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 62-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On November 3, 2021, at 3:15 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the following.

At 2:08 p.m., the TPS had received a telephone call from a sheriff, who was at an apartment on Keele Street to evict the Complainant. The Complainant pulled what appeared to be a gun. The sheriff backed off and called TPS. Police officers arrived and saw the Complainant picking up and putting down the firearm. At 2:54 p.m., the Complainant shot himself.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 11/03/2021 at 3:15 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 11/03/2021 at 4:58 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

The Scene

The incident occurred inside a one-bedroom apartment located on the west side of a building on Keele Street. Entering the apartment, a closet was immediately on the right, followed by the entrance to a small kitchen also on the right. A short hallway led into the living room and dining room area. To the left of the living room/dining room area was a doorway that led to a bedroom and a bathroom.

A large area on the living room floor was stained with a red blood-like substance. There were blood drops along with pooling and transfer stains in the red staining. A swivel chair was along the west wall by a long table, also covered in the red blood-like staining.

A large plush chair blocked the entrance from the kitchen into the dining room area. Behind the chair along the east wall separating the dining room from the kitchen was a black firearm with a white grip. The weapon was a Norinco .45 ACP pistol. To the right of the chair near the north wall of the dining room was one spent .45 caliber cartridge.


Figure 1 - The Norinco .45 ACP pistol

A handwritten note was located on the long table in the dining room. The note stated the following: “I didn’t point gun at no one Please call to my friends and let them know.”

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

The following is a list of the exhibits collected by the SIU in the course of the investigation.

Item	Description	Type of Item
1	Norinco .45 cal pistol	Firearm
2	Deformed projectile removed from deceased	Projectile
3	Pair of jeans with brown belt	Clothing
4	Blue underwear	Clothing
5	Pair of socks	Clothing
6	Heavily stained white T-shirt	Clothing
7	Stained blue sweater	Clothing
8	Set of keys from front right pocket of Item 3	Personal effects
9	Blood swab – DNA	Biological sample

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

Police Communications Recordings

The following is a summary of the recordings.

• On November 3, 2021, at 2:07:55 p.m., a sheriff called 911 to report that while he and his partner had attempted an eviction at an apartment on Keele Street, the tenant, the Complainant, brandished a gun with a brown patch on it.
• The sheriff had left the area and gone to a business to call police.
• At 2:09:25 p.m., the police dispatcher requested back up for a [call involving a gun] to the apartment on Keele Street.
• It was reported that the tenant, the Complainant, had pulled a gun on the sheriff who was attempting an eviction.
• At 2:23:59 p.m., WO #10 alerted the dispatcher that he had conducted a check on the Complainant and found he was positive for having firearms.
• At 2:30:00 p.m., WO #1 requested the ETF [Emergency Task Force]. The Complainant was pointing a gun at himself and had refused to leave the unit.
• At 2:38:13 p.m., WO #3 informed the dispatcher that the Complainant appeared to be calm.
• At 2:40:54 p.m., WO #3 informed the dispatcher that the Complainant had put his gun down briefly and picked it up before putting it in his pocket.
• At 2:52:02 p.m., the dispatcher broadcasted that the ETF had arrived.
• At 2:54:40 p.m., a female police officer informed the dispatcher that the Complainant had shot himself.
• At 2:54:56 p.m., a police officer requested that Emergency Medical Services (EMS) attend the unit. The Complainant had shot himself.
• At 2:56:30 p.m., tactical EMS arrived on scene.
• At 1508:31 p.m., a police officer alerted the dispatcher that an emergency medical run had started.

ETF - Radio Communications

• At 2:40:41 p.m., the dispatcher alerted ETF that a sheriff had attended Keele Street to serve an eviction and the tenant, the Complainant, had brandished a gun.
• It was noted that uniformed police officers were on scene and the Complainant had pointed the gun at them and at himself.
• At 2:54:39 p.m., an ETF officer said, “He shot himself.”
• At 2:55:04 p.m., an ETF officer said, “Medics up here right now.”
• At 2:55:11 p.m., an ETF officer said, “We got the gun on the floor, he’s in the chair.”

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

The following summary is an amalgamation of all the BWC footage related to the incident.

• At 2:26 p.m., at the apartment building on Keele Street, WO #1, WO #2 and WO #8 took the elevator to the Complainant’s floor. WO #4 and WO #10 walked up the stairs.
• At 2:27 p.m., WO #1, WO #2 and WO #8 approached the door to the Complainant’s apartment. There was a boot on the floor holding the door propped open several centimetres.
• WO #1 stood on the left side of the door and initiated contact with the Complainant. He said he wanted to make sure the Complainant did not have a firearm. He asked the Complainant to show him his hands and tried to get him to come out into the hallway. WO #1 had his right hand on his pistol but did not withdraw it from the holster.
• At 2:28 p.m., the Complainant came to the door, opened it, and then moved back into the apartment. He appeared to be about six metres from the door.
• The Complainant’s hands were in front of him at chest height.
• WO #1 said that the Complainant had a gun behind him.
• WO #1 put his left foot against the door to try to keep it open, and then moved into the door opening. WO #1’s pistol was holstered, and his hands were empty in front of him.
• The Complainant said several times that he was going to leave life for good.
• WO #4 moved to a position directly across from the door and WO #10 moved directly to the right of the door. WO #10 had his pistol out and down at his side where the Complainant could not see it. WO #4 had his hand on his holstered pistol.
• The Complainant said his gun was not for the police.
• At 2:29 p.m., the Complainant reached back with his right hand to the gun. The police officers immediately retreated, and the door partially closed against the boot.
• WO #10 kept the door partially opened with his left hand.
• WO #1 stepped away, and requested the dispatcher re-send the ETF. He said the Complainant had a gun pointed at himself and refused to come out of the apartment.
• The police officers interacted with the Complainant for about six minutes during which time rapport was established, and he and WO #1 settled into a dialogue.
• Starting at 2:33 p.m., for approximately 19 minutes, WO #1 stood in the doorway, empty-handed, and maintained dialogue as the Complainant stood in the living room.
• The Complainant made no threats towards the police and never pointed the gun towards the police.
• At 2:53 p.m., three ETF officers [believed to be the SO, WO #5 and WO #9] approached the apartment from the right side. They were followed by other ETF officers, including WO #6.
• The SO had a shield and put it down in the hallway. He then put his hand on WO #10’s shoulder and moved him backwards, after which he knelt down on the right side of the door and moved the shield into place in front of him.
• At 2:54:17 p.m., WO #1 said, “Good?” and, “Okay, he’s got two guns on the table boys,” which someone repeated, “Two guns on the table.”
• WO #5 stood over the SO with a shotgun pointed into the apartment.
• At 2:54:25 p.m., WO #5 said, “He’s got a gun in his fucking hand.”
• At 2:54:26 p.m., WO #1 said, “He’s trying to shoot himself.”
• At 2:54:28 p.m., from within the apartment, the Complainant said, “Guys, move back.”
• At 2:54:30 to 2:54:34 p.m., the ETF officers shouted, “Don’t…do not…don’t…do not touch that gun. Drop the gun right now.”
• At 2:54:33 p.m., a gunshot was heard. The ETF officers had been in the hallway and on approach to the apartment for about one minute. About 16 seconds had elapsed since WO #1 had turned the interaction over to the ETF. At the moment the Complainant shot himself, it would appear the SO was kneeling on the right side of the door, WO #5 was standing above him on the right side of the door pointing a shotgun into the apartment, and WO #6 and WO #9 were on the left side of the door.
• At 2:54:35 p.m., a police officer said, “Oh, he shot himself.” Another police officer said, “He shot himself,” followed by, “Ya, he’s down.”

Materials Obtained from Police Service

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

• Computer-assisted Dispatch Event Details Report;
• Communications recordings;
• BWC footage;
• Scene photographs;
• Notes of WOs; and
• Occurrence Report.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the following other sources:

• Ontario Forensic Pathology Service Preliminary Autopsy Findings.

The following scenario emerges from the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with officers who were present in and around the scene at the time of the shooting. The investigation was also assisted by the BWC footage of several of the involved officers. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

At about 2:10 p.m. on November 3, 2021, the TPS received a 911 call. The caller was an employee with the Sheriff’s Office, Ministry of the Attorney General. The caller had just been to an apartment on Keele Street seeking to evict the occupant of the unit – the Complainant. He had fled the scene when the Complainant produced a handgun. Officers were dispatched to the address.

Officers with TPS 31 Division – WO #1, WO #2, WO #4, WO #8 and WO #10 - were the first on scene, arriving as early as about 2:25 p.m. WO #1 propped open the door to the apartment and began to speak with the Complainant, standing four to six metres west of the doorway threshold with a gun in his possession. The Complainant assured WO #1 that he meant the officers no harm; the gun was solely intended to end his own life. He invited the officer inside to talk. WO #1 refused and asked the Complainant to exit the apartment. The Complainant refused. WO #1 radioed requesting the attendance of the ETF.

The standoff continued for some time with the parties remaining relatively calm. Though the Complainant variously held the gun (occasionally against his chest), and placed it on a nearby table and in the waistband of his pants, the officers standing in and around the doorway did not draw their weapons.

ETF officers began arriving on the Complainant’s floor of the building shortly before 3:00 p.m., about half-an-hour after the first of the uniform officers. The 31 Division officers removed themselves from the immediate vicinity of the apartment as ETF officers took up positions on either side of the doorway. The SO set up on his knees just north of the open doorway with a ballistic shield and handgun pointed into the apartment. Standing above him, with a shotgun pointed at the Complainant, was WO #5. On the other side of the door were WO #6 and WO #9, each with a C8 rifle at the ready.

Within seconds of the ETF’s presence at his doorway, the Complainant picked up the gun from the nearby table, pointed it at his chest, took a seat, and fired a shot into his torso. The ETF officers had screamed at him to drop the gun and not “do it” in the moments before the discharge, to no avail. They entered the apartment, rendered first-aid, and called for paramedics (staging in the area) to attend.

The Complainant was transported to hospital where he was declared deceased at 3:29 p.m.

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 passed away on November 3, 2021, the result of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. As he was interacting with TPS officers at the time and in the moments before his death, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The SO was identified as a subject official. The investigation is now concluded. 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 death.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 220 of the Criminal Code. Meant to capture serious cases of neglect, the offence is not made out unless the impugned conduct demonstrates a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. Simple negligence will not suffice to give rise to liability; rather, what is required, in part, is a marked 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 responded to the Complainant’s apartment, in particular, the SO, that contributed to the Complainant’s death and was sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction. In my view, there was not.

The 31 Division and ETF officers were lawfully placed throughout their engagement with the Complainant. The Complainant had confronted a member of the Sheriff’s Office with a gun, which he kept it in his possession and threatened to use, albeit against himself, as officers began arriving at his apartment. In the circumstances, the officers were duty bound to do what they reasonably could to take the Complainant into custody, prevent harm coming to him, and preserve public safety.

The decision to deploy the ETF to the scene was a reasonable one. Though WO #1 and the 31 Division officers had developed something of a rapport with the Complainant, the Complainant retained possession of a pistol and remained a threat, to himself and others, throughout the standoff. ETF officers are specifically trained and equipped to deal with these types of situations.

At the scene, I am satisfied that the SO and the ETF officers comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s welfare in the one to two minutes that they dealt with him. They had just assumed positions beside the doorway, replacing the uniformed officers, when the Complainant picked up his gun from the table and shot himself. It would seem that the ETF’s presence, and perhaps their open display of gunpower, was the impetus for the Complainant’s final act. Be that as it may, I am unable to fault the ETF officers for having their guns drawn and pointed at the Complainant given the gun in the Complainant’s possession – it was only prudent that they should be ready to act to defend themselves at a moment’s notice if the need arose. Nor does it appear that there was ever any real opportunity to prevent the Complainant from doing what he did given the speed with which events unfolded as the ETF officers arrived on scene.

In the result, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the officers who dealt with the Complainant transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in connection with his self-inflicted death. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.


Date: March 1, 2022


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit