SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OFD-164
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
Mandate of the SIU
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.
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.
Information Restrictions
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:- The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person.
- Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault.
- Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person.
- Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.
- Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.
- Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published.
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Pursuant to section14 (i.e., law enforcement), certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:- Confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by law enforcement agencies; and
- Information that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.
- The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials;
- Location information;
- Witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence; and
- Other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation.
Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004
Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.Other proceedings, processes, and investigations
Information may also have been excluded from this report because its release could undermine the integrity of other proceedings involving the same incident, such as criminal proceedings, coroner’s inquests, other public proceedings and/or other law enforcement investigations.Mandate Engaged
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 21-year-old man (“Complainant #1”), and the serious injury of a 19-year-old woman (“Complainant #2”).
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 21-year-old man (“Complainant #1”), and the serious injury of a 19-year-old woman (“Complainant #2”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On June 27, 2022, at 11:10 p.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) notified the SIU of a shooting death.According to the OPS, on June 27, 2022, at approximately 10:25 p.m., the service received a call regarding a male stabbing a female in the vicinity of a residential dwelling on Anoka Street, Ottawa. Three OPS officers arrived on scene and firearms were discharged to stop the male from stabbing the female. The male was struck in the head and was deceased. The female who was being attacked by the male was struck in the calf by a gunshot.
The OPS identified the involved police officers as Subject Official (SO) #1, SO #2, and SO #3.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 06/27/2022 at 11:55 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 06/28/2022 at 3:13 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2
The SIU immediately dispatched two investigators and one forensic investigator (FI). Later, on the morning of June 28, 2022, a second FI was added to the investigation.
In consultation with OPS FIs, the scene was separated into two scenes: scene 1 involving Complainant #2’s mother and sister, which was at the top of their driveway, and scene 2 involving Complainant #1 and Complainant #2. The SIU processed scene 2, while the OPS processed scene 1 and the interior of Complainant #2’s residence.
Affected Persons (aka “Complainant”):
Complainant #1 21-year-old male, deceasedComplainant #2 19-year-old female interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
Complainant #2 was interviewed on June 28, 2022.
Civilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 Interviewed CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed
CW #6 Interviewed
CW #7 Interviewed
CW #8 Interviewed
CW #9 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between June 28, 2022, and July 6, 2022.
Subject Officials (SO)
SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal rightSO #2 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed
SO #3 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #5 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #6 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on June 29, 2022. The notes and incident reports of the witness officials were reviewed. It was determined WO #1 and WO #3 were to be interviewed as they appeared to have information that would assist the SIU.
Evidence
The Scene
The remains of Complainant #2’s mother and sister were found in front of the garage of their residence on Anoka Street, Ottawa. They had suffered numerous stabs wounds and incised injuries (cuts), and were vitals signs absent when found by paramedics.
Complainant #1 was found at the foot of the driveway of another residence. There was a streetlight directly above Complainant #1’s remains. Close to Complainant #1’s body were two knives, a small Swiss Army knife (which belonged to Complainant #2) and a black Ka-Bar TDI knife.
A projectile and nine spent cartridge cases were recovered at the scene.
A cellular telephone found inside the scene and belonging to Complainant #2 was collected by the OPS and returned to her.
A swath of blood was observed along the middle of the street and was believed to have resulted from Complainant #2 being dragged away from Complainant #1. Complainant #2 had been removed from the scene to hospital.
The SIU and OPS discussed collection of evidence and it was agreed the OPS would collect the two knives found inside the scene, and the SIU would collect the spent cartridge cases and the projectile.
The uniforms worn by the subject officials and their use of force equipment were turned over to the SIU at the scene. The uniforms and use of force equipment, with the exception of firearms, were photographed by the SIU on June 30, 2022, and returned to the OPS. The firearms and spare magazines carried by the subject officials were retained by the SIU.
Physical Evidence
The following firearms were retrieved from the identified officer’s duty belt:- SO #1 – a Glock 17 pistol in 9mm. The pistol was equipped with a Surefire weapon light. One cartridge was recovered from the breech of the firearm. SO #1’s spare magazine contained 11 cartridges. The magazine loaded into this pistol contained 17 cartridges, indicating he had performed a re-load during the incident.
- SO #2 – a Glock 22 pistol in .40 calibre. This pistol was equipped with a weapon light. One cartridge was recovered from the breech of the firearm. SO #2’s spare magazine contained 11 cartridges. The magazine loaded in the firearm contained 15 cartridges, indicating he too performed a re-load during the incident.
- SO #3 – a Glock 22 pistol in .40 calibre. One cartridge was recovered from the breach of the firearm. The magazine loaded in the pistol contained 11 cartridges, with a maximum capacity of 15 cartridges.
Based on the cartridge counts of each subject official’s firearm and magazines, it is possible SO #1 fired his handgun as many as six times, SO #2 as many as four times, and SO #3 as many as four times. These estimates depend on the loading practices of the three subject officials, and the SIU was not afforded an opportunity to speak to the officers on the matter. The estimates indicate as many as 14 discharges occurred. Only nine spent cartridge cases were recovered from the scene. Given the number of vehicles and individuals who transited through the scene following the incident, it is quite possible evidence was lost prior to the SIU arriving on scene.
Figure 1 – Complainant #1’s knife*
*The image of Complainant #1's knife, originally published in the online version of the Director’s Report first posted on October 25, 2022, has been redacted as of October 27, 2022, pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, as Complainant #2’s privacy interest in not having the image published outweighs the public interest in having the image published.
Figure 2 – Police Glock 22 pistol in .40 calibre
Forensic Evidence
On July 13, 2022, the SIU submitted to the Centre of Forensic Science (CFS) the nine spent cartridge cases recovered from the scene, the outer clothing worn by Complainant #1, the three pistols and magazines obtained from the three subject officials, and photographs taken during the post-mortem examination of Complainant #1.
At the time of preparation of this report, the SIU had not received the results from the CFS
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]
The residences in the area were canvassed for cameras that might have recorded the incident. None were identified. Although CW #5 had a camera mounted on the front of his residence, he advised the SIU that the camera images were not recorded.
Radio Transmissions
On June 27, 2022, at 10:25 p.m., Complainant #2 called the 911 operator. The call created an open line with the OPS communications centre. In the initial 911 recording, an alarm, known to be a panic alarm at the residence, could be heard sounding in the background of the call. A male voice could also be heard. The male voice, known to be that of CW #2, could be heard reporting to the police there was a male stabbing a female.
At 3:46 minutes of elapsed time of the recording, a police officer could be heard yelling, “Drop the knife, drop the knife, drop the knife!” Four seconds later, three gunshots could be heard. At 3:56 minutes of elapsed time, a police officer again commanded, “Drop the knife!” A police officer called out three times to Complainant #2, “Come here,” while she repeatedly screamed, “Holy Fuck!”
A police officer commanded, “Show me your hands,” and, “Drop the knife,” and then a number of additional gunshots could be heard.
Police officers continued to yell, “Drop the knife!” A police officer also started to call out, “Drop the knife man, let us help you, drop the knife.”
A police officer reported over the radio that shots had been fired. The officer reported the male was on the ground and was breathing but they could not get to him while he held the knife.
Further radio transmissions addressed the need for paramedics and the need to establish a perimeter.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained the following materials from the OPS between June 28, 2022, and August 16, 2022:
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the following other sources:
Figure 2 – Police Glock 22 pistol in .40 calibre
Forensic Evidence
On July 13, 2022, the SIU submitted to the Centre of Forensic Science (CFS) the nine spent cartridge cases recovered from the scene, the outer clothing worn by Complainant #1, the three pistols and magazines obtained from the three subject officials, and photographs taken during the post-mortem examination of Complainant #1.At the time of preparation of this report, the SIU had not received the results from the CFS
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]
The residences in the area were canvassed for cameras that might have recorded the incident. None were identified. Although CW #5 had a camera mounted on the front of his residence, he advised the SIU that the camera images were not recorded.Radio Transmissions
On June 27, 2022, at 10:25 p.m., Complainant #2 called the 911 operator. The call created an open line with the OPS communications centre. In the initial 911 recording, an alarm, known to be a panic alarm at the residence, could be heard sounding in the background of the call. A male voice could also be heard. The male voice, known to be that of CW #2, could be heard reporting to the police there was a male stabbing a female.At 3:46 minutes of elapsed time of the recording, a police officer could be heard yelling, “Drop the knife, drop the knife, drop the knife!” Four seconds later, three gunshots could be heard. At 3:56 minutes of elapsed time, a police officer again commanded, “Drop the knife!” A police officer called out three times to Complainant #2, “Come here,” while she repeatedly screamed, “Holy Fuck!”
A police officer commanded, “Show me your hands,” and, “Drop the knife,” and then a number of additional gunshots could be heard.
Police officers continued to yell, “Drop the knife!” A police officer also started to call out, “Drop the knife man, let us help you, drop the knife.”
A police officer reported over the radio that shots had been fired. The officer reported the male was on the ground and was breathing but they could not get to him while he held the knife.
Further radio transmissions addressed the need for paramedics and the need to establish a perimeter.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained the following materials from the OPS between June 28, 2022, and August 16, 2022:- Radio Transmission Recordings;
- Computer-aided Dispatch record;
- Detailed Call Summary report;
- A copy of scene photographs;
- Investigative Action Reports and notes of WO #1;
- Investigative Action Report and notes of WO #2;
- Investigative Action Report and notes of WO #5;
- Investigative Action Report and notes of WO #3;
- Investigative Action Report and notes of WO #4;
- Investigative Action Report and notes of SO #3;
- Investigative Action Report and notes of SO #2;
- Notes of WO #6;
- Written Civilian Witness Statement of CW #3;
- Written Civilian Witness Statement of CW #1;
- Written Civilian Witness Statement of CW #2;
- Written Civilian Witness Statement of CW #4;
- Audio recorded interview of Complainant #2;
- Audio recorded interview of CW #5;
- Audio recorded interview of CW #3;
- Video recorded interview of CW #2 and a summary of that interview;
- Video recorded interview of CW #6 and a summary of that interview;
- Video recorded interview of CW #9 and a summary of that interview;
- Video recorded interviews of other civilian witnesses / summaries of interviews;
- A list of exhibits obtained by the OPS;
- Person query of Complainant #1;
- A list of civilian witnesses;
- A list of involved police officers;
- A list of police vehicles operated on June 27, 2022;
- A list of exhibits secured by the OPS;
- Report of police officer regarding incident in which Complainant #2’s sister was harassed while in a park (culprit not identified);
- Use of Force training records of SO #3;
- Use of Force training records of SO #1;
- Use of Force training records of SO #2; and
- Preliminary Cause of Death reports for deceased mother and deceased sister of Complainant #2.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the following other sources: - From the Ottawa Paramedic Service:
o Ambulance Call Report for Complainant #2;o Ambulance Call Report for Complainant #1; and
o Paramedic Incident Reports.
- From the Ottawa Civic Hospital:
o Medical records for Complainant #2.
- From CW #5, a statement to the media regarding the incident.
Incident Narrative
The following scenario emerges from the weight of the evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with Complainant #2 and several civilian eyewitnesses. As was their legal right, none of the subject officials agreed an interview with the SIU. SO #3 and SO #2 did authorize the release of their notes of the incident.
At about 10:25 p.m. of June 27, 2022, officers were dispatched to a residential dwelling on Anoka Street, Ottawa, following reports of multiple females screaming outside and a female being stabbed by a male. The male was Complainant #1.
SO #3 was among the first (if not the first) officers to arrive at the scene. As he travelled westbound on Anoka Street in his cruiser, he observed a woman – Complainant #2 – bent over at the waist by the end of the driveway of her residence. The officer brought his cruiser to a stop a short distance away and, as he was exiting, saw a man – Complainant #1 – running towards Complainant #2 with a knife in his right hand. Complainant #1 mounted Complainant #2 – supine on the ground – and slashed at her with the knife. Complainant #2 did what she could to protect herself, kicking and thrashing about. SO #3 drew his firearm – a .40 calibre Glock – and pointed it at Complainant #1, ordering him to drop the knife. Complainant #1 continued to attack Complainant #2 and was shot multiple times by the officer. One of the officer’s rounds struck Complainant #2 in the lower left leg.
