Director's Report Details

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.

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 Personal 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.

Pursuant to section 21 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• 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.

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 42-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 21, 2023, at 5:00 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On December 21, 2023, at 3:40 p.m., TPS officers were dispatched to 335 Roncesvalles Avenue for a man (later identified as the Complainant) in possession of sharp sticks and attempting to strike cyclists. Officers attended and conducted energy weapons (CEWs) were deployed; however, they proved to be ineffective. An Anti-riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN) was deployed four to five times. It too was ineffective. The man was eventually taken to the ground by officers and later transported to St. Joseph’s Health Centre (SJHC) for assessment. No serious injuries were sustained.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2023/12/21 at 5:16 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/12/21 at 7:09 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

42-year-old male; interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on December 21, 2023.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between December 22, 2023, and January 30, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

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

The subject official was interviewed on January 17, 2024.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between December 22 and December 29, 2023.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the intersection of Roncesvalles Avenue and High Park Boulevard / Fermanagh Avenue, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

On December 21, 2023, at 7:09 p.m., the scene was attended by a SIU investigator.

At 8:05 p.m., SIU forensic investigators attended. A forensic examination was completed, and the scene photographed.

The scene had been secured by TPS prior to the arrival of the SIU investigators. A TPS sergeant was in control and explained that officers initially discovered the Complainant near 335 Roncesvalles Avenue and pursued him on foot to the intersection of Roncesvalles Avenue where High Park Boulevard met Fermanagh Avenue. The Complainant was taken into custody on the northwest corner of the intersection.

The scene was secured from Westminster Avenue to High Park Boulevard on Roncesvalles Avenue. Roncesvalles Avenue had one northbound lane of traffic and one southbound lane of traffic. There were streetcar rails built into each lane. There was a lane for parked vehicles on the east side of Roncesvalles Avenue and concrete sidewalks on each side. Pedestrian traffic was allowed through the scene on the eastern sidewalk of Roncesvalles Avenue, but the western sidewalk was secured. Vehicle traffic was allowed through the intersection.

There was nothing of evidentiary value discovered between 335 Roncesvalles Avenue and the intersection where the Complainant was arrested. All physical evidence was recovered at the intersection of Roncesvalles Avenue and High Park Boulevard. Some of the physical evidence, such as less-lethal rounds and CEW wires, had been gathered by TPS officers prior to SIU arrival and placed in the area where the Complainant was arrested on the northwest corner. This handling of the evidence was done to preserve it since the incident occurred in rush hour traffic and evidence would have been lost by the high volume of vehicles that would have passed over it in the process of securing the scene.

On the road near the rear passenger door of a cruiser were two deployed CEW probes and wires. On the sidewalk near the cruisers was a garbage can. Next to the garbage can were three shotgun shell casings and two less-lethal (LL) rounds which had been gathered by TPS officers and placed in this location. There were two pieces of wooden dowels nearby. The dowels came to a jagged point on the broken end. These were the sticks reportedly carried by the Complainant.

Figure 1 – Scene with evidence markers indicating the location of the wooden dowels, shotgun shell casings and LL rounds

Figure 2 - Sharpened wooden dowels

Figure 3 - LL rounds

Additional evidence was collected from within the intersection by the SIU. One “Taser X2” model CEW probe was recovered. One crushed “Taser 7” model CEW probe casing was recovered. One less-lethal round was recovered. Several shotgun shell wadding pieces were also recovered.

SIU forensic investigators attended 11 Division where the LL shotgun and CEWs of WO #1, WO #2, and WO #4 were examined and photographed. The LL shotgun was a Remington 870 12-gauge pump action shotgun, as issued to the SO. The weapon was empty of rounds. There were six LL rounds in the side saddle of the weapon.

Figure 4 – The SO’s Remington LL shotgun with six rounds in the side saddle

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – WO #2

On December 21, 2023, at 2:45:39 p.m.,[2] the “Taser 7” model CEW issued to WO #2 was armed. At 2:45:41 p.m., a cartridge was deployed and electricity was discharged for 4.95 seconds. At 2:45:58 p.m., a second cartridge was deployed and electricity was discharged for 2.41 seconds.

Figure 5 – Taser 7 CEW

CEW Deployment Data – WO #1

On December 21, 2023, at 2:45:26 p.m., the “Taser 7” model CEW issued to WO #1 was armed. At 2:45:41 p.m., a cartridge was deployed and electricity was discharged for 0.55 seconds. At 2:45:41 p.m., a second cartridge was deployed and electricity was discharged for 1.77 seconds.

CEW Deployment Data – WO #4

On December 21, 2023, at 4:02:31 p.m., a “Taser X2” model CEW issued to WO #4 was armed. At 4:02:31 p.m., a cartridge was deployed and electricity was discharged for four seconds. At 4:02:41 p.m., a second cartridge was deployed and electricity was discharged for five seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4 and the SO

The following is a summary of the cumulative footage.

On December 21, 2023, starting at about 3:43:03 p.m., WO #1 and WO #2 were captured exiting their cruiser and walking northbound on Roncesvalles Avenue. They approached a man [the Complainant] who stepped off the sidewalk into the middle of the street. The Complainant wore a long, heavy, black winter coat with a fur collar. He held two sticks in his left hand, which were about 60 centimetres in length, and a loaf of bread in his right hand. He shouted obscenities repeatedly and appeared to beckon the officers to come after him. WO #2 walked towards the Complainant and tried to engage him in conversation. The Complainant walked northbound on the west side of the street and shouted. WO #2 and WO #1 followed. At 3:43:37 p.m., the Complainant dropped the loaf of bread. There was heavy vehicle traffic on the roadway.

Starting at about 3:43:39 p.m., a commercial truck parked southbound on the west side of the street opened its driver’s side door, striking the Complainant as he walked into it. The Complainant continued to shout obscenities. He walked northbound in the middle of the street.

Starting at about 3:43:57 p.m., the Complainant turned towards WO #2 and teased the officer to come after him. WO #1 and WO #2 advised they just wanted to talk to him.

Starting at about 3:44:16 p.m., the Complainant ran southbound in the northbound lanes of traffic. WO #1 and WO #2 ran after him. The Complainant repeatedly shouted nonsensically.

Starting at about 3:45:21 p.m., WO #2 issued multiple commands to drop the sticks.

Starting at about 3:45:28 p.m., the Complainant entered the intersection of Roncesvalles Avenue and Westminster Avenue. He turned to WO #2 and shouted, “Oh you wanna die?” The Complainant held a stick in each hand. He again ran southbound.

Starting at about 3:45:42 p.m., a marked cruiser occupied by WO #3 and WO #4, with emergency warning systems activated, travelled south on Roncesvalles Avenue towards the Complainant. The Complainant ran east between two parked vehicles and onto the sidewalk. WO #2 drew his CEW. At 3:45:43 p.m., he pointed it at the Complainant and ordered him to drop the sticks. WO #2 deployed his CEW. The Complainant turned and ran southbound in the northbound lane.

Starting at about 3:45:46 p.m., WO #3 and WO #4 exited their cruiser. WO #1 raised his CEW and said, “Taser, taser, taser.” He deployed his CEW at the Complainant. The Complainant ran southbound, and WO #3 and WO #4 chased him.

Starting at about 3:46:01 p.m., WO #2 pointed his CEW at the Complainant, said, “Taser, taser, taser,” and deployed his CEW. The Complainant ran into the intersection of Roncesvalles Avenue and Fermanagh Avenue. An officer shouted at the Complainant to drop the sticks. At 3:46:02 p.m., WO #4 dropped his CEW, drew his firearm, and pointed it at the Complainant. The Complainant briefly ran south of the intersection until he was surrounded and ran back north into the intersection.

Starting at about 3:46:12 p.m., the Complainant crossed the intersection diagonally from the southeast to the northwest. Officers ordered him to stop and get on the ground. At 3:46:16 p.m., the SO fired a LL round at the Complainant but he continued to walk. At 3:46:17 p.m., the SO fired a second LL round and the Complainant still continued to walk away. At 3:46:18 p.m., the SO fired a third round and, still, the Complainant continued walking. At 3:46:19 p.m., the SO fired a fourth round at the Complainant, prompting the Complainant to place his right hand on his lower back and slow his pace. The Complainant walked westbound onto the sidewalk with his back turned to officers, who again shouted for him to drop the sticks and get onto the ground.

Starting at about 3:46:25 p.m., the Complainant turned to the SO and raised both sticks in a slashing motion. He then turned his back to the officers and the SO used his right leg to push-kick the Complainant in the pelvic area. The Complainant fell forwards onto the front steps of a building and dropped the sticks as he fell. The officers moved in on him and the SO threw the sticks to the side. WO #2 handcuffed the Complainant’s hands behind his back. He asked why the Complainant did not comply with commands. The Complainant replied with apparent delusions.

At 3:49:01 p.m., the Complainant was taken to a cruiser and complained of a sore wrist.

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage – Vehicles of the SO, WO #4 and WO #2

The video recordings essentially captured the same information as the BWCs, but from different angles.

Video Footage - 235 Roncesvalles Avenue

The footage essentially captured the same information as the BWCs, but from different angles.

Video Footage - 275 Roncesvalles Avenue

The footage essentially captured the same information as the BWCs, but from different angles.

Police Communications Recordings

On December 21, 2023, at 3:39:30 p.m., a civilian witness called 911 to report a man - the Complainant - behaving dangerously. The Complainant was headed southbound on Roncesvalles Avenue holding two sharpened sticks, which were two feet long each. He threatened pedestrians and a cyclist who passed him. He walked on the road in between vehicles. The 911 caller provided a physical description of the Complainant.

At 3:40:12 p.m., a dispatcher requested that officers attend 335 Roncesvalles Avenue for an unknown trouble call. The dispatcher relayed the details provided by the 911 caller. The SO advised he would attend the call.

At 3:40:40 p.m., WO #2 and WO #1 advised they would attend the call and, a short time later, WO #3 and WO #4 advised they would also attend.

At 3:43:16 p.m., WO #2 said he had the Complainant in sight.

At 3:44:24 p.m., WO #1 said the Complainant was headed southbound on Roncesvalles Avenue.

At 3:45:25 p.m., WO #1 reported they were at Westminster Avenue.

At 3:47:08 p.m., the SO reported a LL shotgun and CEWs had been deployed and, at 3:47:17 p.m., he reported the Complainant was in custody at 256 Roncesvalles Avenue.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from TPS between December 22, 2023, and January 15, 2024:

• Notes – WO #1;
• Notes – WO #2;
• Notes – WO #3;
• Notes – WO #4;
• Civilian Witness List;
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
• General Occurrence Report;
• Use of Force Qualifications - the SO;
• Policy - Use of Force;
• Policy - Persons in Crisis;
• Policy - Less-Lethal Shotguns;
• CEW deployment data – WO #1;
• CEW deployment data – WO #2;
• CEW deployment data – WO #4;
• BWC footage;
• ICCS footage; and
• Communications recordings.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following materials from the following other sources between December 22, 2023, and January 15, 2024:

• Video footage - 275 Roncesvalles Avenue;
• Video footage - 235 Roncesvalles Avenue; and
• The Complainant’s medical records from SJHC.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, and other police and non-police eyewitnesses, as well as video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the afternoon of December 21, 2023, officers were dispatched to Roncesvalles Avenue, south of Bloor Street West, following reports of a male breaching the peace. The male was said to be holding two sharpened sticks and threatening pedestrians and cyclists in his vicinity.

The Complainant, of unsound mind at the time, was the male. He held two sharpened sticks and was wielding them at third-parties.

WO #1 and WO #2 were the first to arrive in their cruiser. They located and approached the Complainant on the east side of Roncesvalles Avenue. The Complainant yelled incoherently at them and turned to run away. The officers pursued the Complainant, directing him to drop the sticks and lay on the ground. The parties were heading southbound on Roncesvalles Avenue when WO #3 and WO #4 (in their cruiser) and the SO arrived on scene.

The officers pursued the Complainant on Roncesvalles Avenue towards High Park Boulevard / Fermanagh Avenue. As they neared the intersection, three of them – WO #1, WO #2 and WO #4 – discharged their CEWs at him. The use of the weapon proved ineffective each time, in large measure owing to the heavy coat the Complainant was wearing, preventing the probes from penetrating to the skin. As the parties travelled past High Park Boulevard / Fermanagh Avenue, the Complainant turned around and, from a position on the southeast corner of the intersection, began to run in a northwest direction. The SO, armed with a less-lethal shotgun, followed behind the Complainant and fired his weapon four times. The Complainant was struck from behind by the sock rounds but kept on moving. Seconds later, as the Complainant made his way onto the west sidewalk of Roncesvalles Avenue, the SO approached from behind and kicked him to the ground. Other officers immediately rushed in and handcuffed the Complainant behind the back.

The Complainant was transported to hospital following his arrest. He had not sustained any serious injuries.

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.

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,

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) 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

(c) 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,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) 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.

On December 21, 2023, the TPS notified the SIU that one of their officers had earlier that day fired a less-lethal firearm at a male – the Complainant. The SIU initiated an investigation naming the SO the subject official. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident.

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.

The Complainant was mentally disordered at the time of the incident and a clear threat to himself and others. In the circumstances, he was subject to arrest under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.

The force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s apprehension was legally justified. The Complainant had threatened third-parties with sharpened sticks and it was imperative that he be taken into custody as quickly as possible in the interest of public safety. There was no real opportunity to de-escalate the situation. The Complainant was dissociated and unable to respond rationally to what was going on. He was also running in and out of traffic, making communication nearly impossible. Attempting to wrestle control of the Complainant was a dangerous prospect given the sharpened sticks in his possession. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO acted with excess when he fired his less-lethal sock rounds at the Complainant, particularly when several CEW deployments had not worked to incapacitate him. Had the less-lethal shotgun discharges worked, they would have temporarily distracted the Complainant, without the infliction of serious injury, allowing for a window of time in which to safely approach and disarm him – a reasonable result.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the SO. The file is closed.

Date: April 18, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit