Director's Report Details

• 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. 

Pursuant to section 21 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following: 

• 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.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 09/04/2022 at 3:35 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 09/04/2022 at 5:00 p.m.

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

 

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

52-year-old male, deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed
CW #6 Not interviewed; next-of-kin
CW #7 Not interviewed; next-of-kin

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on September 4, 2022.

 

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject official was interviewed on October 27, 2022.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Interviewed
WO #6 Interviewed
WO #7 Interviewed
WO #8 Interviewed
WO #9 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #10 Interviewed
WO #11 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #12 Interviewed
WO #13 Interviewed
WO #14 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #15 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #16 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #17 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #18 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #19 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #20 Interviewed
WO #21 Interviewed
WO #22 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between September 6, 2022, and December 12, 2022.

Forensic Evidence and Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) Submissions

CEW Deployment Data

The CEWs carried by WO #10 and WO #8 were downloaded by the NRPS, and the deployment data were provided to the SIU.

The CEW issued to WO #10 was armed at 1:52:42 p.m. Four seconds later, at 1:52:46 p.m., the trigger of the device was pulled, deploying Cartridge Bay 1. The device was deployed for 2.79 seconds. At 1:52:49 p.m., the trigger was pulled again, deploying Cartridge Bay 2. The device was deployed for 2.92 seconds.

The trigger of WO #10’s CEW was pulled three more times, at 1:52:52 p.m., at 1:52:54 p.m., and at 1:53:00 p.m.. The duration of the last deployment was 4.95 seconds. At 1:53:07 p.m., the safety was engaged on the device.

WO #8’s CEW was armed at 1:52:01 p.m. and the trigger was immediately pulled, deploying Cartridge Bay 1. At 1:52:04 p.m., the trigger was pulled again, discharging Cartridge Bay 2. The device safety switch was engaged three seconds later.

CFS Firearms Examination

On December 28, 2022, the SIU received a firearms examination report from the CFS. The CFS confirmed that a projectile recovered from the Complainant had been fired from SO #1’s firearm. An examination the Complainant’s clothing did not reveal firearm discharge residue, so the CFS did not conduct any further examinations to determine discharge distance.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

Police Communications Recordings

The following is a summary of the pertinent police communications.

On September 4, 2022, CW #1 called the NRPS and requested that police officers attend to address a neighbour who was disturbing residents with loud music. The dispatcher later advised the responding police officer, WO #13, that CW #1 had called again and reported the subject - the Complainant - had pulled a knife on him.

The dispatcher advised that queries showed the Complainant was marked as ‘violent’ and was wanted in Halton Region for ‘flight from police’, in Toronto for ‘assaulting a peace officer with a weapon’, and in Niagara for ‘failing to comply with conditions’ and for ‘taking a vehicle’.

WO #13 reported that the Complainant had pointed a knife at him and he requested additional police officers. He reported he had tried knocking on the open door, and the Complainant approached him and slammed the door in his face. The Complainant then came out with a knife and slammed the door again. There was no mention of WO #13 kicking open the apartment door. WO #13 suggested the ETU be deployed.

After conducting a radio check, WO #9, the Operational Commander, issued his mission statement:

Safely arrest the Complainant…. He’s wanted for dangerous operation and flight from police out of Halton. Bench warrant in Toronto for assault with a weapon, assault on a peace officer, assault with intent to resist arrest. He’s [police code redacted] with our service in the first instance for take motor vehicle without the consent (inaudible) as well as fail to comply with recognizance. As a result of his action this morning, he’s also RPG for assault with a weapon, one on a civilian and one on police.

WO #9 then reminded police officers of their authority to use force, stating, “Officers are reminded that they’re authorized under section 25 of the Criminal Code to use as much force as necessary to protect their life and the lives of others.”

WO #9 advised that the incident commander had set a line of the Complainant exiting his apartment as an action line, at which point officers were to challenge the Complainant. WO #9 again reminded officers of their authority under section 25 of the Criminal Code.

WO #9 directed various plans, contingent on the Complainant’s behaviour, such as break-out on foot, surrender, and an immediate action plan. The immediate action plan, to be executed on command authority, consisted of breaching the door and using a shield with distraction devices to compress to the point of crisis.

At least two telephone calls were reportedly made to the Complainant but were not answered. A police officer reported the music inside the apartment was still very loud.

WO #9 later reported they had obtained a warrant.

Once WO #9 issued the command to execute the action plan, a banging sound could be heard and then the sound of ETU members yelling. An officer reported they had made entry and asked that paramedics stage at the bottom of the stairs. The officer explained the paramedics were needed as a result of CEW deployment. He reported the Complainant was still actively resisting and they were trying to effect an arrest.

Another ETU member radioed, “Multiple knives. Can we get the power back on?”

WO #5 called for paramedics to come to the top of the stairs. WO #9 asked if everything was okay with the Complainant and was told, “Negative. Right now we’re assessing injuries.” WO #5 reported the Complainant was not responsive and there was the potential a shot had been fired.

 

Building Footage

The SIU arranged to obtain security camera recordings from the residence, the scene of the incident. CW #3, the building manager, undertook to provide the SIU with a copy of the recordings. However, CW #3 failed to answer his telephone after repeated efforts were made to meet with him to receive the recordings. He did provide a copy of the recordings to the NRPS. The SIU obtained its copy of the recordings from the NRPS.

A SIU investigator reviewed the footage and discovered the cameras recorded the initial response by police at the premise but given that the power had been shut off at the time of the entry into the Complainant’s apartment, the entry was not recorded.

The video camera inside the Complainant’s apartment recorded images from other dates. A SIU investigator reviewed the footage from that camera and reported there were no images of the interaction between police and the Complainant on September 4, 2022. That too was likely the result of the building power being disconnected prior to the police action.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the NRPS between September 5, 2022, and December 19, 2022:

• General Order – Emergency Task Unit;
• Communications recordings;
• Photographs related to the incident;
• A list of involved police officers;
• CEW log for WO #10;
• CEW log for WO #8;
• CEW log for WO #2;
• A list of events related to the Complainant;
• A personal profile record for the Complainant;
• A list of ETU call-signs used on September 4, 2022;
• A copy of the Search Warrant obtained on September 4, 2022;
• A copy of the Information to Obtain the Search Warrant;
• A copy of the Incident Report;
• The notebook entries of all designated witness officials;
• The notebook entries of a constable;
• The notebook entries of SO #1;
• A training summary for SO #1;
• A copy of the Complainant’s fingerprints;
• A copy of an arrest warrant issued for the Complainant on May 17, 2022; and
• A list of involved witness officials.

The communications recordings related to the incident were not received by the SIU until December 19, 2022.

From the Halton Regional Police Service, the SIU received:

• An occurrence query list for the Complainant;
• Four police occurrence reports; and
• A list of outstanding matters related to the Complainant, including ‘Dangerous Operation’ and ‘Flight from Police’.

From the Toronto Police Service, the SIU received:

• A list of occurrences involving the Complainant; and
• Occurrence Report regarding an assault of a peace officer (April 20, 2022).

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

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

• Video footage from the incident scene;
• Video footage from a camera inside the Complainant’s apartment; and
• Firearms Report from the CFS.

Between 10:30 and 11:00 a.m. of September 4, 2022, members of the NRPS ETU, including SO #1, began arriving at the incident scene. They had been dispatched to the address following a series of events involving the Complainant, a resident of an apartment unit on the second floor of the building. The Complainant had been playing music at excessively high volumes. When approached by a neighbour in the building – CW #1 – the Complainant displayed a knife. CW #1 contacted police to report what had occurred. A couple of uniformed officers – WO #12 and WO #13 – responded, spoke with CW #1, and then also approached the Complainant’s apartment at about 9:20 a.m. The Complainant closed his door at the officers and then retrieved a knife and walked in their direction when WO #13 kicked the door open. The officers drew their firearms, ordered the Complainant to drop the knife, and retreated down the corridor. The Complainant slammed his door shut again.

 
A command structure was established with the arrival of the ETU at the scene. The incident commander – SO #2 – assumed overall responsibility for police operations. Next in line was the operational commander – WO #9. He was followed by the tactical commander – WO #5. The plan was to contain the scene while the police service applied for, and obtained, a Feeney warrant authorizing police entry into the Complainant’s apartment to take him into custody in relation to his threatening behaviour towards CW #1 and the uniformed officers. The NRPS had also learned that there was a bench warrant in effect for the Complainant’s arrest.

The ETU officers were divided into two teams – Alpha Teams 1 and 2. Team 1, including SO #1, were stationed by the east door into the Complainant’s apartment. There was another door to the apartment west of the east door. Team 2 would be responsible for guarding that door. [2] Each team had at their disposal lethal and less-lethal weaponry, as well as police equipment such as shields, ramming tools, and gas masks.

While the ETU waited in place, police negotiators attempted to reach the Complainant inside the apartment. Phone calls went mostly unanswered. The Complainant picked up the phone once, but then hung-up without saying anything. Efforts to call-out to the Complainant from outside the building were made difficult by the loud music playing in his apartment. On occasion, when the Complainant did respond, the officers made little sense of what he was saying. At one point, the Complainant indicated that his name was not what it was, and that the negotiator should refer to him by a different name. At another point, the Complainant momentarily opened one of his entrance doors. He was challenged by a member of Team 1 – WO #3 – directing him to show his hands. The Complainant slammed the door shut without saying a word. A pole camera was utilized unsuccessfully in an effort to gain a visual inside the apartment; window coverings prevented a line of sight into the residence.

Shortly before 1:00 p.m., news was received by officers on scene that a warrant had been issued authorizing their entry into the Complainant’s apartment. A ‘deliberate action plan’ had been developed whereby, upon word from the incident commander, the two Alpha Teams would simultaneously breach their respective doors. The teams would hold their positions by the doors’ thresholds, each behind a police shield, from which they would determine their next steps based on the Complainant’s behaviour. If necessary, tear gas would be deployed into the bathroom through a window from outside to prevent the Complainant seeking refuge in that location. At about 1:50 p.m., SO #2 gave the order to initiate the action plan.

WO #8 of Team 2 was the first to break open an apartment door – the west door – with his ramming tool. WO #10 had hold of the ‘capture shield’ and stepped to the front of the team according to plan. From his position by the doorway, the officer observed the Complainant exiting the bathroom and walking towards them with a knife in his right hand. Other officers observed the Complainant with a knife in his left hand as well. WO #10 ordered the Complainant to drop the weapon but he continued to advance with the knife or knives in hand. When he neared to within two to three metres, WO #8, first, and then WO #2, discharged their CEWs at the Complainant from behind WO #10. The deployments did not incapacitate the Complainant, who slashed at the CEW probe wires with a knife while making his way back to the bathroom.

Team 1 had some difficulty breaching the east door and were not inside the apartment until seconds after Team 2. WO #4 was equipped with the shield and led the way inside. Behind him were SO #1, with an ARWEN, and WO #3 and WO #1. Within moments of their entry, they were confronted by the Complainant entering their side of the apartment from the bathroom with knives in each hand. The Complainant attempted to stab at WO #4 around the shield. The officer reacted by using his shield to push the Complainant against the wall dividing the apartment. SO #1, from a position behind and to WO #4’s left, released his ARWEN, drew his firearm, and shot the Complainant.

The Complainant fell into the bathroom upon being shot. WO #4 followed into the bathroom and pinned the Complainant on the floor as other officers, including those from Team 2, arrived to render assistance. WO #10 deployed his CEW at the Complainant multiple times. The knives the Complainant had been holding, including the one he still held in his right hand, were removed from the vicinity, and he was handcuffed behind his back.

The Complainant was removed from the bathroom into the hallway outside the apartment. First aid was rendered by the officers while they waited for the arrival of paramedics. The Complainant was transported to hospital and pronounced deceased.

Cause of Death

A post-mortem examination was conducted on September 6, 2022. A single gunshot wound was identified on the right side of the Complainant’s neck.

34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

(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:

Section 34 of the Criminal Code 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.

SO #1 and SO #2 were lawfully placed and in the execution of their duties throughout the events in question. The Complainant had threateningly displayed a knife at a neighbour – CW #1. He had done the same to an officer – WO #13 – responding to investigate the initial incident. In the circumstances, there was cause to deploy ETU officers at the scene and to seek the Complainant’s arrest, particularly once a search warrant [3] was issued naming the Complainant and authorizing entry into the apartment.

The operation that unfolded under the overall command of SO #2 was reasonably conceived and executed. Efforts to negotiate a peaceful surrender were attempted and failed. The Complainant remained mostly silent throughout the standoff, and made little sense on the few occasions that he responded. Those efforts occurred over a reasonable length of time. The ETU arrived on scene at about 10:40 a.m., and it was not until upwards of three hours later that they forced entry into the Complainant’s apartment. In other words, the Complainant had been given sufficient time to consider his options, and had chosen to stay put. The ‘deliberate action plan’ that was developed and approved represented an escalation of the police response to the situation, but one which I am satisfied was commensurate with the exigencies at hand. If the Complainant was not going to surrender of his own accord, and he had been given several hours to do so, then the officers were going to have to enter the apartment to take him into custody. The operation may not have been perfect, but no such undertaking ever is. It may be, for example, that more ought to have been done in the course of the negotiations to address the mental health issues that appeared to be at play once it was learned that the Complainant had cognitive deficits. Perhaps, but the failure to do so in the course of a tense standoff involving weapons on both sides was neither reckless nor wanton.

With respect to the conduct of SO #1, namely, the discharge of his weapon, I am satisfied that the officer acted to deter a reasonably apprehended attack by the Complainant on WO #4. That is what SO #1 said he was doing. And it is an assertion backed up by the circumstantial evidence. At the time of the shooting, the Complainant, with a knife in both hands, was attempting to stab WO #4 by swinging his arms around the shield the officer was carrying and coming within centimetres of striking him.

I am further satisfied that the shooting constituted reasonable force by SO #1. The Complainant was wielding knives, each capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm or death, and was coming close to connecting with WO #4. There was in the moment a need to immediately incapacitate the Complainant to prevent the risk of harm to WO #4 from materializing. CEWs had been tried and failed to immobilize the Complainant. And SO #1’s ARWEN, while it might have worked to neutralize the Complainant, had less prospect of doing so in comparison with the stopping power of a firearm. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that SO #1 acted with excess when he chose to meet a real and lethal danger with a resort to lethal force of his own. The force accomplished what the officer had intended; it promptly stopped the Complainant’s attack on WO #4. [4]

 
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the subject officials comported themselves other than within the limits of the criminal law in connection with the Complainant’s tragic death, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: December 30, 2022

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit