SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OCD-210
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 section 14 (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 39-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
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 39-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On June 2, 2023, at 4:21 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.The PRP had been involved in an Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) investigation. Several search warrants had been executed but the subject of the investigation, the Complainant, was not located. During the investigation, PRP received information that the Complainant was in an apartment at 551 The West Mall, Etobicoke. On June 2, 2023, at 1:53 a.m., the PRP Tactical and Rescue Unit (TRU) executed a Feeney warrant [1] at the apartment and located the Complainant deceased in bed. The Complainant had a single gunshot wound to the right side of his head. A handgun was located next to the Complainant.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 06/02/2023 at 4:50 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 06/02/2023 at 6:25 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
39-year-old male; deceasedCivilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 Interviewed CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed
CW #6 Not interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between June 2, 2023, and August 19, 2023.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal rightWitness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary
WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary
WO #7 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary
WO #8 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary
WO #9 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary
WO #10 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary
The witness officials were interviewed on June 3, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in and around an apartment at 551 The West Mall. At 6:25 a.m., on June 2, 2023, a SIU forensic investigator attended at the scene. The SIU forensic investigator photographed the exterior of the location and observed security cameras outside. The entry door of the apartment was lying across the threshold, partly in the hall and partly inside the unit. The door had been removed with a chainsaw after the initial breach attempts failed to gain entry. Three spent shotshells and one live shotshell were in the hall, as was breaching equipment and sawdust.
The Complainant was lying on his back on a bed. The Complainant appeared to have suffered a gunshot wound to the right side of his head. Two handguns were in the bedroom near the deceased: one pistol was on the bed beside the Complainant’s right ankle and a second pistol was on top of a dresser. A discharged distraction device was on the bedroom floor in the corner.
Physical Evidence
The SIU forensic investigator documented the scene and collected items relevant to the investigation, including:- Glock 30 handgun .45 calibre;
- Seven rounds of .45 calibre ammunition;
- One .45 calibre spent cartridge; and
- One projectile retrieved from the Complainant at autopsy.
Firearms recovered at the scene were examined and tested by a Forensic Firearms Scientist at the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS). The conclusions of the report were that a fired cartridge collected from the scene was fired from the .45 calibre semi-automatic pistol also collected from the scene. The .45 calibre semi-automatic pistol had the serial numbers removed.
The CFS was unable to determine if the bullet seized from the Complainant’s person was fired from the .45 calibre semi-automatic pistol. The bullet was too damaged to draw conclusions with any certainty.
Figure 1 – The Glock 30 handgun
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
Video Footage - 551 The West Mall
The SIU obtained video footage from 551 The West Mall in relation to the incident under investigation.On June 2, 2023, at 12:17:12 a.m., the video began with a view of a hallway.
Starting at about 12:17:24 a.m., the Complainant walked towards an apartment door. The Complainant was carrying something with his right hand in front of him and entered the apartment.
Starting at about 1:26:43 a.m., the Complainant exited the apartment.
Starting at about 1:27:36 a.m., the Complainant walked into the apartment again.
Starting at about 1:28:13 a.m., the Complainant exited the apartment and walked towards the elevator.
Starting at about 1:55:01 a.m., the Complainant walked down the hall and entered the apartment again.
Starting at about 2:20:27 a.m., TRU police officers entered the camera frame and made their way to the apartment the Complainant had entered. The first TRU officer held a long gun at the ready, the second TRU officer held a long gun pointed at the ceiling, the third TRU officer held a long gun pointed at the ceiling, the fourth TRU officer carried a chainsaw, the fifth TRU officer held a black object in his left hand, and the sixth TRU officer held a shield. Three TRU officers and a tactical paramedic followed the first six officers to the door of the apartment.
Starting at about 2:21:07 a.m., a light flashed followed by slight movement from the TRU officers and four more flashes. A TRU officer appeared to be banging on the door.
Starting at about 2:21:27 a.m., a TRU officer handed the chainsaw to another TRU officer in front of the door. The TRU officer used the chainsaw on the door.
Starting at about 2:24:44 a.m., the TRU officer returned to the door with the chainsaw and appeared to use it on the door again.
Starting at about 2:28:53 a.m., TRU officers entered the apartment. The TRU officer with the shield entered first followed by other TRU officers. Six TRU officers entered the unit and three remained in the hall.
Communications Recordings
The SIU was provided the communications recordings from the PRP of an antecedent event in connection with the incident under investigation.On May 28, 2023, a 911 caller requested police assistance because a woman was being held hostage by the Complainant, who had been holding a firearm to her head for five days. The woman was now at a walk-in clinic asking for help. The woman had been able to separate from the Complainant at the medical clinic and call a family member for help. The Complainant was in the parking lot with his Glock 25 pistol waiting for the woman to finish her doctor’s appointment.
The Complainant was known to consume cannabis and Vyvanse [3] and had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. The Complainant carried firearms on his person even though he was subject to a weapons ban.
The Complainant had attended the 911 caller’s residence in the days prior and tapped on a window with his firearm. The Complainant cut the security cameras and used a signal jammer to block their technical devices. They were afraid for their lives. The Complainant threatened that someone would die on Wednesday because they were trying to hide from him.
The dispatcher alerted police officers to attend a walk-in clinic in relation to a domestic disturbance and details of the 911 call were provided. The Complainant was identified as the suspect.
The dispatcher advised that the Complainant was wanted for domestic violence and possibly armed with a firearm. The Complainant had a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, was paranoid, and exhibited unpredictable behaviour. Attending police officers were advised to use extreme caution and notify the tactical unit if he was located.
A sergeant called the dispatcher to advise that the Complainant had fled police in a stolen vehicle, and that he was armed with a firearm.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PRP between June 3, 2023, and August 4, 2023:- Operational Plan;
- Feeney warrant;
- Incident Details Reports;
- Incident History Reports;
- Notes – WO #2;
- Notes – WO #3;
- Notes – WO #8;
- Notes – WO #9;
- Notes – WO #4;
- Notes – WO #7;
- Notes – WO #6;
- Notes – WO #1;
- Notes – WO #5;
- Notes – WO #10;
- Communications recordings;
- Occurrence Reports; and
- Briefing Note.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following record from other sources between June 4, 2023, and September 14, 2023: - Toronto Paramedic Service Ambulance Call Report and Incident Summary;
- Preliminary Autopsy Findings from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service; and
- Firearms Report from the Centre of Forensic Sciences.
Incident Narrative
The material facts in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview nor the release of his notes.
In the early morning of June 2, 2023, PRP TRU officers gathered outside an apartment at 551 The West Mall, Toronto. They were there to arrest the Complainant, whom they had reason to believe was present in the premises. The Complainant was wanted by the PRP Intimate Partner Violence Unit on firearm and domestic violence charges. Given the possibility of a gun in the Complainant’s possession, the TRU team had been enlisted to effect the arrest.
The TRU team announced their presence outside the door and that the Complainant was under arrest. One of their members then deployed a breaching tool several times against the door knob attempting to unlock the door. When that did not work, a ram was used on the door. That, too, proved ineffective, and the team resorted to a chainsaw to cut the door, after which the ram was again used to force entry.
WO #2 was the first TRU officer to enter the unit carrying a ballistic shield and a pistol. He made his way into the bedroom where he located the Complainant. The Complainant, deceased, was lying on the bed. There was a wound to the right side of his head. He was holding a gun in his right hand. The Complainant had shot himself.
Case of Death
The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to a single contact penetrating gunshot wound to the right side of the head.
In the early morning of June 2, 2023, PRP TRU officers gathered outside an apartment at 551 The West Mall, Toronto. They were there to arrest the Complainant, whom they had reason to believe was present in the premises. The Complainant was wanted by the PRP Intimate Partner Violence Unit on firearm and domestic violence charges. Given the possibility of a gun in the Complainant’s possession, the TRU team had been enlisted to effect the arrest.
The TRU team announced their presence outside the door and that the Complainant was under arrest. One of their members then deployed a breaching tool several times against the door knob attempting to unlock the door. When that did not work, a ram was used on the door. That, too, proved ineffective, and the team resorted to a chainsaw to cut the door, after which the ram was again used to force entry.
WO #2 was the first TRU officer to enter the unit carrying a ballistic shield and a pistol. He made his way into the bedroom where he located the Complainant. The Complainant, deceased, was lying on the bed. There was a wound to the right side of his head. He was holding a gun in his right hand. The Complainant had shot himself.
Case of Death
The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to a single contact penetrating gunshot wound to the right side of the head.Relevant Legislation
Sections 219 and 220, Criminal Code -- Criminal negligence causing death
219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.
(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.
Analysis and Director's Decision
The Complainant passed away from a self-inflicted gunshot wound on June 2, 2023. As PRP officers were in the vicinity of the shooting seeking to arrest the Complainant, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. 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.
The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 220 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the TRU officers, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. There was not.
The officers were within their rights in attending at the apartment at 551 The West Mall to arrest the Complainant. They were in possession of a facially valid arrest warrant permitting their forced entry into the unit to take the Complainant into custody.
I am also satisfied that the officers comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s well-being throughout the series of events that preceded their discovery of his body. They forced entry into the unit after announcing their presence at the door, following which they proceeded into the residence cautiously. They were right to do so in light of information at their disposal that the Complainant was armed with a gun. On the evidence collected by the SIU, there was very little the officers could have done, if anything, to prevent the Complainant shooting himself. Indeed, the evidence leaves open the distinct possibility that the Complainant shot himself before the police had even convened in front of the unit’s front door or entered the apartment.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO of the TRU, or any other members of the TRU team, transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law during their engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.
Date: September 29, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 220 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the TRU officers, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. There was not.
The officers were within their rights in attending at the apartment at 551 The West Mall to arrest the Complainant. They were in possession of a facially valid arrest warrant permitting their forced entry into the unit to take the Complainant into custody.
I am also satisfied that the officers comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s well-being throughout the series of events that preceded their discovery of his body. They forced entry into the unit after announcing their presence at the door, following which they proceeded into the residence cautiously. They were right to do so in light of information at their disposal that the Complainant was armed with a gun. On the evidence collected by the SIU, there was very little the officers could have done, if anything, to prevent the Complainant shooting himself. Indeed, the evidence leaves open the distinct possibility that the Complainant shot himself before the police had even convened in front of the unit’s front door or entered the apartment.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO of the TRU, or any other members of the TRU team, transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law during their engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.
Date: September 29, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) Obtained via the scheme set out in section 529 and 529.1 of the Criminal Code, and named after the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v Feeney, [1997] 2 SCR 13, a Feeney warrant authorizes the forcible entry by police officers into a dwelling-house to effect an arrest. [Back to text]
- 2) 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]
- 3) A stimulant medication that is used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adults, and for moderate-to-severe binge eating disorder in adults. [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.