SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-TFP-239
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 discharge of a firearm by the police at a 47-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 discharge of a firearm by the police at a 47-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On June 24, 2023, at 2:46 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of a firearm discharge at a person. According to the TPS, that same day, at 1:20 p.m., TPS officers were called to the area of Yonge Street and Mill Street following a report that the Complainant was in crisis and on the street waving around a large butcher knife. Police officers engaged and attempted communications without success. Less-lethal shotguns and conducted energy weapons (CEWs) were successfully deployed and the Complainant was subdued. He was taken to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC) by Toronto Paramedic Services for the purposes of CEW probe removal.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 06/24/2023 at 3:00 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 06/24/2023 at 4:47 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
47-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on June 28, 2023.
Civilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 Interviewed CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed
CW #6 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed on June 24, 2023.
Subject Officials (SO)
SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed SO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The subject officials were interviewed on August 8, 2023.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on July 9, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired inside a business in the area of Yonge Street and Mill Street, Toronto.Physical Evidence
The Complainant’s knife was located at the scene.
Figure 1 - The Complainant's knife
The following image is one of the two similar less-lethal Remington 870 pump action shotguns that was discharged at the scene.
Figure 2 - A less-lethal Remington 870 pump action shotgun
The following image is one of three similar discharged shotgun shell casings recovered at the scene.
Figure 3 - A discharged shotgun shell casing
The following image is one of three similar sock rounds recovered at the scene.
Figure 4 - A sock round
Forensic Evidence
The following information was derived from WO #1’s CEW deployment data:- At 12:27:28 p.m., [2] the CEW was armed.
- At 12:27:34 p.m., cartridge 1 was deployed for 2.5 seconds.
- At 12:27:37 p.m., cartridge 2 was deployed for 4.9 seconds.
- At 12:27:42 p.m., arc mode was engaged for 1 minute and 20 seconds.
- At 12:34:46 p.m., the CEW was placed in safe mode.
- At 12:28:20 p.m., the CEW was armed.
- At 12:28:26 p.m., cartridge 1 was deployed for 1 second.
- At 12:28:27 p.m., cartridge 2 was deployed for 27.5 seconds.
- At 12:28:29 p.m., the arc mode was engaged for 58 seconds.
- At 12:34:48 p.m., the CEW was placed in safe mode.
- At 12:29:17 p.m., the CEW was armed.
- At 12:29:26 p.m., cartridge 1 was deployed for 4.9 seconds.
- At 12:29:29 p.m. the CEW was placed in safe mode.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [3]
Video Footage - Business
At 1:18 p.m., the Complainant was captured entered the front lobby with a knife in his right hand. At 1:22 p.m., CW #1 ran downstairs with the Complainant pursuing him. The Complainant had a knife in his left hand and backed CW #1 into a corner. CW #1 picked up a folding tray table to defend himself.
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage
At 1:27 p.m., WO #1 and Officer #1 were captured entering the business. They both drew their firearms and approached the Complainant as he was seated. He was holding a large knife in his left hand, which he had pointed upwards. They told him to drop the knife. The Complainant replied that he would not do so. Officer #1 told him if he did not put the knife down, he would shoot him. WO #1 holstered her firearm and transitioned to a CEW. She walked towards the Complainant as he stood up still holding the knife upwards and deployed her CEW in probe mode. The Complainant turned away and his body tensed up.
The Complainant lowered the knife to his left side and walked towards the police officers and told them to shoot him. Officer #1 told him he did not want to shoot him. As the police officers backed off, WO #1 deployed a second CEW cartridge in probe mode. The Complainant continued to walk forward and pulled at the probe wires. Both police officers repeatedly told him to drop the knife. The Complainant stopped his advance, faced the police officers, and yelled at them to shoot him.
At 1:28 p.m., the Complainant slowly walked towards the police officers as they continued to back away. Officer #1 told him if he took one step further, he would shoot. The Complainant continued to hold the knife while repeatedly being told to drop it. WO #1 removed Officer #1’s CEW from his holster and deployed it twice in quick succession in probe mode. The Complainant briefly tensed up but remained standing. Officer #1 radioed that the Complainant would not drop the knife and there had been four CEW deployments.
At 1:29 p.m., SO #2 and SO #1 entered and announced they had less-lethal weapons. SO #2 stood to the left of the Complainant alongside WO #1 and Officer #1, while SO #1 positioned himself in front of the Complainant. Both raised their less-lethal shotguns to chest height, pointed them at the Complainant, and told him repeatedly to drop the knife. SO #2 announced two more times he had a less-lethal weapon. The Complainant raised his arms above his head while clenching the knife in a closed fist in his left hand. He lowered his arms, placed them to the front of his body and told the police officers three times to shoot him.
SO #1 discharged one less-lethal round striking the Complainant in the torso, resulting in him bending at the waist and leaning forward. SO #2 fired a less-lethal round striking the Complainant’s torso and causing him to stumble and take a step to his left. Multiple police officers continued telling at the Complainant to drop the knife. SO #1 discharged another less-lethal round striking the Complainant in the torso, resulting in him bending at the waist and leaning forward. He continued to hold the knife despite continued direction to drop it.
WO #2 approached the Complainant from his left side while police officers told him to drop the knife. WO #2 deployed a CEW in probe mode, resulting in the Complainant standing upright, going rigid and falling backwards.
Video Footage – CW #4 Cell Phone
The video contained imagery as described above, and did not provide any additional evidence that would further the investigation.Communications Recordings
TelephoneAt 1:20 p.m., TPS Communications Centre received multiple 911 calls from a business in the area of Mill Street and Yonge Street advising them of the Complainant’s presence armed with a knife. The callers indicated the Complainant had chased and threatened CW #1, and that they feared he was going to stab him, while another indicated he was walking around like he was in a trance.
At 1:27 p.m., it was reported the Complainant was no longer yelling and was sitting in a chair with the knife still in his hand.
Radio
At 1:22 p.m., WO #1, Officer #1 and WO #2 were dispatched on information the Complainant was armed with a large knife and “freaking out”.
At 1:26 p.m., WO #1 and Officer #1 arrived.
At 1:29 p.m., Officer #1 advised the Complainant would not drop the knife. He indicated four CEW deployment attempts were made and requested an ambulance.
A police officer advised “less-lethal” had been discharged and a CEW deployed.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
The SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between July 4, 2023, and July 25, 2023:- Record of computer-assisted dispatch;
- Involved Officer List;
- Civilian Witness List;
- General Occurrence Report;
- BWC footage;
- Video footage;
- CEW deployment data;
- Notes- WO #1;
- Notes- WO #2;
- Policy- Incident Response (Use of Force/De-Escalation);
- Policy- Persons in Crisis;
- Policy- Less Lethal Shotguns; and
- Policy- Arrest.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from the following sources:- Cell phone video from CW #4, received on June 24, 2023;
- Video footage from a business, received on June 24, 2023; and
- The Complainant’s SHSC medical records, received on June 30, 2023.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question, clear on the evidence gathered by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.
In the early afternoon of June 24, 2023, TPS officers were dispatched to a business in the area of Mill Street and Yonge Street, Toronto, following reports of a male with a knife in the premises. The male had chased and threatened a person with the knife, and had subsequently taken a seat with the weapon still in hand.
The male – the Complainant – was of unsound mind at the time.
The first officers on scene were WO #1, WO #2 and Officer #1. They confronted the Complainant and directed him to drop the knife. The Complainant did not do so and, instead, moved towards the officers with the knife. WO #1 fired her CEW twice. Neither discharge was successful in immobilizing the Complainant, who pulled at the CEW probe wires and continued to hold the knife. The officer then retrieved Officer #1’s CEW from his holster (Officer #1 had his firearm drawn at the time) and fired it twice at the Complainant. Again, the Complainant remained standing, the knife still in his possession.
SO #1 and SO #2 arrived on scene shortly after the initial officers and the last of WO #1’s CEW deployments. Each armed with a less-lethal shotgun that fired sock rounds, the officers took up positions around the Complainant. SO #1 was the first to fire, striking the Complainant but not incapacitating him. SO #2 fired the second shot, followed by a third shot by SO #1. The Complainant flinched with the impacts, but was otherwise unaffected. A final CEW deployment, this time by WO #2 shortly after the last less-lethal shotgun discharge, was effective in temporarily immobilizing the Complainant. The Complainant’s body locked-up and he fell backwards, after which the officers moved in, removed the knife, and handcuffed him.
The Complainant did not sustain any serious injuries. He was transported to hospital, treated for a laceration, abrasions and bruising, and referred for a psychiatric assessment.
In the early afternoon of June 24, 2023, TPS officers were dispatched to a business in the area of Mill Street and Yonge Street, Toronto, following reports of a male with a knife in the premises. The male had chased and threatened a person with the knife, and had subsequently taken a seat with the weapon still in hand.
The male – the Complainant – was of unsound mind at the time.
The first officers on scene were WO #1, WO #2 and Officer #1. They confronted the Complainant and directed him to drop the knife. The Complainant did not do so and, instead, moved towards the officers with the knife. WO #1 fired her CEW twice. Neither discharge was successful in immobilizing the Complainant, who pulled at the CEW probe wires and continued to hold the knife. The officer then retrieved Officer #1’s CEW from his holster (Officer #1 had his firearm drawn at the time) and fired it twice at the Complainant. Again, the Complainant remained standing, the knife still in his possession.
SO #1 and SO #2 arrived on scene shortly after the initial officers and the last of WO #1’s CEW deployments. Each armed with a less-lethal shotgun that fired sock rounds, the officers took up positions around the Complainant. SO #1 was the first to fire, striking the Complainant but not incapacitating him. SO #2 fired the second shot, followed by a third shot by SO #1. The Complainant flinched with the impacts, but was otherwise unaffected. A final CEW deployment, this time by WO #2 shortly after the last less-lethal shotgun discharge, was effective in temporarily immobilizing the Complainant. The Complainant’s body locked-up and he fell backwards, after which the officers moved in, removed the knife, and handcuffed him.
The Complainant did not sustain any serious injuries. He was transported to hospital, treated for a laceration, abrasions and bruising, and referred for a psychiatric assessment.
Relevant Legislation
Section 25(1), Criminal Code -- Protection of Persons Acting Under Authority
25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
(a) as a private person,(b) as a peace officer or public officer,(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or(d) by virtue of his office,
is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.
Analysis and Director's Decision
On June 24, 2023, the Complainant was struck multiple times by rounds fired by TPS officers from less-lethal shotguns. The officers – SO #1 and SO #2 – were identified as subject officials in the ensuing SIU investigation of the incident. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official committed a criminal offence in connection with the use of their less-lethal shotguns.
Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.
Given what they knew of the Complainant’s threatening behaviour with a knife, the officers who responded to the scene were clearly within their rights in attending at the scene to protect the public and take him into custody.
With respect to the force used by the subject officials, namely, several less-lethal shotgun discharges, I am satisfied that it was legally justified. The Complainant was brandishing a knife and had demonstrated a willingness to use it against those present inside the business prior to the officers’ arrival and, thereafter, the officers. He had repeatedly ignored direction that he drop the knife and attempted to provoke the officers into shooting him. In the circumstances, SO #1 and SO #2 acted reasonably when they fired sock rounds at the Complainant, particularly after multiple CEW discharges had failed to have an effect. If successful, the use of the less-lethal shotguns would temporarily immobilize the Complainant from a distance, allowing the officers an opportunity to safely disarm him and effect his arrest without inflicting serious injury. The fact that the use of the less-lethal shotguns was not successful does not negate the reasonableness of their use in the circumstances. On the contrary, that fact tends to support the conclusion that the force used by the subject officials was not excessive.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case against either subject official. [4] The file is closed.
Date: October 20, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.
Given what they knew of the Complainant’s threatening behaviour with a knife, the officers who responded to the scene were clearly within their rights in attending at the scene to protect the public and take him into custody.
With respect to the force used by the subject officials, namely, several less-lethal shotgun discharges, I am satisfied that it was legally justified. The Complainant was brandishing a knife and had demonstrated a willingness to use it against those present inside the business prior to the officers’ arrival and, thereafter, the officers. He had repeatedly ignored direction that he drop the knife and attempted to provoke the officers into shooting him. In the circumstances, SO #1 and SO #2 acted reasonably when they fired sock rounds at the Complainant, particularly after multiple CEW discharges had failed to have an effect. If successful, the use of the less-lethal shotguns would temporarily immobilize the Complainant from a distance, allowing the officers an opportunity to safely disarm him and effect his arrest without inflicting serious injury. The fact that the use of the less-lethal shotguns was not successful does not negate the reasonableness of their use in the circumstances. On the contrary, that fact tends to support the conclusion that the force used by the subject officials was not excessive.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case against either subject official. [4] The file is closed.
Date: October 20, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) The information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s finding of facts following its investigation. [Back to text]
- 2) The times are derived from the internal clocks of the weapons, and are not necessarily synchronous between weapons and with actual time. [Back to text]
- 3) 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]
- 4) Though not the focus of the SIU investigation, I am of the view that the use of the CEWs by WO #1 and WO #2 were also legally justified for essentially the same reasons. [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.