.

Shortly before 8:00 p.m., the Complainant brought the knife up to her throat with both hands causing a dimple in the skin. That action prompted the tactical officers to decide that they would use their ARWENs at the first opportunity, namely, the moment the Complainant removed the knife from her neck. One of the officers, having been told by the Complainant that she had not eaten in days, persuaded her to drink from the chocolate milk container she had in her purse. As the Complainant removed her hand with the knife in it to unscrew the cap of the container, SO #1 and SO #2 discharged their ARWENs firing four rounds in total.

The Complainant was struck in the thighs and one of her hands. She dropped the knife and fell to the ground. Officers quickly moved in on the Complainant and took her into 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,

Section 17, Mental Health Act -- Action by police officer

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

The Complainant was the subject of multiple ARWEN discharges by DRPS officers in Whitby on April 17, 2021. The officers who discharged their weapons – SO #1 and SO #2 – were identified as subject officials in the ensuing SIU investigation. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official committed a criminal offence in connection with the discharge of their ARWENs.

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. The Complainant had a significant history of suicidal ideation, of which the officers learned in the course of the negotiations. She had attempted suicide the night prior, and was clearly depressed and suicidal as she held a knife and threatened to kill herself in the instant case. On this record, I am satisfied that the officers were within their rights in acting to apprehend the Complainant under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.

I am further satisfied that SO #1 and SO #2 did not use excessive force in aid of the Complainant’s apprehension. They and the other officers who responded to the scene were content to give negotiation every chance to succeed. Indeed, they had very deliberately set upon a course in which they would only use their ARWENs if it appeared the Complainant was on the precipice of hurting herself. In my view, that is precisely what occurred. It was only when the Complainant moved the knife up to her throat that the officers decided to adopt a more proactive posture. Even then, fearing that an ARWEN discharge with the knife in that position might inadvertently cause harm to the Complainant, they were able to first coax her into lowering the knife before SO #1 and SO #2 fired their weapons. Their shots, aimed at the Complainant’s lower mass, were effective in dispossessing the Complainant of the knife. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officers used unnecessary force, particularly as lesser force, such as direct physical engagement, would have placed the officers within reach of a potentially dangerous weapon and provided the Complainant a window of time to inflict self-harm.

For the foregoing reasons, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that SO #1 and SO #2 acted other than lawfully throughout their engagement with the Complainant. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case, and the file is closed.


Date: August 13, 2021


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit