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 by the police at a 56-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On August 1, 2021, at 8:49 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) reported the following.

At 6:12 p.m., members of the TPS and Mobile Crisis Intervention Team (MCIT) attended the rear yard of an address on Thirtieth Street, Toronto, for a man in crisis and threatening suicide. The Complainant was armed with a bucksaw. MCIT members were on location and interacted with the man. At one point, the Complainant put a bucksaw to his neck and indicated that he wanted to hurt himself. At that point, one of the attending officers discharged a less than lethal shotgun (sock gun). Three rounds were discharged and the rounds struck the Complainant, who was apprehended after the discharge and taken to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH) for assessment under the Mental Health Act.

The Complainant had sustained minor injuries.

The incident was reportedly captured on body-worn cameras (BWC) worn by the attending TPS officers.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 08/01/2021 at 9:03 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 08/04/2021 at 1:21 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

56-year-old male interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on August 4, 2021.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #2 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

The Scene

The scene was the backyard of a residence on Thirtieth Street, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

BWC Footage

BWC footage from six TPS officers was received from the TPS on August 5, 2021, including that of the SO. The TPS officers were clustered together. What follows is a summary of the BWC footage of the SO.

At 5:56 p.m., the BWC video began. The SO moved towards a residence. A less than lethal shotgun was in view. At 5:57 p.m., two male TPS officers were standing in the driveway, and MCIT officers were already present in the backyard. The Complainant was in the backyard pacing back and forth.

MCIT officers tried to communicate with the Complainant but he said if anyone came forward, he would do it. TPS officers with conducted energy weapons (CEWs) behind their backs could be seen.

At 5:58 p.m., the Complainant said he was done talking, but TPS officers still kept him engaged in communication. They tried giving him cigarettes and said they were calling his brother.

At 5:59 p.m., the Complainant was holding a bucksaw against the right side of his neck. The Complainant told the police officers not to approach him or it would end tragically because he was ready to do it.

At 6:02 p.m., the Complainant was seen with the bucksaw in his left hand and the blade was against the left side of his neck. He said, “We are going to make the news tonight, I know you don’t want to.”

At 6:04 p.m., the Complainant told the TPS officers that he had already died once, and there was no need for an ambulance. Sirens were heard in the background.

At 6:09 p.m., TPS officers discussed deploying a CEW. WO #1 felt they were too far away to use CEWs and asked the SO if she was comfortable taking a shot from that distance.

At 6:10 p.m., the less than lethal shotgun was raised into the view of the BWC and pointed at the Complainant. WO #2 was heard saying, “Don’t do that, stop, come on man.”

At 6:11 p.m., the SO discharged the less than lethal shotgun and TPS officers rushed the Complainant. The Complainant complied, and the bucksaw was seen on the ground. The Complainant was told that the TPS officers did not want to hurt him, and he responded, “I know you don’t.”

At 6:12 p.m., paramedics attended to the Complainant, who said that the “police did okay”. A paramedic asked the SO how many times she shot, and she said two or three times. The Complainant said three times.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials and documents from TPS between August 4 and 5, 2021:

• General Occurrence;
• Intergraph Computer-assisted Dispatch Event Details Report;
• Notes – WO #2;
• Notes – WO #1;
• Notes – WO #3; and
• BWC footage.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU received the following records from other sources:

• Medical Records – SMH.

The events in question are clear thanks to police BWC footage that captured the incident, and may be briefly summarized.

In the late afternoon of August 1, 2021, TPS officers were dispatched to a home on Thirtieth Street, Toronto. The homeowner’s girlfriend had called to report that her boyfriend’s father – the Complainant - was in the backyard with a saw in his hand and threatening to harm himself.

The first officer to arrive at the scene was WO #3, a member of the TPS MCIT. With her was a registered nurse. They encountered the Complainant seated on a chair in the backyard of the property, holding a bucksaw in his hand. The Complainant rose to his feet, put the saw to his neck, and warned them that he would kill himself if they approached any closer. Other officers began to arrive at the address, including other MCIT members.

WO #3 attempted to de-escalate the situation from a distance. Others did the same. They told the Complainant that they were there to help, assured him that they would not get any closer, and offered him a package of cigarettes. The Complainant maintained that he was intent on ending his life.
After a period of back and forth, a sergeant at the scene – WO #1 – consulted with the SO about the prospect of deploying her less lethal shotgun, asking if she thought it was a viable option. The sergeant had already considered and discounted the use of a CEW given the distance between the officers and the Complainant.

The SO took aim with her weapon and fired three times at the Complainant. The Complainant was struck in the shoulder, chest, and leg. He let go of the saw and was quickly approached by officers, who took him into custody without incident. The time was about 6:11 p.m.

Following his apprehension, the Complainant was taken to hospital where he was treated with stitches for a wound to his chest and received psychiatric care.

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,

On August 1, 2021, the Complainant was struck by rounds discharged from a less lethal shotgun in the possession of a TPS officer. The officer – the SO – was identified as the subject official for purposes of the ensuing 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 shooting.

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 was significantly inebriated and of unsound mind at the time of the incident, clearly threatening to do himself harm. He was, in my view, subject to apprehension under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.

I am also of the view that the force used by the SO, namely, the discharge of less lethal “bean bag” rounds from her shotgun, was reasonably necessary to take the Complainant into custody. The Complainant was in possession of a bucksaw, with which he had threatened to harm himself if police got any closer to him than the rear of the house. The officers had every reason to take the Complainant at his word, as they did to be concerned about their own safety vis-à-vis the saw were they to close the distance with him. Having given de-escalation efforts a fair chance at resolving the situation peacefully, and fearing the Complainant was on the cusp of hurting himself, the use of the less lethal shotgun was a reasonable option as it promised to dispossess the Complainant of the saw from a safe distance. In fact, that is precisely what occurred.

For the foregoing reasons, as I am satisfied that the SO used no more than legally justified force in aid of a lawful apprehension, there are no grounds for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: November 22, 2021

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit