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 death of a 41-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On October 9, 2021 at 11:00 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU and reported the following.

On October 9, 2021, at 7:27 p.m., officers from TPS 42 Division attended an address on Castledene Crescent for an unknown trouble call. Officers tried to establish communications with a man. Members of the Emergency Task Force (ETF) were notified and attended. A police negotiator was in contact with the man and, at some point during their discussions, the man was observed picking up a knife and stabbing himself in the neck area. These actions were witnessed by a second member of the ETF. The man was transported to Sunnybrook Hospital and pronounced dead at 9:59 p.m.

The knife was still at the scene, which was being held by the TPS 42 Division officers, and ETF officers were at their respective units and completing their notes.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 10/09/2021 at 11:30 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 10/10/2021 at 1:25 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 6

The Scene

On October 10, 2021, at 1:25 a.m., an SIU forensic investigator arrived on scene at an address on Castledene Crescent, Toronto. The scene consisted of a basement apartment. The basement consisted of two bedrooms, a kitchen, a living room, and a laundry room.

The furniture had been moved to one side and there was bloody clothing and medical debris on a carpet in the open area in front of the bedroom doors. The bedroom at the southeast corner of the apartment had the door broken-in and two round holes drilled through the door. There was a table just inside the open door and a drywall saw on the floor just behind the door with blood on the wall above it.

There was a cell phone on the bed that was against the wall across from the door and a wallet on a dresser just inside and to the left of the doorway. The windows on the east wall had been broken.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

The following is a list of the salient items of physical evidence collected from the scene.

Item	Description
1	Dark plaid long sleeve button shirt-cut and heavily bloodstained with hair and pellets
3	Brown card holder with Ontario photo card, health card, SIN, credit card, two photographs, and 16 assorted business cards
4	Samsung cell phone
5	GREENLEE black and green-handled drywall saw with an overall length of 29 cm - bloodstained
6	Gray T-shirt - cut and bloodstained
7	Black ball cap - bloodstained
8	Black FILA lace shoes - bloodstained
9	Grey socks - bloodstained
10	OLD NAVY blue jeans with blue belt - cut and bloodstained
11	Blue NIKE shorts - cut

Item number 5 was of particular importance as it was located inside the Complainant’s room and contained what appeared to be fresh blood.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

Police Communications Recordings

On January 25, 2022, the SIU received a copy of the TPS communications recordings. The following is a summary of the pertinent information on the recordings.

• At 7:26:59 p.m., the TPS 911 system received a call. The caller [later identified as the Complainant] requested that police attend at an address on Castledene Crescent. He reported he was “about to cause some chaos over here he doesn’t have nothing”. The 911 call-taker attempted to clarify the address and the Complainant said he needed help.
• At 7:33:45 p.m., the TPS dispatched officers to the Castledene Crescent address for unknown trouble.
• At 7:37:53 p.m., WO #5 requested that he be put on the call. He advised he had completed a ‘Versadex’ check on the address and the person who called might be the Complainant. It appeared the Complainant had former gang ties and paranoia issues.
• At 7:39:03 p.m., dispatch advised they had checked the Complainant’s name, and the results indicated cautions for ‘violence’ and ‘prohibited firearm’. He had also previously been convicted of aggravated assault.
• At 7:53:08 p.m., an officer on scene requested a check on a vehicle in the driveway, a Toyota. A transmission indicated that a door knock was occurring.
• At 7:54:03 p.m., officers reported the door was open.
• At 7:56:25 p.m., WO #5 reported they had contacted a male. He was behind a closed door and did not want to come out. He was asking the officer to enter and kill him.
• At 7:59:58 p.m., WO #5 asked that the ETF monitor call.
• At 8:02:42 p.m., 42 Division Primary Response Unit officers were talking among themselves, indicating they could not see inside the bedroom as the blinds were closed. They were thinking about knocking on the windows to see if the man would go to them.
• At 8:03:44 p.m., WO #5 requested that ETF call him.
• At 8:04:46 p.m., officers reported that the man was not responding to the window.
• At 8:09:34 p.m., WO #5 reported the man was banging with something inside the room. It sounded like a stick or a pole, and could be used as a weapon.
• At 8:13:12 p.m., WO #5 reported the man had gone silent, but was still in the room.
• At 8:16:52 p.m., WO #5 requested that EMS attend and stage in the event they were needed.
• At 8:21:42 p.m., the ETF officers were talking about the Complainant and his history as they prepared for their arrival.
• At 8:27:21 p.m., WO #5 reported the property manager had just arrived, and he reported that the Complainant had been seen with a hammer and a screwdriver earlier that day. The Complainant was said to be living with a woman. She had left earlier in the day because she was afraid. Her whereabouts were unconfirmed.
• At 9:09:53 p.m., WO #5 requested that an emergency run to Sunnybrook be set up as the Complainant had stabbed himself in the throat.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the TPS:

• Notes of WOs;
• Person Hardcopy (Versadex Background);
• Procedure - Emotionally Disturbed Persons; and
• Communication recordings.

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with officers involved in an operation around the Complainant’s residence around the time of his death.

At about 7:30 p.m. of October 9, 2021, the Complainant called 911 from his basement apartment on Castledene Crescent. He was of unsound mind at the time. He asked that police officers attend his residence and spoke about “causing chaos”. Police officers were dispatched to the address.

Arriving at about 7:50 p.m., and led by WO #5, the first officers at the scene included WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4. A check of police records had revealed that the Complainant was a former gang member who frequently suffered from paranoia. The officers would also learn that the Complainant was flagged on police records for violence.

The officers were allowed into the home – a rooming house – by one of the tenants, and set about trying to locate the Complainant. WO #1 and WO #2 reported that they had located the Complainant in a bedroom in the basement. They had attempted to communicate with the Complainant through the locked bedroom door without success. He kept repeating, “Come in and kill me, confirm, confirm.”

The officers were joined in the basement by WO #3, WO #4 and WO #5. Further efforts at communication with the Complainant were similarly unsuccessful. The sergeant inquired about the availability of the Mobile Crisis Intervention Team, and was told they were not working. As the officers were becoming increasingly concerned for the health of the Complainant, who had earlier that day been seen with a hammer and screwdriver, and his girlfriend – CW #4 – whose whereabouts were unknown, the sergeant decided to call-in the ETF to deal with what had become a barricaded persons situation.

A team of ETF officers arrived on scene at about 8:30 p.m., relieving the primary response officers. They shone their flashlights at the bedroom door frame to elicit a response from the Complainant. The Complainant reacted by screaming, “Come on! Come in!” When asked if his girlfriend was in the room with him, the Complainant did not respond. Concerned that CW #4 was being held hostage, the officers decided they needed a view into the bedroom.

The ETF team leader, WO #6, went outside, located the bedroom window, and broke it, pulling the drapes aside. The room was dark and they were unable to detect the Complainant. With the use of a thermal imaging camera, however, the Complainant was seen against the wall opposite the window. WO #6 used his flashlight to illuminate the Complainant. He was holding a hammer and waving it. The officer told the Complainant to drop the hammer and speak with the officers at the door. The Complainant was unresponsive.

As WO #6 continued to scan the bedroom with his flashlight, he noticed that the hammer was now on the bed and the Complainant had a knife in his hand. The officer yelled, “Knife,” and drew his CEW but was unable to deploy it without a clear shot. Within seconds, the Complainant stabbed himself in the neck. WO #6 called for medics to attend as the officers outside the bedroom door forced it open.

Paramedics attended to the Complainant in the basement. He was placed in an ambulance and rushed to hospital where he was pronounced deceased at 9:59 p.m.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to ‘stab wound to neck’.

Sections 219 and 220, Criminal Code -- Criminal negligence causing death

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(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.

The Complainant died in Toronto on October 9, 2021. As TPS officers had engaged with the Complainant for a period of time before he suffered wounds resulting in his death, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any TPS officer 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 reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. A simple finding of unreasonable conduct will not suffice to ground liability. Rather, what is required is 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 officers who engaged with the Complainant, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that contributed to his self-inflicted death. In my view, there was not.

The officers who attended at the Complainant’s residence were at all times lawfully placed. They had been called to the scene by the Complainant himself, who was in apparent mental distress at the time. Once there, with the information at their disposal suggesting the Complainant was armed and a danger to himself and possibly others, they were duty bound to do what they reasonably could to protect and preserve life.

In the course of a standoff lasting little more than an hour at the scene, I am also satisfied that the officers comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s well-being. The uniformed officers who initially attended attempted to de-escalate the situation at the door by speaking with the Complainant. They tried to persuade him to open the door but to no avail. The sergeant in command – WO #5 – considered his options and decided, wisely, in my view, that the ETF should be deployed given the potential of a hostage inside the bedroom with an armed man – the ETF had personnel and resources specifically for these types of situations. The ETF’s approach at the scene was measured and methodical. They too attempted to negotiate a peaceful resolution of the matter and only decided on a more proactive posture when those efforts failed. The decision to acquire a line of sight into the bedroom as a first step would appear a reasonable one as they had yet to confirm the presence of another person in the room. Regrettably, the Complainant decided to stab himself within seconds of WO #6 breaking the bedroom window before any of the ETF officers had an opportunity to prevent that from happening. Once in the bedroom, there is no indication that the officers failed to act with dispatch in securing medical attention for the Complainant.

For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that none of the officers involved in the operation set in motion by the Complainant’s call to police transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.


Date: February 4, 2022

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit