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 40-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On May 10, 2023, at 1:02 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 10, 2023, at approximately 12:09 p.m., and off-duty paramedic encountered a person in crisis armed with a knife at the rear of Shoppers World at 3003 Danforth Avenue. A uniform TPS officer responded to assist. After an interaction with the person, the officer discharged his pistol. The person – the Complainant - was taken to St. Michael’s Hospital by Emergency Medical Services where he succumbed to his injuries.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 05/10/2023 at 2:24 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 05/10/2023 at 2:40 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the parking lot south of the Shoppers World Plaza at 3003 Danforth Avenue, Toronto.

On May 10, 2023, the SIU forensic investigators attended the scene. The parking lot contained a fence at the south end, separating it from active GO railway tracks.

There was some debris in the centre of the parking lot, including: a knife in the open position, a set of handcuffs, two handcuff keys, a baseball-style cap, and two spent silver .40 cal cartridges. The scene also contained some used medical debris and a couple of first-aid kits.

A fully marked TPS vehicle, a Ford, was parked just northwest of the debris with its front facing in a northerly direction. The vehicle was not running, and the doors were unlocked.

There was a large trailer of the Reef Kitchens just on the south side of the building and north of the debris in the middle of the lot. A small patio cushion box was between this trailer and the plaza wall. On top of the box was a knife in the open position. The knife blade was stained with a red blood-like substance. Some clothing and a backpack, along with an empty wine bottle, were on the ground in front of the box. A second empty wine bottle was located a few metres west of this area. There was a substantial number of passive drops of a red blood-like substance on the ground in this area along with an area of pooling immediately in front of the box. A number of cameras were on the walls of the plaza buildings, as well as on the Reef Kitchens’ trailer.




Figure 1 – The trailer and TPS vehicle in the parking lot at 3003 Danforth Avenue

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

The SIU forensic investigators collected the following items from the scene and police station: a Glock semi-automatic pistol, a pistol magazine, two knives, two projectiles, two shell casings, and a pair of Smith & Wesson handcuffs.


Figure 2 – The SO’s Glock semi-automatic pistol and magazine


Figure 3 – A knife found in the parking lot


Figure 4 – A knife found on the box behind the trailer

Forensic Evidence

On May 16, 2023, the shell casings, projectiles, and the pistol and its magazine, were delivered to the Centre of Forensic Sciences for examination.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Video Footage

On May 11, 2023, the TPS provided the SIU video footage from BWCs in connection with the incident under investigation, including the SO’s BWC.

The SO

Between about 12:07:53 p.m. and 12:08:10 p.m., the SO was captured driving at the back of the Shoppers World Plaza. Another person – CW #1 – was also captured. The SO exited his vehicle and walked towards CW #1.

Starting at about 12:08:14 p.m., the Complainant was captured stepping out from behind a white food truck at the back of a business. The Complainant walked to the loading door of the business and stepped onto the loading dock facing the SO.

Between about 12:08:17 p.m. and 12:08:19 p.m., the Complainant stepped towards the parking lot from the loading dock and walked into the parking lot. His right arm was out at a 45-degree angle and his right hand was closed. There was a knife in his right hand.

Between about 12:08:20 p.m. and 12:08:22 p.m., the SO had his firearm drawn and pointed forward. The Complainant walked towards the SO.

Starting at about 12:08:23 p.m., the Complainant had his right and left arms out to the side at a 45-degree angle. The SO yelled, “Put the knife down.”

Between about 12:08:27 p.m. and 12:08:32 p.m., the Complainant walked quickly towards the SO. The SO walked backwards. The SO shouted, “Drop the knife.” The SO had his firearm in a one-handed grip and shouted, “Drop the knife, drop the knife.” The Complainant said something indecipherable and the SO again yelled, “Drop the knife.” The Complainant ran towards the SO with his right hand above his shoulder at a 45-degree angle. The Complainant had his left arm bent above his shoulder. There appeared to be blood on his left wrist. The SO was retreating backwards.

Starting at about 12:08:33 p.m., the SO yelled, “Drop the knife.” The SO had a two-handed grip on his firearm and again yelled, “Drop the knife.” The Complainant continued to run towards the SO.

Starting at about 12:08:36 p.m., one shot was heard and the Complainant’s arms lowered towards his waist. A second shot was heard.

Starting at about 12:08:37 p.m., the SO said, “Shots fired.” The Complainant was lying on the ground on his left side. The SO said, “Shots fired, one down, drop the knife.” The SO approached the Complainant and said, “Drop the knife, drop the knife.”

Between about 12:08:47 p.m. and 12:08:57 p.m., the Complainant was moaning. There was a knife in his right hand. The SO said, “Shots fired, need a supervisor here, shots fired, drop the knife, man I want to help you.” The SO said, “Drop the knife I want to help you, drop it, drop the knife, drop it, man, drop it.”

Starting at about 12:09:08 p.m., the SO grabbed the Complainant’s arms. The Complainant’s arms had blood on them. There was a knife with a black handle and serrated blade on the pavement above the Complainant’s head. The knife blade was pointed away from the businesses.

Starting at about 12:09:13 p.m., the SO handcuffed the Complainant. The SO said, “I want to help you man. I want to help you.”

Between about 12:09:38 p.m. and 12:09:45 p.m., the Complainant was rolled onto his back. The SO said, “I want to help you man.” The SO was joined by CW #1. The Complainant’s shirt was raised, and two visible wounds could be seen on his lower abdomen, right of centre.

Starting at about 12:09:54 p.m., CW #1 began first-aid and said, “Plug the hole.” The SO said over the radio he was “good”.

Starting at about 12:10:14 p.m., the SO said there was an off-duty paramedic present, plugging the hole, but an ambulance was required. The SO said there were two gunshot wounds. The Complainant was now on his left side. The SO told the Complainant to wake up.

Starting at about 12:11:35 p.m., a police cruiser arrived at the scene containing WO #1 and WO #2.

Starting at about 12:13:43 p.m., an ambulance arrived.

Starting at about 12:13:57 p.m., CW #1 told the paramedics he believed the Complainant was going to ‘code’.

Starting at about 12:14:09 p.m., WO #4 arrived and spoke to the SO. WO #4 asked if it was the SO’s firearm and the SO replied. “Yes.” WO #4 asked if the SO was okay and again he replied, “Yes.”

Starting at about 12:15:12 p.m., the SO told WO #4 that CW #1 was required as a witness.

Starting at about 12:17:44 p.m., WO #3 arrived and told WO #4 she would stay with the SO.

Between about 12:20:50 p.m. and 12:21:50 p.m., WO #3 asked the SO what car he was driving. The SO said his unit number. The SO indicated there were no other police witnesses to the incident, but CW #1 was required.

Starting at about 12:25:18 p.m., the ambulance with the Complainant left the parking lot.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with civilian eyewitnesses and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview or the release of his notes.

Shortly after noon, May 10, 2023, CW #1, an off-duty paramedic, was walking westward in the parking lot behind the Shoppers World Plaza, situated at 3003 Danforth Avenue, when he observed the Complainant. The Complainant was by a kitchen trailer, operated by Reef Kitchens, by the southern wall of the plaza businesses. He appeared of unsound mind – he was agitated and speaking to himself. The Complainant was also holding a knife and bleeding from lacerations to both arms. Concerned, CW #1 approached a police cruiser parked south of the scene by the fence that lined the southern end of the parking lot.

The SO had pulled into the parking lot and was preparing some duty notes when approached by CW #1. The officer travelled forward in his cruiser and came to a stop about 15 metres southeast of the kitchen trailer, after which he exited and began to walk in a northwest direction. As the SO approached to within ten metres of the northwest corner of the trailer, he observed the Complainant.

The Complainant had spent the last half-hour or so in the area of the trailer, pacing and drinking wine. He had also self-inflicted cuts to his arms. As the SO approached, the Complainant stepped out from behind the trailer and confronted the officer with a knife held in his right hand.

The SO drew his firearm and began directing the Complainant to drop the knife. The Complainant did not do so and continued to walk in a southeasterly direction towards a retreating SO, the knife held at shoulder level. This persisted for about eight seconds, after which the Complainant quickened his pace forward and then started to jog towards the officer. As he neared to within six metres of the officer, the SO fired twice in quick succession. The time was 12:08 p.m.

The Complainant fell forward. He had been struck twice in the abdomen.

The SO and CW #1 provided emergency first-aid to the Complainant while waiting for an ambulance to arrive.

The Complainant was taken from the scene in ambulance and subsequently pronounced deceased at 12:43 p.m.

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.

The Complainant passed away of gunshot wounds on May 10, 2023, the result of a police shooting. In the ensuing SIU investigation of the incident, the SO was identified as the 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.

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. In my view, the SO’s resort to lethal force fell within the ambit of justification prescribed by section 34.

The SO was acting in the execution of his duties when he engaged the Complainant. A police officer’s foremost obligation is the protection and preservation of life. Advised by CW #1 of the Complainant holding a knife and doing harm to himself, the officer was duty-bound to intervene to do what he reasonably could to help the Complainant and ensure public safety.

It is also clear that the SO, though he did not provide an interview to the SIU, acted to defend himself from a knife attack when he shot the Complainant. The weapon the Complainant was wielding was capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm and death, and the Complainant seemed intent on using it against the SO and had neared to within striking distance of the officer at the time of the shooting.

Lastly, I am satisfied that the SO’s resort to his firearm constituted reasonable force in self-defence. The officer had repeatedly directed the Complainant to drop the knife, to no avail. Instead, the Complainant continually advanced on the SO with the knife held at about shoulder height. Now faced with an individual seemingly bent on attack and quickly closing the distance, the SO had a decision to make. He could continue to retreat, hoping to escape the danger zone, or he could decide to take action to stop the Complainant’s advance. The former would have placed public safety at risk given the presence of other persons in the area, including CW #1 who was only metres away. In the circumstances, I am persuaded that the SO acted reasonably in foregoing that option. I am also convinced that the officer’s use of his firearm was the only real tactic available in the circumstances. Given the exigencies of the situation, what was needed was the immediate stopping power of a firearm. Anything else would have risked a physical engagement with an armed individual were the Complainant not promptly incapacitated by a less-lethal option.

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the SO comported himself other than within the limits of the criminal law in his dealings with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case.


Date: September 7, 2023

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit