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 33-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On December 30, 2021, at 2:24 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of a firearm discharged at a person – the Complainant – by a police officer.

TPS reported that on December 30, 2021, at 11:28 a.m., TPS police officers responded to a carjacking in the area of Danforth Avenue and Thyra Avenue. The suspect [now known to be the Complainant] and car were gone upon arrival. At approximately 11:50 a.m., the vehicle was reported abandoned in the area of Kingston Road and Midland Avenue. When police officers started to investigate the vehicle, the Complainant approached and jumped on the police cruiser. He would not comply with police demands and became aggressive. Police officers deployed a less lethal shotgun and missed him. They then deployed a conducted energy weapon (CEW) and were able to apprehend him.

The Complainant was transported to the Michael Garron Hospital and was being formed under the Mental Health Act. He had sustained no serious injuries. The hospital advised that they had found traces of methamphetamine on the tips of the CEW barbs.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 12/31/2021 at 6:27 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 12/31/2021 at 9:47 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

33-year-old male; declined to be interviewed

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between December 31, 2021, and January 5, 2022.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on January 12, 2022.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on January 7, 2022.

The Scene

On December 30, 2021, at 2:49 p.m., the SIU Forensic Investigator arrived at the scene – the intersection of Kingston Road and Midland Avenue.

In the westbound lanes of Kingston Road west of the intersection was a TPS police vehicle – a Ford Taurus. This vehicle was equipped with emergency lighting and siren that were not operational at the time of arrival. The police vehicle was orientated west in the middle of the roadway. There were footwear impressions on the roof, along with large dents on the surface. The emergency roof light had also been damaged.

Further west at the intersection of Kingston Road and Sandown Avenue was a vehicle reportedly used by the Complainant prior to the altercation with the police officers.


Figure 1 – Footwear impressions on the roof of WO #5’s police vehicle


Figure 2 – The SO’s less lethal shotgun


Figure 3 – WO #1’s CEW

Physical Evidence

The evidence collected from the scene consisted of:

1.  – “Super Sock” projectile.
2.  – CEW deployed cartridge.
3.  – CEW blast door.
4.  – CEW anti felon identification disk (AFID).
5.  – CEW AFID.
6.  – CEW blast door.
7.  – “Super Sock” shotgun cartridge case.

Forensic Evidence

WO #1’s CEW

A SIU Forensic Investigator obtained a Taser X2 from WO #1. One cartridge bay was empty and the other contained a live cartridge. An offline report of the CEW was downloaded. The following outlines the events during the time of the incident.

Sequence 7958 -“Armed” - The safety was disengaged and the weapon was turned on. Cartridge 1 and Cartridge 2 were ready for deployment.

Sequence 7959 - “Trigger” - The trigger was depressed five seconds after being armed. Cartridge 1 was deployed for a duration of five seconds with Cartridge 2 remaining ready for deployment.

Sequence 7960 - “Trigger” - The trigger was depressed 11 seconds after the previous trigger event with Cartridge 1 remaining deployed and Cartridge 2 remaining ready for deployment.

Sequence 7961 - “Trigger” - The trigger was depressed six seconds after the second trigger event with Cartridge 1 remaining deployed and Cartridge 2 remaining ready for deployment.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On January 3, 2022, the SIU received BWC footage from the TPS. The colour videos were date and time-stamped, and contained audio. The footage did not capture the discharge of the less lethal shotgun at the Complainant.

BWC-WO #4

On December 30, 2021, between about 11:36:30 a.m. and 11:37:00 a.m., the Complainant was seated in the middle of the intersection with his hands handcuffed behind his back and in the company of five police officers. He had two CEW prongs lodged in his chest.

Between about 11:37:36 a.m. and 11:38:20 a.m., the Complainant said, “I’m done, sir. I’m not armed. Officer, please get me up off the ground.” The Complainant said, “You made me do that. Mom, if you’re not….” The Complainant continued to yell, “You made me do everything. I’m ready to go to my mom. I’ll do whatever my mom says. My mother’s dead. I’m killing my mother. If you do this to me… we’re done forever. You fucking cunt. I will find you.”

Between about 11:40:30 a.m. and 11:40:56 a.m., the Complainant said, “You are putting too much force on my…,” referring to the two police officers with their hands on his shoulders. Officer #1 [2] introduced himself and asked if the Complainant had any injuries. The Complainant responded, “No.” Officer #1 asked if the Complainant was on drugs, and he responded, “Dude, I just got tased.”

BWC-Officer #1

On December 30, 2021, between about 11:45:04 a.m. and 11:48:04 a.m., the Complainant was lodged in the rear passenger seat of a police cruiser. Officer #1 informed the Complainant he was under arrest for robbery and theft of vehicle.

At about 11:55:28 a.m., while looking for the discharged round, Officer #1 asked the SO if she had made contact. She replied, “I don’t think so.”

At about 12:04:50 p.m., a man approached Officer #1 to provide a witness statement. He described the Complainant’s behaviour prior to the police officers’ arrival.

BWC-Officer #2 [3]

On December 30, 2021, at 11:44:10 a.m., Officer #2 obtained a brief interview from a civilian witness.

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, which included video footage that largely captured the events in question.

In the morning of December 30, 2021, multiple TPS uniformed officers, including the SO, arrived at the intersection of Kingston Road and Midland Avenue. They were there following reports of a crime spree, including acts of theft and assault, committed that morning by a male who had made his way to the area.

Arriving at the intersection southbound on Midland Avenue, WO #5 was the first at the scene in his marked cruiser. He observed a male who fit the description of the suspect – the Complainant – in the middle of the intersection. At the sight of the cruiser, the Complainant walked to the vehicle and kicked at the driver’s door. WO #5 radioed for assistance, specifically requesting that an officer with a CEW make their way to the scene, and then slowly followed the Complainant as he walked west away from his cruiser in the westbound lanes. Within seconds, the Complainant turned and ran towards the cruiser, this time jumping onto the hood, then the roof, and then the hood again, before jumping onto the roadway in front of the vehicle.

The SO heard the call for assistance and made her way to the scene eastbound on Kingston Road, pulling up to the scene and stopping her cruiser in the left-turn lane of the roadway. Shortly thereafter, WO #1 arrived as well, parking his vehicle immediately behind the SO’s cruiser. The SO exited her cruiser with a less-lethal shotgun in hand and confronted the Complainant. By this time, a bare-chested Complainant was walking west away from WO #5’s cruiser, in the westbound lanes of Kingston Road west of the intersection. The Complainant took a few steps towards the SO and then began to run east away from her along the passenger side of WO #5’s cruiser. The SO fired her weapon once at the Complainant from a distance of several metres, missing him.

The Complainant continued to run east towards the intersection chased by the SO and WO #1, who had his CEW out. He stopped just short of the pedestrian walkway that marked the western boundary of the intersection and turned to confront the officers. As he did so, the Complainant was bumped from behind by the front end of a cruiser driven by WO #2, who had approached from the north turning west into the intersection. The Complainant was nudged forward a small distance by the impact, gathered himself, and maneuvered around the driver’s side corner of WO #2’s cruiser. Moments later, WO #1, his CEW raised and aimed at the Complainant, discharged his weapon from a distance of about a metre.

The CEW probes lodged into the Complainant and he fell backwards onto the roadway. The SO and WO #2 physically engaged the Complainant on the ground, but he was able to stand up and break free of their grasp. WO #1 discharged his weapon again and the Complainant fell to his knees in the middle of the intersection. The SO, WO #2 and WO #5 approached the Complainant, forced him to the ground and, with the assistance of another arriving police officer, secured him in restraints after a period of struggle.

The Complainant did not suffer any serious injury.

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 a less-lethal firearm discharge by a TPS officer on December 30, 2021. The officer – the SO – was identified as the subject official for purposes of the ensuing SIU investigation. 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 incident.

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 in the middle of a busy intersection, speaking and acting incoherently, and placing himself and others in the vicinity at risk by his behaviour. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that he was subject to apprehension by the police under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.

I am further satisfied that the SO acted with legal justification when she fired her less-lethal shotgun at the Complainant. The Complainant was of unsound mind at the time and unwilling or unable to control his hostile and combative behaviour. He had kicked at WO #5’s cruiser and then jumped onto its hood, stomping on it several times, before dismounting. He was acting out in live lanes of traffic, seemingly oblivious to the dangers of traffic around him. On this record, confronted by a highly agitated individual giving no sign of calming or surrendering to police, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO acted with excess when she discharged her weapon. Though the officer missed her target, the use of the weapon brought with it the prospect of immediately incapacitating a threatening Complainant from a safe distance in circumstances in which time was of the essence. Following the discharge, the Complainant continued to act out in the middle of the roadway and was only finally subdued with the use of a CEW by WO #1. [5]

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported herself unlawfully throughout her engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the officer. The file is closed.


Date: April 27, 2022


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit