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 the serious injury sustained by a 59-year-old woman on January 28, 2017 during her arrest for attempted murder.

Notification of the SIU

On January 29, 2017 at 9:57 a.m., Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s custody injury.

PRP reported that on Saturday, January 28, 2017, at 9:10 a.m., Civilian Witness (CW) #3 was asleep in her residence in Brampton when the Complainant began stabbing her in the head with a screwdriver. CW #3 escaped and fled on foot to a neighbour’s house where she called 911. Several police officers responded and the Complainant exited her home and stood on the front porch armed with a knife shouting at police officers to shoot her.

The responding police officers engaged the Complainant verbally, demanding that she drop the knife but she refused to comply. The Subject Officer (SO) deployed a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) and the knife was safely removed from the Complainant’s hands. She was arrested for attempted murder and was transported by ambulance to the hospital where she continually screamed for police officers to kill her. The emergency physician formed the opinion that the Complainant was a danger to herself or others and signed a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act (MHA) for a 72-hour psychiatric assessment.

According to PRP, it was not until January 29, 2017 at 8:14 a.m., that a hospital staff member notified PRP that the Complainant had sustained vertebral body fractures.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

SIU Forensic Investigators responded to the scene and identified and preserved evidence. They documented the relevant scenes associated with the incident by way of notes, measurements and photography.

Complainant

59-year-old female interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Not interviewed[1]

CW #3 Not 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

WO #7 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #8 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #9 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #10 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

Additionally, the notes from one, non-designated officer were received and reviewed.

Subject officers

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right.

The scene

The Complainant’s residence in Brampton is a two story single family residence located in a subdivision. The residence has an attached two car garage. The driveway is on the south side of the residence. A sidewalk leads to a raised front porch. The front porch is elevated off the ground by 0.80 metres. The front entry doors to the residence are accessed from the front porch and there are raised gardens in front of the house.

Physical evidence

CEW Anti-Felon Identification (AFID) Tags and CEW Blast Door

The following items related to the SO’s CEW were recovered from the scene:

• 2 pink CEW AFID tags were located on the sidewalk near the first step, north of the driveway
• 1 pink CEW AFID tag was located on the second step of the sidewalk leading to the porch steps
• 2 pink CEW AFID tags were located on the south side of the driveway, and
• 1 CEW blast door was recovered on the third step on the north side of the raised garden

Knife

Below is a photo of the knife that the Complainant had brandished at the police:

Forensic evidence

CEW test

SIU Forensic lnvestigators extracted information from the SO’s CEW. The data revealed that the CEW was in good working order. The records showed one deployment at the time of the incident. The discharge lasted for eight seconds. This data corroborates the statements of the witness officers and the SO and the PRP communication event chronology leading up to the Complainant’s arrest.

Video/audio/photographic evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence. Investigators received from CW #1 an audio and video recording that was captured on his iPad. The recording captured the interaction between the Complainant and the involved police officers shortly after her arrest.

Investigators also received a closed circuit television (CCTV) recording from a neighbouring residence.

Communications recordings

The Event Chronology received from PRP of the events of January 28, 2017 leading up to the Complainant’s injury corroborates the statements of involved police officers, the Complainant and PRP supporting documentation.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Event Chronology
• Notes of WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5, WO #6, WO #7, WO #8, WO #9 and WO #10
• Notes of one, non-designated officer
• Occurrence Details Reports – prior incident and current incident
• Procedure - Use of Force
• PRP Witness Statement – CW #3, and
• PRP Witness Statement – other witness to attempted murder

During the morning of January 28, 2017, the Complainant stabbed CW #3 multiple times in the head. CW #3 fled to a neighbour’s home and called 911. The SO, WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4 and WO #5 were all dispatched to the scene and arrived within minutes.

After the officers arrived, the Complainant came out of the residence onto her front porch, wielding a knife and screaming for them to shoot her. The Complainant was repeatedly ordered to drop the knife, but she refused and began to approach the stairs of the porch. The SO discharged his CEW, striking the Complainant, who fell backwards into the front doorway and then landed hard on her back.

An ambulance was called to remove the CEW prongs, and the Complainant was transported to hospital because of her elevated heart rate. Once at the hospital, an x-ray revealed that the Complainant sustained a lumbar fracture of the L1 and L2 vertebrae and a non-displaced right sacral facture (a fracture of the sacrum, a large triangular bone at the bottom of the spine).

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

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.

Section 17, Mental Health Act - Action by police officer

17 Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

1. has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself
2. has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or
3. has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself

and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

1. serious bodily harm to the person
2. serious bodily harm to another person; or
3. serious physical impairment of the person

and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician.

Section 88, Criminal Code - Possession of weapon for dangerous purpose

88 (1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.

On January 28, 2017, a 911 call was received by PRP requesting assistance; the caller, CW #3, indicated that the Complainant had stabbed her in the head with a screwdriver and that she, CW #3, had fled to a neighbour’s home. Several police officers responded to the residence in the City of Brampton to investigate and/or arrest the Complainant. During the course of the Complainant’s interaction with police, the Complainant suffered lumbar fractures to the L1 and L2 vertebrae and a non-displaced right sacral fracture. There is no dispute as to the facts.

At 9:10:47 a.m., on January 28, 2017, a 911 call was received from CW #3. In her call, CW #3 indicated that the Complainant had just tried to kill her by stabbing her three times with a screw driver; during the call, CW #3 was out of breath as she indicated that she was just running to a friend’s house. She advised that the Complainant was at their residence and that she had mental health issues, but these were undiagnosed. CW #3 went on to indicate that she had been in bed in her bedroom when the Complainant came in and started to stab her in the head and face area.

The SO, WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4 and WO #5 were all dispatched to the scene.

The SO advised that he attended the scene in the event that he could assist as he was equipped with a CEW. Upon the SO’s arrival, WO #1 was already on scene and it was decided that the scene should be contained and WO #1 would go to the back of the residence while the SO remained in front; the Complainant was not visible at that point. While the SO was standing on the front lawn of the residence, other police units arrived and the Complainant came out of the front door of the house and stood in the doorway with a knife held close to her chest and the blade pointing upward. The SO observed that all other police officers surrounding the front of the house had their firearms drawn and there were continued demands from officers to put down the knife.

The SO advised that he considered his use of force options and determined that drawing his firearm would not be the right use of force option, as it would be dangerous to both residents and other police officers who were in the line of fire. The SO rejected using his firearm and decided, based on his training, that the best option was his CEW as it would be the most effective and the least lethal method by which to apprehend the Complainant. The SO removed his CEW from his holster and repeatedly instructed the Complainant to drop the knife or she would be “tasered”; the Complainant refused to comply.

WO #1, who had moved from the backyard to the front yard, heard WO #2 yell “Drop the knife, put it down, drop it” from the front of the residence and observed WO #2 to be standing beside the SO with his firearm drawn while the SO had his CEW drawn. The Complainant was heard throughout the interaction screaming at police to shoot and kill her; WO #2 kept talking to the Complainant telling her that no one wanted to shoot her and that she needed to put the knife down; the Complainant ignored all commands issued by police. WO #1 observed that the Complainant looked around at the semi-circle of police officers and appeared to be seeking some form of acknowledgement that someone would shoot her. The Complainant then made a movement and stepped out of the doorway, moving towards the porch stairs, as if she was deliberately provoking the officers to shoot her.

WO #1 advised that he heard one of the police officers yell at the SO to deploy his CEW before the Complainant had the opportunity to leave her front porch and gain access to the neighbourhood. The SO advised that he waited to see if the Complainant would comply with the police demands and put down the knife, and when she continued to refuse, he made the decision that he had good sightings, yelled “Taser!” and deployed his CEW at the Complainant. WO #1 holstered his firearm, as he did not have a direct line of fire to the Complainant, at the same that he observed the SO to deploy his CEW, which was effective, making contact with the Complainant’s body and causing her body to lock up and fall backwards into the open doorway where she landed hard on her back. The SO kept his CEW engaged and cycling until he observed other police officers, who had run towards the Complainant as soon as WO #1 had indicated that it was safe to do so, remove the knife from the Complainant’s hand. The Complainant was then handcuffed and removed to a waiting cruiser, an ambulance was called and attended to remove the probes from the Complainant and a supervisor was notified that a CEW had been deployed.

Upon the arrival of paramedics, the probes were removed, but because the Complainant’s heart rate was highly elevated, she was taken to hospital where it was discovered that she had sustained a lumbar fracture of the L1 and L2 vertebrae and a non-displaced right sacral fracture.

During the time that the Complainant was waiting for the arrival of the paramedics, en route in the ambulance to hospital and while at hospital, the Complainant continually requested police to kill her.

The CEW data confirmed that the SO had deployed his CEW only once, for a total period of eight seconds.

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are restricted in their use of force to that which is reasonably necessary in the execution of a lawful duty. Turning first to the lawfulness of the Complainant’s apprehension, it is clear from the information received from CW #3 in her 911 call that the police had reasonable grounds to believe that the Complainant had just stabbed CW #3 in the head three times with a screwdriver and she would have been arrestable as such for contravening numerous provisions of the Criminal Code. Furthermore, when the Complainant was observed on the front porch armed with a knife, officers had grounds to arrest her for possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace contrary to the Criminal Code, as well as being in a position to lawfully apprehend the Complainant under the MHA as she appeared to be a danger to herself or others. As such, the apprehension and arrest of the Complainant was legally justified in the circumstances.

With respect to the amount of force used by the SO in his attempt to subdue the Complainant, I find his deployment of his CEW, which caused the Complainant to fall hard onto the porch and resulted in her unfortunately sustaining fractures to two of her vertebrae and her sacrum, was not only justified, but prudent and the most reasonable course of action in the circumstances. In light of the fact that police were in possession of information that the Complainant had already stabbed CW #3 in the head three times and she was now facing police officers in possession of a knife and refusing to comply with numerous commands from police officers to drop the knife, it was clear that the Complainant was a danger to all of the police officers present and to the community if she was not apprehended. Furthermore, it is clear on the many utterances made to the police officers during the standoff that the Complainant wanted the police to use lethal force against her and cause her death. On the basis of these observations, and the limited information supplied by CW #3 in her 911 call, it was obvious that the Complainant was in a mental health crisis. In light of the Complainant’s state of mind, and her possession of a dangerous weapon which she had already proven she was capable of using to harm others, there were only two use of force options open to police officers when the Complainant failed to listen and to comply with their demands to drop her weapon: the firearm or the CEW, as it would have been foolhardy for police officers to attempt to move in close enough to be able to effectively use other use of force options while the Complainant remained armed with a weapon.

While all other police officers at the scene had their firearms drawn and at the ready, the SO rejected that option in favour of a less lethal use of force and drew his CEW. The SO at all times complied with the PRP Use of Force policy, in that he determined that other efforts to de-escalate were proving ineffective; verbal commands were not being followed; there was a risk of secondary injury if the Complainant was not apprehended and disarmed; and he determined that the deployment of the CEW was reasonably necessary in the circumstances. Furthermore, the SO waited to see if the Complainant would comply without the necessity of deploying the CEW and he warned her that the “Taser” would be deployed if she did not comply, before he actually deployed the CEW. The CEW data also confirms that he only deployed his CEW once and only for a period of eight seconds and, although he continued to keep it at the ready, he did not deploy it again once the knife had been removed from the Complainant and the danger that she posed had been eliminated.

On this evidence, although I find that the Complainant’s injuries were caused by a police officer and were as a direct result of her falling due to the deployment of the CEW, I cannot find this to have been an excessive use of force. On the contrary, I find that the SO, in assessing the situation and his use of force options, at all times acted prudently, responsibly and in the best interests of both the Complainant and the safety of his fellow police officers and the community. In short, the SO used good common sense to alleviate the danger posed by the Complainant without causing unnecessary harm to her in the process. For the foregoing reasons, I can find no evidence to form reasonable grounds to believe that any criminal offence was committed here by the SO, or any police officer involved in the apprehension of the Complainant, and there are no grounds for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.

Date: November 3, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] CW #2 and CW #3 were not interviewed because they were not present at the time of the interaction with police officers and could not offer further evidentiary value to this investigation. [Back to text]