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 death of a 30-year-old man on July 24, 2016 after police attended a 911 call regarding a shooting.

Notification of the SIU

On July 24, 2016 at 7:45 a.m., Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU to report that on July 24, 2016 at 5:45 a.m., TPS received a call from a woman advising that both she and her boyfriend had been shot and were in the area of Howard Park, Toronto. Numerous officers responded to the incident. Upon arrival in the area, police officers found a man and woman walking in the area of Howard Park. As officers approached, they realized the woman had been shot. At this point, the man pulled out a firearm, placed it to his head, and shot himself. The woman and the man were subsequently transported to the hospital.

The man was pronounced dead. The woman was being treated for her injuries. A check of a residence on Howard Park revealed blood inside the unit and it was believed it was the location where the man and woman had received their injuries. The man was identified as the Complainant. It was discovered that the Complainant had also been shot twice in the chest. The woman was identified as Civilian Witness (CW) #2 and she was shot once in the leg and the bullet was lodged in her foot. The scenes were being held.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 6

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

SIU Forensic Investigators (FIs) responded to the scene and identified and preserved evidence. They documented the relevant scenes associated with the incident by way of notes, photography, videography, sketches and measurements. The FIs attended and recorded the post-mortem examination and assisted in making submissions to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS).

Complainant

30-year-old male, deceased

Civilian witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Not Interviewed[1]

CW #7 Not Interviewed[2]

CW #8 Not Interviewed[3]

CW #9 Not Interviewed

CW #10 Not Interviewed[4]

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

WO #5 Interviewed

WO #6 Interviewed

Subject officers

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right.

The scene

On July 24, 2016, at 10:25 a.m., the SIU FIs arrived on scene at Howard Park Avenue. The scene was being contained by TPS. Located on the south sidewalk, in front of 29 Howard Park Avenue was a pool of blood staining. Medical debris was scattered in this area. The blood staining was projected north from the sidewalk onto plants in the front yard of 29 Howard Park Avenue. There was heavy blood pooling on the sculptured edging and on the ground at the south side of the yard at the sidewalk. A brass colored .32 caliber cartridge case was located on the north side of the roadway and south of the bloodstaining on the sidewalk.

The scene was photographed and video recorded and mapped using the Total Station.

The SIU FIs also examined the interior of a residential building located on Howard Park Avenue, and more specifically the elevator and the interior of CW #2’s apartment. The entrance to the apartment showed evidence of a struggle. The flooring was heavily bloodstained with smudged footwear impressions. A heating register on the north vestibule wall was loose from the wall. Projected bloodstaining was visible going into a southwest and southeast direction into the apartment from the vestibule. A brass .32 caliber cartridge case was located on the floor in the southwest corner of the vestibule.

Scene diagram

Below is a diagram of the street scene on Howard Avenue:

Below is a diagram of CW #2’s apartment:

Physical evidence

Firearm

On July 24, 2016, at 11:19 a.m., the SIU FIs secured the pistol and magazine seized by TPS from the ground in the vicinity of the Complainant. The pistol and magazine, which were contained in separate paper bags, were seized from the rear seat of a TPS cruiser. The cruiser was being guarded by a TPS police officer. The pistol was later examined and identified as a Cobra 32 model FS32, serial #FS011587. The breech was empty and the magazine had been removed. Four brass .32 caliber cartridges were contained within the magazine. Below is a photo of the firearm:

Forensic evidence

On August 5, 2016, the SIU FIs submitted the Cobra Model FS32 pistol, the magazine with 4 unspent projectiles, and the two spent cartridge cases located from the sidewalk in front of 29 Howard Park Avenue and from inside CW #2’s apartment to the CFS for examination.

On August 8, 2016, the Complainant’s blood was submitted to the CFS for comparison to any DNA that may have existed on the Cobra Model FS32 pistol.

The results of the DNA examination of the pistol indicated the Complainant could not be excluded as the source of the DNA profiles taken from a blood swab of the mid left grip, blood from the upper right grip, blood from the magazine, and DNA from the magazine.

Expert evidence

On July 25, 2016, a forensic pathologist conducted a post-mortem examination of the Complainant at the Office of the Chief Coroner, in Toronto. The forensic pathologist noted in his report there was an entrance gunshot wound to the Complainant’s right temple and an exit gunshot wound on the left temporal region of the Complainant’s head.

In the summary and opinion section of his report, the forensic pathologist reported the Complainant sustained a contact range wound to the head and a contact range wound of the abdomen. The former wound was a fatal wound, while the gunshot wound to the abdomen was superficial only. The Complainant’s death was attributed to a gunshot wound of the head. The temple was noted as a common site of election in a suicidal gunshot wound.

Video/audio/photographic evidence

Video footage

On or about August 30, 2016, the SIU received in-car-camera (ICC) video from four cruisers:

• WO #2 and WO #3’s cruiser, which was the first cruiser to arrive, arrives on scene at 5:27:34 a.m. They left their ICC in the recording mode and at 5:28:15 a.m., WO #2 and WO #3 start to run east bound towards a fire truck. The ICC recording does not capture the actual shooter, but it records the police officers reaction to hearing the report of the Complainant’s firearm
• WO #5 and WO #6’s cruiser is the second to arrive on scene at 5:27:59 a.m. and they park behind WO #2 and WO #3’s cruiser. The ICC for WO #5 and WO #6’s cruiser records the back of WO #2 and WO #3’s cruiser and does not record any relevant material
• The SO’s cruiser is the third cruiser to arrive on scene at 5:28:04 a.m. The SO parked his cruiser behind WO #5 and WO #6’s cruiser. The SO’s ICC records the back of WO #5 and WO #6’s cruiser and does not record any relevant material, and
• Two other, non-designated officers’ cruiser is the fourth cruiser to arrive on scene at 5:28:26 a.m. They park behind the SO’s cruiser. The non-designated officers’ cruiser’s ICC records the back of the SO’s cruiser and does not record any relevant material

Communications Recordings

On July 26, 2016, the SIU obtained a copy of the TPS communications recording relevant to this incident.

• The recording commences at 5:19:54 a.m. when CW #2 called 911. CW #2 reported that some random person came to her building and she needed an ambulance
• CW #2 then reported some random person came there in a car and started firing shots
• CW #2 reported the random person went up to her apartment and she did not know what was going on
• CW #2 reported she and her boyfriend were shot and that she was shot in the leg
• When CW #2 was asked where her boyfriend was shot, she reported she did not know and the communication stops, and
• At 5:27:48 a.m., a police officer reported a man just shot himself

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) Global Positioning System (GPS) Data
• ICC videos – four cruisers
• Communications recordings
• COMM-Summary of Conversation
• Intergraph Computer Aided Dispatch (ICAD)
• ICAD-Event Details Report
• Notes of WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5 and WO #6
• Parade Sheets – division platoons, and
• Person hardcopy (TPS background on the Complainant)

Just before 5:30 a.m. on July 24, 2016, the Complainant was inside CW #2’s apartment, and shot her in the upper thigh and himself in the abdomen. The Complainant and CW #2 then left the apartment, and CW called 911 once they were outside. The Complainant told the 911 operator that she and the Complainant had been shot.

Within minutes of the Complainant and CW #2 going outside the building, TEMS and TFS personnel arrived, followed by TPS officers. In full view of the emergency personnel and officers, the Complainant held his firearm to his temple and fired one shot. None of the officers had spoken to, or approached, or had their firearms drawn at, the Complainant at the time. The Complainant was taken to hospital and pronounced deceased from a single gunshot wound to the head.

On July 24^th, 2016, at approximately 5:19:54 a.m., a call was received by the 911 dispatcher of TPS from CW #2 reporting a shooting wherein both CW #2 and the Complainant were injured and that they required an ambulance in the area of Howard Park Avenue in the City of Toronto. As a result, a call was sent out for TPS, TEMS and TFS to attend. Seven TPS officers attended, including the SO. Thereafter, the Complainant was removed to hospital by ambulance where he was pronounced deceased from a single gunshot wound to the head.

During the course of this investigation, in addition to CW #2, the SIU interviewed three emergency personnel[5] and six police witnesses. The SO declined to be interviewed, as was his legal right, and did not provide his notes for review.

On the evidence of all of the witnesses interviewed, there is no dispute as to the facts of what occurred outside on Howard Park Avenue on July 24^th, 2016.

At 5:19:54 a.m., a 911 call was received from CW #2 wherein she requested an ambulance indicating that “some random person came to our building, we need an ambulance”. A male voice was also heard speaking just after the call was connected, but prior to the 911 dispatcher actually speaking. After being connected to the ambulance dispatcher, CW #2 went on to say that an ambulance was needed at her apartment on Howard Park Avenue and that some random person came there in a car and came upstairs and started firing shots and that she and her boyfriend had been shot. She advised that she was shot in the leg and she did not know where her boyfriend was shot. The call was then terminated by CW #2. The dispatcher tried to call CW #2 back, but she did not respond.

The emergency personnel witnesses interviewed were consistent in their description that shortly after their arrival on Howard Avenue, the Complainant raised his hand to his head and a gunshot was heard. The Complainant fell to the ground, after which CW #2 came running towards them, declaring that the Complainant had shot himself. The emergency personnel witnesses were positioned between the Complainant and the police officers that had just arrived. No officers were seen near the Complainant prior to shooting himself, nor did any of the emergency personnel witnesses see any officer unholster his firearm.

WO #5 indicated that almost as soon as he exited his cruiser on Howard Park Avenue, he heard one gunshot and observed CW #2 walking towards him saying that the Complainant had just shot himself, at which point WO #5 drew his service pistol and approached the location where the Complainant was lying on the ground; he observed a black and silver handgun just east of the Complainant’s body.

WO #6 saw CW #2 running west on Howard Park Avenue saying, “just help him” at which point he heard a small caliber gunshot coming from an area east of his location. WO #6 saw the firemen take cover and he drew his firearm for safety reasons and ran east past the fire truck toward the sound of the gunshot. WO #6 saw the Complainant’s body, approached and observed a handgun two feet (0.61 metres) from the Complainant’s torso. He then observed WO #5 kick the handgun away. Emergency personnel then attended and began cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on the Complainant.

WO #2 advised that he had started to walk in the direction of the Complainant and CW #2, when he heard CW #2, who was walking towards the ambulance with a wound to her leg, say, “He’s crazy, he shot himself” at which point WO #2 heard a gunshot. WO #2 advised that he then drew his firearm and looked towards the Complainant, who was approximately 30 feet (9.14 metres) from his location, and saw him wobble and fall to the ground. WO #2 then pointed his firearm at the Complainant while WO #5 and WO #6 approached and removed the firearm. He then advised dispatch that the Complainant had shot himself. That call was recorded as coming in at 5:27:48 a.m.

WO #3 advised that he was speaking with paramedics when he observed CW #2 walking towards the apartment building on Howard Park Avenue and then towards the ambulance. He heard CW #2 say that she needed help three times and then he heard a gunshot come from the direction where CW #2 had been earlier. WO #3 put CW #2 into the back of the ambulance and he heard someone say that “he shot himself.” WO #3 then drew his firearm but was told to stay with CW #2. CW #2 told him that the Complainant was upset with her for going out and he had pointed a gun at her and shot her once, as well as putting it to his own head for 20 minutes in the apartment.

The forensic pathologist conducted the post mortem examination of the Complainant and determined the cause of death was a contact range wound to the head. The Complainant was also observed to have a superficial contact range wound to the abdomen. The forensic pathologist opined that the temple is a common location for a gunshot wound in suicides.

On this record, I find that the Complainant’s death was caused by his own actions without any direct involvement by the police officers present; that officers present were carrying out their duties as required in responding to the 911 call; and that at no time did any officer have either any physical contact nor any verbal interaction with the Complainant that could in any way have been seen to initiate the actions of the Complainant. On a review of all of the evidence, it is clear that no officer unholstered his firearm until after the sound of the gunshot that caused the Complainant’s death and further, on the evidence of the emergency personnel at the scene, no police officer was in close proximity to the Complainant at the time of the gunshot nor were they in a position to have fired the shot, since emergency personnel were standing between police and the Complainant. The actions of the Complainant were clearly without warning or provocation and were completely unforeseen to any emergency or police personnel present. We will, of course, never know definitively what was going on in the Complainant’s mind that would lead him to take such a drastic and lethal action, but there can be no doubt that no fault lies with any of the police officers present, who were merely carrying out their duties as they are required to do. It is notable that at no time were any allegations made against these officers by anyone, with respect to any inappropriate actions on their part and I am satisfied on reasonable grounds on this record that the actions exercised by the officers fell within the limits prescribed by the criminal law and there are no grounds for proceeding with charges in this case.

Date: October 20, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] CW #6 was identified in a canvass, but did not see incident. [Back to text]
• 2) [2] CW #7 was a member of Toronto Fire Services (TFS), and provided a written statement only. [Back to text]
• 3) [3] CW #8 and CW #9 were members of Toronto Emergency Medical Services (TEMS), and refused to provide a statement. Incident reports authored by each of CW #8 and CW #9, however, were provided. [Back to text]
• 4) [4] CW #10 was a member of TEMS, and refused to provide a statement. [Back to text]
• 5) [5] Regrettably another five emergency personnel refused to provide statements although they had material evidence to give. Fortunately, the SIU had access to their written accounts which matched-to a significant degree the accounts of the other witnesses. [Back to text]