SO #2 and SO #1 were also responding to the scene, travelling eastbound on Anoka Street in separate cruisers, and arrived within seconds of SO #3’s gunfire. Complainant #1 had been felled by the shooting and was on his back on the roadway still in possession of the knife in his right hand. Complainant #2 was within a couple of metres of Complainant #1 on the ground. SO #2, and, likely, SO #1, drew their firearms and repeatedly ordered Complainant #1 to drop the knife. Complainant #1 held onto the knife, sat up, and started to swing the knife in the officers’ direction. SO #2 and SO #1 each fired their guns multiple times at Complainant #1 – the former, a .40 calibre Glock; the latter, a 9mm Glock. [2]
Complainant #1 fell back onto his back following the second volley of shots as SO #3 was dragging Complainant #2 away from the scene. Reluctant to approach Complainant #1 on the ground as he still had the knife in his hand, SO #2 and SO #1 did so after a short while when he appeared to lapse into unconsciousness. SO #2 stepped onto Complainant #1’s right arm as SO #1 kicked the knife away, after which officers rendered first aid, including CPR.
Paramedics attended the scene and transported Complainant #2 to hospital. She had suffered cuts to her forehead and left hand, and a fractured left lower leg, the latter caused by one of SO #3’s rounds.
Complainant #2’s mother and sister, and Complainant #1, were all deceased at the scene. [3]
Cause of Death
At autopsy, the pathologist was of the preliminary view that Complainant #1’s death was attributable to ‘Multiple gunshot wounds of the chest”.
At about 10:25 p.m. of June 27, 2022, officers were dispatched to a residential dwelling on Anoka Street, Ottawa, following reports of multiple females screaming outside and a female being stabbed by a male. The male was Complainant #1.
SO #3 was among the first (if not the first) officers to arrive at the scene. As he travelled westbound on Anoka Street in his cruiser, he observed a woman – Complainant #2 – bent over at the waist by the end of the driveway of her residence. The officer brought his cruiser to a stop a short distance away and, as he was exiting, saw a man – Complainant #1 – running towards Complainant #2 with a knife in his right hand. Complainant #1 mounted Complainant #2 – supine on the ground – and slashed at her with the knife. Complainant #2 did what she could to protect herself, kicking and thrashing about. SO #3 drew his firearm – a .40 calibre Glock – and pointed it at Complainant #1, ordering him to drop the knife. Complainant #1 continued to attack Complainant #2 and was shot multiple times by the officer. One of the officer’s rounds struck Complainant #2 in the lower left leg.
SO #2 and SO #1 were also responding to the scene, travelling eastbound on Anoka Street in separate cruisers, and arrived within seconds of SO #3’s gunfire. Complainant #1 had been felled by the shooting and was on his back on the roadway still in possession of the knife in his right hand. Complainant #2 was within a couple of metres of Complainant #1 on the ground. SO #2, and, likely, SO #1, drew their firearms and repeatedly ordered Complainant #1 to drop the knife. Complainant #1 held onto the knife, sat up, and started to swing the knife in the officers’ direction. SO #2 and SO #1 each fired their guns multiple times at Complainant #1 – the former, a .40 calibre Glock; the latter, a 9mm Glock. [2]
Complainant #1 fell back onto his back following the second volley of shots as SO #3 was dragging Complainant #2 away from the scene. Reluctant to approach Complainant #1 on the ground as he still had the knife in his hand, SO #2 and SO #1 did so after a short while when he appeared to lapse into unconsciousness. SO #2 stepped onto Complainant #1’s right arm as SO #1 kicked the knife away, after which officers rendered first aid, including CPR.
Paramedics attended the scene and transported Complainant #2 to hospital. She had suffered cuts to her forehead and left hand, and a fractured left lower leg, the latter caused by one of SO #3’s rounds.
Complainant #2’s mother and sister, and Complainant #1, were all deceased at the scene. [3]
Cause of Death
At autopsy, the pathologist was of the preliminary view that Complainant #1’s death was attributable to ‘Multiple gunshot wounds of the chest”.Relevant Legislation
Section 34, Criminal Code -- Defence of person - Use or threat of force
34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) They believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;(b) The act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and(c) The act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:
(a) the nature of the force or threat;(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;(c) the person’s role in the incident;(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.
Analysis and Director's Decision
Complainant #1 was shot and killed by OPS officers on June 27, 2022. Complainant #2 was also seriously injured as a result of the same police gunfire. In the ensuing SIU investigation, the shooters – SO #3, SO #2 and SO #1 – were identified as the subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the subject officials committed a criminal offence in connection with the discharge of their weapons.
Section 34 provides that conduct that would otherwise constitute an offence is legally justified if it was intended to deter a reasonably apprehended assault, actual or threatened, and was itself reasonable. The reasonableness of the conduct is to be assessed in light of all the relevant circumstances, including with respect to such considerations as the nature of the force or threat; the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force; whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon; and, the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force. In the instant case, the question is whether any of the subject officials exceeded the limits of legally justifiable force with respect to the use of their firearms. In my view, they did not.
The subject officials were lawfully placed throughout their dealings with Complainant #1. A police officer’s foremost duty is the protection and preservation of life. Hearing of, and then seeing, Complainant #1’s knife attack on Complainant #2, the officers were duty bound to attend at the scene to do what they could to protect Complainant #2 and take Complainant #1 into custody.
Confronted with an individual armed with a knife being used to inflict serious injury on Complainant #2, I am satisfied that the subject officials discharged their weapons reasonably believing it was necessary to protect themselves and, more emphatically, Complainant #2, from the threat posed by Complainant #1. Though none of the subject officials gave interviews to the SIU (as was their legal right), that was the import of the notes and written statements provided by SO #3 and SO #2, and there is nothing in the evidence to cast doubt on their assertions in this regard. SO #1 did not provide a statement or notes, but the same mindset may confidently be ascribed to the officer in light of the circumstances that prevailed and the fact that he was similarly situated to SO #2 at the time.
I am also satisfied that the subject officials’ use of their guns constituted reasonable force in light of the exigencies of the situation. By the time SO #3 first fired, Complainant #1 had been directed to drop the knife, which he did not do. Instead, he continued his assault on Complainant #2 with the knife in the middle of the roadway. Had SO #3 not fired when he did, he risked additional harm coming to Complainant #2, including death. Fortunately, the officer’s volley of shots was successful in knocking Complainant #1 onto his back and separating him a short distance from Complainant #2. That one of his rounds struck Complainant #2’s left leg does not, in my view, detract from the reasonableness of the officer’s course. SO #3 had a difficult choice to make and only a split second in which to make it: shoot Complainant #1 to stop the assault but risk hitting Complainant #2 in the process, or, not shoot and risk Complainant #1 continuing to inflict bodily harm and even death on Complainant #2. It appears the officer made the right decision. In arriving at this conclusion, I note that the use by SO #3 of his gun was the only realistic course at his disposal given the immediate need to neutralize Complainant #1 from a distance.
SO #2 and SO #3 were also faced with little option but to resort to their firearms. Though Complainant #1 had been temporarily incapacitated by the shots fired by SO #3, he still had hold of the knife, was within striking distance of Complainant #2, and had started to gather himself again, swinging the knife in the officers’ direction after they had approached his position on the ground to shield Complainant #2 from further harm. In my view, Complainant #1 constituted a continuing threat of grievous bodily harm or death to the officers given their proximity to his location. Looking back, it might have been that SO #2 and SO #1 could have distanced themselves from Complainant #1 and sought cover as an alternative to the use of lethal force, but the situation was incredibly dynamic and I am unable to conclude that the officers acted precipitously when they reacted in the heat of the moment to a reasonably apprehended threat of lethal force with a resort to lethal force of their own.
As for the number of rounds fired by the officers, these occurred in quick succession and, with respect to SO #2 and SO #1, at the same time, such that it would not appear that the threat level perceived by the officers would have materially changed throughout the sequence of shots.
For the foregoing reasons, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the subject officials comported themselves other than within the limits of the criminal law. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: October 25, 2022
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Section 34 provides that conduct that would otherwise constitute an offence is legally justified if it was intended to deter a reasonably apprehended assault, actual or threatened, and was itself reasonable. The reasonableness of the conduct is to be assessed in light of all the relevant circumstances, including with respect to such considerations as the nature of the force or threat; the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force; whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon; and, the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force. In the instant case, the question is whether any of the subject officials exceeded the limits of legally justifiable force with respect to the use of their firearms. In my view, they did not.
The subject officials were lawfully placed throughout their dealings with Complainant #1. A police officer’s foremost duty is the protection and preservation of life. Hearing of, and then seeing, Complainant #1’s knife attack on Complainant #2, the officers were duty bound to attend at the scene to do what they could to protect Complainant #2 and take Complainant #1 into custody.
Confronted with an individual armed with a knife being used to inflict serious injury on Complainant #2, I am satisfied that the subject officials discharged their weapons reasonably believing it was necessary to protect themselves and, more emphatically, Complainant #2, from the threat posed by Complainant #1. Though none of the subject officials gave interviews to the SIU (as was their legal right), that was the import of the notes and written statements provided by SO #3 and SO #2, and there is nothing in the evidence to cast doubt on their assertions in this regard. SO #1 did not provide a statement or notes, but the same mindset may confidently be ascribed to the officer in light of the circumstances that prevailed and the fact that he was similarly situated to SO #2 at the time.
I am also satisfied that the subject officials’ use of their guns constituted reasonable force in light of the exigencies of the situation. By the time SO #3 first fired, Complainant #1 had been directed to drop the knife, which he did not do. Instead, he continued his assault on Complainant #2 with the knife in the middle of the roadway. Had SO #3 not fired when he did, he risked additional harm coming to Complainant #2, including death. Fortunately, the officer’s volley of shots was successful in knocking Complainant #1 onto his back and separating him a short distance from Complainant #2. That one of his rounds struck Complainant #2’s left leg does not, in my view, detract from the reasonableness of the officer’s course. SO #3 had a difficult choice to make and only a split second in which to make it: shoot Complainant #1 to stop the assault but risk hitting Complainant #2 in the process, or, not shoot and risk Complainant #1 continuing to inflict bodily harm and even death on Complainant #2. It appears the officer made the right decision. In arriving at this conclusion, I note that the use by SO #3 of his gun was the only realistic course at his disposal given the immediate need to neutralize Complainant #1 from a distance.
SO #2 and SO #3 were also faced with little option but to resort to their firearms. Though Complainant #1 had been temporarily incapacitated by the shots fired by SO #3, he still had hold of the knife, was within striking distance of Complainant #2, and had started to gather himself again, swinging the knife in the officers’ direction after they had approached his position on the ground to shield Complainant #2 from further harm. In my view, Complainant #1 constituted a continuing threat of grievous bodily harm or death to the officers given their proximity to his location. Looking back, it might have been that SO #2 and SO #1 could have distanced themselves from Complainant #1 and sought cover as an alternative to the use of lethal force, but the situation was incredibly dynamic and I am unable to conclude that the officers acted precipitously when they reacted in the heat of the moment to a reasonably apprehended threat of lethal force with a resort to lethal force of their own.
As for the number of rounds fired by the officers, these occurred in quick succession and, with respect to SO #2 and SO #1, at the same time, such that it would not appear that the threat level perceived by the officers would have materially changed throughout the sequence of shots.
For the foregoing reasons, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the subject officials comported themselves other than within the limits of the criminal law. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: October 25, 2022
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]
- 2) Based on the number of rounds left in the weapons when retrieved by the SIU, and depending on the loading practices of the subject officials, SO #1, SO #2 and BSO #3 are, respectively, likely to have fired five or six times, three or four times, and three or four times. [Back to text]
- 3) The evidence gathered by the SIU indicated that the deaths of Complainant #2’s mother and sister were caused by Complainant #1, although their deaths fell outside the SIU’s investigative mandate because they were not caused by an official. [Back to text]
Note:
The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.