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.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the death of John Doe, who was shot multiple times during an interaction with Toronto Police Service officers on June 17, 2016.

Notification of the SIU

The SIU was notified of the incident by the Toronto Police Service (TPS) on June 17, 2016, at 9:20 a.m. TPS advised that there had been a police shooting in the area of Weston Road and Starview Lane. Officers from the Sex Crimes Unit and Emergency Task Force had reportedly gone to this area to arrest a person. TPS reported that paramedics were working on a male at the time of notifying the SIU.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 9

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 4

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, photography, videography, sketches and measurements. The Forensic Investigators attended and recorded the post-mortem examination and assisted in making submissions to the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

Complainant

John Doe, age unknown

(Despite the SIU’s best efforts, the Unit has not been able to establish the man’s actual identity.)

Civilian witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

Both civilian witnesses were with the Canadian Pacific Police Service.

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

WO #5 Interviewed

WO #6 Interviewed

WO #7 Interviewed

WO #8 Interviewed

WO #9 Interviewed

WO #10 Interviewed

Additionally, the notes from five other officers were received and reviewed.

Subject officer

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

Scene diagram

The incident occurred beside the CP railway tracks in a residential neighbourhood in North York. There was a temporary shelter and campfire area between a barrier wall and the train tracks where ETF officers encountered the complainant.

Physical evidence

Firearm – SO

The Glock 9mm pistol used by the SO at the time of the incident was examined by the SIU. The two spare magazines each had 17 cartridges. The pistol had one cartridge in the breech and ten cartridges in the magazine for a maximum discharge of six cartridges. One 9 mm cartridge was located loose in the SO’s hard vest when examined by the SIU. Five cartridge cases were located at the scene. As a result, the evidence indicates that the SO likely fired five times.

Conducted energy weapon (CEW) download – SO

There were no recorded deployments from the SO’s CEW at the time of the incident.

CEW download – WO #1

There was one recorded deployment from WO #1’s CEW at the time of the incident.

Knife

A large kitchen knife with an approximately 18 centimetre blade (about 30 centimetres in total length) was found on the ground at the scene resting partly under the complainant’s left hand.

View a photograph of the knife (warning: graphic content)

Forensic evidence

On June 18, 2016, the forensic pathologist conducted a post-mortem examination of the complainant. The cause of death was determined to be gunshot wounds. A single gunshot wound was located on the left side of the complainant’s face that travelled through his mandible and cervical vertebrae perforating the back of his neck, and causing a medically significant, possibly fatal wound. A second single gunshot wound was found in the complainant’s central chest, which penetrated his right back and fatally damaged his heart. Additionally, there were two gunshot wounds found in his left humerus, with re-entry wounds from both gunshots penetrating his right chest, and fatally damaging his left and right lungs. Although a CEW probe with wire attached was found on the complainant’s t-shirt, there was no evidence of CEW injury.

Video/audio/photographic evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence, but was not able to locate any.

Materials obtained from the TPS

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

• briefing sheet
• Canada Evidence Act notice
• chain of continuity
• Christopher’s Law – notification of duty to register
• communications recording summary
• contact sheets
• general occurrences
• ICAD
• CEW and cartridge assignment list for ETF officers
• WO notes
• person search – complainant
• Provincial Offences Act form 104 - summons to defendant
• TPS Policies
• property report - complainant
• use of force qualifications - SO
• use of force qualifications – WO #1
• registration summary - complainant, and
• photographs of complainant from prior occurrences.

On June 17, 2016, members of the Toronto Police Service Emergency Task Force (ETF) and the Toronto Police Service Sex Crimes Unit (SCU), aided by the Canadian Pacific Police Service (CPPS), conducted a joint operation in order to apprehend the complainant. The purpose of the operation was to serve the complainant with a notice as he had failed to register with the provincial sex offender registry. As well, the CPPS wanted to arrest the complainant for trespassing, as he continued to erect makeshift shelters on the railway’s property.

A briefing concerning the complainant was conducted the morning of June 17, 2016, and included the ETF team, members of the SCU and officers with the CPPS. The purpose of the briefing was to devise a strategy in order to quietly approach the complainant’s location, arrest him without incident and turn him over to the SCU officers. During the briefing, the complainant’s violent history with TPS was reviewed. This included:

• January 2012: During an interaction with police, the complainant was shot multiple times after producing a large kitchen knife and advancing upon the subject officer, while ignoring repeated verbal demands to drop his weapon. The SIU had investigated this incident, and cleared the subject officer of any criminal wrongdoing. [See SIU news release: https://www.siu.on.ca/en/news_template.php?nrid=1134].
• March 2015: Members of the SCU attended the CP property in order to serve the complainant with a legal notice. Upon encountering the complainant, he was said to have threatened them with a baseball bat. He was also carrying a knife that was contained in a sheath near the small of his back. The ETF was contacted in order to assist and take the complainant into custody.

Given their concerns that the complainant was mentally ill, a Toronto Police Service psychiatrist was contacted in order to determine how to best approach the complainant.

After arriving on scene at approximately 8:35 a.m., the ETF officers got into position. Three officers were assigned to approach the complainant, with WO #8 in front, followed by the SO and then WO #1. The officers walked north in a linear sequence, along a gravel shoulder, with a twin set of railway tracks to their immediate right and brush to their left. On the west side of the brush area was a large retaining wall. As they continued to move north along the gravel path, the approaching officers received a radio communication indicating that the complainant was seen eating near the retaining wall.

The officers entered into the brush area west of the gravel shoulder. The foliage was dense and difficult to move through. As they moved through the brush, the officers came upon an archway in the vegetation along a pathway that led to a well-travelled clearing. As WO #8 moved along this cleared pathway, he lost his footing on the loose terrain. As he was falling, he called out “It’s the Toronto Police Emergency Task Force.”

Suddenly, the complainant, approximately 3.5 metres from the SO, jumped out from the brush area into the pathway and broke out into a full run at the SO with a large knife in his left hand. The SO yelled out “knife”, but did not have enough time to issue any commands as the complainant was quickly closing the distance between them. As the complainant got closer to the SO, the officer discarded his CEW and shield and drew his firearm. When the complainant raised the knife above his head, the SO pointed his gun at the complainant and fired four times. As the complainant continued to advance, the SO fired one final round. At some point, WO #1 had also deployed his CEW. The complainant fell to the ground.

A tactical paramedic on scene administered emergency first aid. Soon after, the complainant was pronounced dead.

Defence — use or threat of force

34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if:

(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

Factors

(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:

(a) the nature of the force or threat;

(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;

(c) the person’s role in the incident;

(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;

(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;

(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and

(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

There is no question that the SO was acting in the course of his duty when he attended the scene as part of a plan to arrest the complainant. The only issue that I need to consider is whether the shooting was justified. There is no doubt in my mind that it was. The applicable provision of the Criminal Code is section 34(1) which provides the legal justification for the use of force in defence of self and defence of others.

The complainant suddenly rushed out of dense underbrush at the three ETF officers without warning, armed with a large knife. He broke into a charge at the SO, and showed no signs of stopping. The SO quickly discarded his non-lethal use of force options and drew his firearm. His rationale for doing so was sound. He did not believe that the CEW was a sufficiently reliable option to stop the threat of imminent bodily harm or death that the complainant represented.

The officer was faced with a dangerous and dynamic situation that unfolded quickly over mere seconds. It was a matter of two to three seconds from the point that WO #8 first called out to the complainant to when the SO fired his weapon. He reasonably feared for his own safety, as well as his fellow officers, and his actions were directed towards preventing imminent bodily harm or death. His decision to fire his gun was reasonable.

I will also add that, in my view, the ETF approach plan was well-conceived and properly crafted with a non-violent conclusion in mind. Despite the thoughtful plan, the complainant engaged in an unexpected and violent ambush.

The full body of evidence satisfies all three requirements of section 34 of the Criminal Code. There are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO exceeded the ambit of justifiable force in the circumstances. Consequently, no charges will issue.

Date: June 8, 2017

Original signed by
Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit