Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving police officers where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. The Unit’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation. If, after an investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the officer. Alternatively, in all cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director does not lay criminal charges but files a report with the Attorney General communicating the results of an investigation.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act (“FIPPA”)

Pursuant to section 14 of FIPPA (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 whose release 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 of FIPPA (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this document. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• subject officer name(s)
• witness officer name(s)
• civilian witness name(s)
• 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 (“PHIPA”)

Pursuant to PHIPA, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may have also 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 Unit’s investigative jurisdiction is limited to those incidents where there is a serious injury (including sexual assault allegations) or death in cases involving the police.

“Serious injuries” shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. “Serious Injury” shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault. Where a prolonged delay is likely before the seriousness of the injury can be assessed, the Unit should be notified so that it can monitor the situation and decide on the extent of its involvement.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into an incident that occurred on July 30, 2017 where a Toronto Police Service (TPS) officer’s conduct is alleged to have resulted in a serious injury to a 55-year-old male.

Notification of the SIU

On July 30, 2017, at 11:50 p.m., a TPS officer notified the SIU of a custody injury sustained by the Complainant. The TPS officer reported that on July 30, 2017, at 6:20 p.m., TPS officers responded to a 911 call regarding a man stabbing his wife. The female callers reported that a family member [now known to be the Complainant] had stabbed his wife repeatedly and he was trying to force open the bathroom door where they were hiding.

The Subject Officer (SO) and a Witness Officer (WO) arrived and found the woman who had been stabbed outside the residence. The WO began administering CPR while the SO entered the home and confronted the Complainant at gunpoint. The Complainant dropped the knife, but refused to comply with any of the police officer’s commands. Other TPS officers arrived and the Complainant was taken to the floor and arrested for attempted murder.

The Complainant was taken to St. Joseph’s Health Centre (SJHC), where he was diagnosed with a fractured cheekbone and a nasal fracture.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

SIU Forensic Investigators (FIs) attended the scene immediately and agreed to allow the TPS, which had an attempted murder incident to investigate, to process the scene inside the residence. An SIU FI photographed the complainant’s injuries.

Complainant:

55-year-old male, interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

CW #7 Interviewed

CW #8 Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

WO #5 Interviewed

WO #6 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

Subject Officers

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

On July 30, 2017, starting at 6:19 p.m., Civilian Witness (CW) #1 and CW #2 called 911 multiple times to report a domestic incident involving the Complainant. CW #2 thought the Complainant was armed with a knife and that CW #7 was injured.

The SO and WO #3 were the first police officers to arrive at the residence and found CW #7 outside, bleeding profusely. CW #7 had been stabbed multiple times. WO #3 attended to her while the SO ran to the door of the home where the stabbing had occurred. The SO could hear banging noises and screaming from inside the home. At around this time, CW #2 informed a 911 dispatcher that she and CW #1 were trapped in the second floor bathroom and that the Complainant was attempting to break down the door. The Complainant was threatening to kill them both.

At 6:30 p.m., the SO entered the house with WO #4, WO #1, WO #2 and WO #5 and clearly announced their presence. The officers saw blood spatter on the walls, kitchen floor and stairway, and bloody knives on the floor. They walked up a narrow stairway with their weapons drawn. The Complainant stood on the second floor landing, near the bathroom door, about 10 to 15 feet away. He turned and stepped toward the police. He had blood on his face and clothes, and was holding a kitchen knife raised at head height or higher with what appeared to be a five or six-inch blade pointing downwards. WO #1, who was leading the officers, repeatedly yelled, “Drop the knife” but the Complainant, who had blood on his face and clothes just stared at him. WO #1 believed the Complainant was contemplating attacking the police and had his finger on the trigger of his rifle, but the Complainant eventually dropped the knife. WO #1 told him to lower his hands and face the wall, and the Complainant complied.

The SO and WO#2 stepped forward to apprehend the Complainant but the Complainant pulled his hands away and started to resist being arrested. The two officers pushed the complainant forward causing his body and face to hit the wall. The officers attempted to take him to the floor and, in the narrow hallway, the Complainant was pushed to another wall. WO #2 delivered distractionary punches to the Complainant’s back, but they had no

effect. At some point, the Complainant was taken to the floor and the SO punched the Complainant in the face around the cheekbone area, causing the Complainant to go momentarily limp and allowing officers to handcuff him. The struggle lasted around one to one and a half minutes.

WO #1 called an ambulance for the Complainant after he was under control. The Complainant passively resisted being lead downstairs and was eventually placed on the front lawn, handcuffed with his hands behind his back. He was taken to SJHC where it is alleged that he was diagnosed with a fractured cheekbone and nose. WO #1 noted that the Complainant smelled of alcohol.

The Scene

The TPS Forensic Identification Services processed the scene and provided the SIU with a DVD containing 273 scene photographs.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

In-Car Camera System (ICCS) for the SO and WO #3’s vehicle

At 6:21 p.m., the call to the residence where the incident occurred was heard over the police radio as a “Hot Shot” and the dispatcher requested a unit to attend. Either the SO or WO #3 said they would respond.

Between 6:22 p.m. and 6:26 p.m., the SO and WO #3 travelled to the call then parked slightly east of the residence. None of the interaction between the police officers and the Complainant inside or outside the residence was captured on this file.

At 6:42 p.m., the EMS ambulance left the scene with CW #7 and the SO and WO #3 escorted the ambulance.

ICCS for WO #2 and WO #1’s vehicle

At 6:24 p.m., the police officers travelled from the police station to the scene.

At 6:28 p.m., WO #2 and WO #1 arrived at the scene, exited their vehicle and ran toward the residence carrying their C-8 rifles. At 6:29 p.m., WO #4 ran towards the residence. At 6:30 p.m., the SO and WO #5 ran toward the residence.

No interaction between the police officers and the Complainant inside the residence was captured on this video.

At 6:32 p.m., the front door of the residence opened. Paramedics and police officers dealt with the Complainant on the front lawn though no specific actions were discernable.

ICCS for WO #4’s vehicle

At 6:29 p.m., WO #4 arrived on scene, exited his police vehicle and ran toward the residence.

After the arrest some of the police activity on the front lawn of the residence could be seen. Nothing remarkable was noted.

Audio was heard from a microphone worn by WO #4 which was recorded by the ICCS. The audio started recording when WO #4 responded to the call in his police vehicle and the ICCS was activated and continued recording throughout the call. [At the scene, the further WO #4 moved away from his police vehicle the worse the connection and the audio became less discernable.]

At 6:29 p.m., WO #4 asked someone if there were still people in the house and the dispatcher said there was one party, possibly two, locked in the bathroom on the second floor and the party was trying to break in. WO #4 said, “Wait until we get a few more guys to get it contained, then we’ll go in.” At 6:30 p.m., a police officer yelled, “Police. Come to the door now.” WO #4 said to the other police officers they had three C-8’s so, “I’m going to take my Taser out guys.” WO #4 said, “Ok guys. Let’s do it. Let’s do it.”

Between 6:30 p.m. and 6:32 p.m., police commands of, “Drop your hands”, “Show me your hands” and “Put up your hands” as well as screaming, were heard intermittently through the crackling and static. WO #4 spoke with CW #1 and CW #2 to calm them down and at 6:35 p.m., WO #4 told the Complainant that he was under arrest for attempted murder.

At 6:40 p.m., someone asked, “How close were you to popping him?” WO #1 said, “One more step towards me and I would have popped him.” At 6:44 p.m., WO #4 said, “good job, awesome job. WO #1 was close to popping him.” WO #4 asked WO #2 if he had a clear line to the Complainant and WO #2 said no. WO #4 said WO #1 was the only one. WO #2 said he did not have a clear line until “after the knife.”

At 6:45 p.m., WO #4 asked WO #1 to come in the house and show him where the knife was. At 6:57 p.m., WO #4 said, “They tuned him up. They tuned him up good.” A man asked if they hit the Complainant with a rifle and WO #4 said, “Oh, I don’t know, all I saw was about three fists going. They could have smashed his eye socket or his jaw or something, and then it’ll be SIU. Ah well. Completely justified. Completely justified.” At 7:04 p.m., WO #4 said the Complainant was taken into custody with a “good number of smashes to his face.”

Booking Hall Video

The Complainant was brought from the hospital to the police station. He arrived in the custody of two officers (who were not designated as witness officers) and was paraded in front of WO #6.

Communications Recordings

On July 30, 2017, there were two 911 calls from the residence. CW #1 spoke to one 911 operator while CW #2 spoke with a second 911 operator at the same time.

At 6:19 p.m., a 911 operator answered the first call but the line was not connected. The 911 operator called back and reached CW #2. CW #1 screamed and cried in the background which made it difficult to understand CW #2. It appeared CW #2 did not know that she was still connected to 911 and repeatedly pushed the telephone buttons. CW #1 took over the telephone and asked for the police to hurry. The 911 operator confirmed the address.

At 6:20 p.m., CW #2 called 911 again using a different phone number and reached another 911 operator. She asked for the police to come to their address because the Complainant was abusing CW #7 and CW #1. CW #2 said she thought CW #7 was injured, but she and CW #1 were locked in the bathroom. The Complainant was threatening CW #7 and may have a knife and there was a knife on the floor.

At 6:20 p.m., a dispatcher requested for a unit to attend the call and provided a brief description of the circumstances and then an update regarding a knife being involved.

At 6:21 p.m., CW #2 told the 911 operator that the Complainant had been hitting CW #7 and requested an ambulance.

At 6:22 p.m., the SO and WO #3 said they would respond.

The 911 operator told CW #1 the police were on the way. CW #1 said that she was in the bathroom and fearful of what the Complainant was going to do to her. CW #2 said the Complainant was coming up the stairs and he was trying to open the door.

At 6:24 p.m., WO #2, WO #1 and WO #5 were dispatched to the call.

At the same time, CW #4, who was at a nearby residence, called 911. CW #7, who was heard in the background, said she had been stabbed. The SO and WO #3 arrived and asked where the Complainant was.

At 6:25 p.m., CW #1 told the 911 operator that the Complainant was trying to break into the room. The 911 operator said the police were on scene and banging was heard in the background.

At 6:27 p.m., CW #2 said the Complainant was breaking down the door.

At 6:28 p.m., the 911 operator told CW #1 the police officers were inside the house. A man [believed to be the Complainant] was swearing in the background, although his exact words were not discernible.

At 6:28 p.m., the dispatcher provided an update to the effect that the Complainant was in the house. The SO said he had a C-8 rifle and was at the side door. WO #2 told the SO to wait because they were close. WO #4 said he was on scene.

At 6:29 p.m., the dispatcher provided a detailed update that they were talking to one of the two females who were locked in the bathroom. The dispatcher said the Complainant was using something to try to break into the bathroom and one of the females was hysterical.

At 6:30 p.m., CW #1 screamed very loudly and the Complainant spoke in the background, however, it was not clear as to what he was saying.

At 6:30 p.m., a man’s voice yelled but the exact words could not be made out. CW #1 screamed. A few seconds later a man’s voice announced, “Toronto Police” several times, and, “Toronto Police. Put your hands up.” Four seconds later a male voice, believed to be that of WO #1 said, “Put the knife down. Put it down. Put your hands…,” followed by, “Do it now.”

At 6:31 p.m., WO #4 said, “We got one in custody.” The dispatcher asked WO #4 if everything was in order but he did not respond. WO #2 said, “One in custody, all in order.” WO #4 said, “It’s okay, it’s the police…Open the door…You’re okay…Are you guys okay?” and then, “Let’s get him out of here first.”

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the TPS:

• DVD containing 273 scene photographs
• Event Details Reports (two sets)
• General Occurrence Report
• ICCS video for four police vehicles
• Notes of the SO (redacted), WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4 (two sets), WO #5, and WO #6
• Radio communications
• Procedure – Use of Force
• Procedure – C-8 Rifle
• Summary of Conversation (911 Call), and
• Training Record for the SO

Sections 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

1. as a private person
2. as a peace officer or public officer
3. in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or
4. 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.

On July 30, 2017, at 6:30 p.m., Toronto Police Service (TPS) police officers entered a residence and arrested the Complainant for attempted murder. The Complainant had repeatedly stabbed Civilian Witness (CW) #7, and was trying to harm CW #1 and CW #2. The Complainant resisted arrest and during the struggle two police officers pushed him into a wall and the Subject Officer (SO) punched him in the face. As a result, the Complainant sustained a fractured nose and cheekbone. For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied there are no reasonable grounds to believe the SO or any other police officer committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s injuries.

The SIU’s investigation included, but was not limited to, interviews of eight CWs, five Witness Officers (WOs) and the SO, as well as a review of 911 calls and the in-car camera system (ICCS) footage. This evidence establishes the horrific nature of the incident.

Given the scene which was apparent to the police upon their arrival, there is no doubt that the police had reasonable grounds to arrest and apprehend the complainant for his violent attack on CW #7 and his continuing attempts to threaten and harm CW #1 and CW #2. Thus, the only question to be determined is whether the force used to arrest the Complainant was reasonable in all the circumstances.

Given the obvious violence exercised by the Complainant which was observed by the officers as they arrived at the residence and the Complainant’s subsequent decision to resist arrest while located near several knives and a large screwdriver, it is my belief that the police officers’ use of force was justified. Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers may use force in the execution of their lawful duties to the extent reasonably necessary in the circumstances. The officers were clearly acting in the lawful discharge of their duty when they apprehended the Complainant. The Complainant had repeatedly stabbed someone and was trying to cause serious bodily harm or death to two other people when police officers entered his home. The amount of force used to subdue the Complainant was reasonable given the fact that he was resisting arrest within reach of multiple weapons, including a knife and a long metal screwdriver. The amount of force used did not go beyond what was reasonably necessary in the circumstances and the SO’s punch, which likely caused the injuries, was only delivered after less forceful punches to the body were ineffective.[1]

In coming to this decision I take in account the state of the law as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Nasogaluak, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206, as follows:

Police actions should not be judged against a standard of perfection. It must be remembered that the police engage in dangerous and demanding work and often have to react quickly to emergencies. Their actions should be judged in light of these exigent circumstances. As Anderson J.A. explained in R. v. Bottrell(1981), 60 C.C.C. (2d) 211 (B.C.C.A.):

In determining whether the amount of force used by the officer was necessary the jury must have regard to the circumstances as they existed at the time the force was used. They should have been directed that the appellant could not be expected to measure the force used with exactitude. [p. 218]

Additionally, I have considered the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Baxter (1975) 27 C.C.C. (2d) 96 (Ont. C.A.), that officers are not expected to measure the degree of their responsive force to a nicety.

Before closing the file, I note that the comments made by WO #4 on the ICCS after the incident were unprofessional. WO #4 joked that the officers “tuned” the Complainant and that there were “fists flying”; however, I am satisfied these comments were made by WO #4 as an attempt to cope with a stressful situation and do not accord with what actually occurred (or what was observed and reported even by the complainant) and as such, in all the circumstances, for the foregoing reasons I have no reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence occurred and no charges will issue.

Date: June 14, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] The SO also indicated that when he first went hands on with the Complainant, he thrust him into the wall because the Complainant had pushed back against him causing him to fear that he would fall down the stairs. He felt that the injury might have been caused by this action as the Complainant’s head and face struck the wall during this push. In addition, WO #2 also said that he pushed the Complainant into the wall at the same moment with his face contacting the wall. He also said that during the struggle the Complainant made contact with another wall. [Back to text]