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 serious injury of a 40-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 18, 2024, at 3:30 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the TPS, on February 18, 2024, at 1:15 a.m., TPS officers responded to a call for service involving a person in crisis [later identified as the Complainant] at a residence in the area of Lawrence Avenue East and Morningside Avenue. The Complainant was in a bedroom with a family member [later identified as CW #1]. Police officers heard a struggle inside the bedroom. They entered and saw the Complainant and CW #1 struggling with a firearm. The Complainant gained control of the firearm and shot himself through the mouth. He was rushed to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and was in surgery at the time of notification.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/02/18 at 4:00 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/02/18 at 5:50 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

40-year-old male; not interviewed (declined)

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Not interviewed (declined)

CW #2 Not interviewed (declined)

CW #3 Not interviewed (declined)

CW #4 Not interviewed (declined)

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on February 26, 2024.

The Scene

The events in questions transpired in and around a bedroom of a house situated in the area of Lawrence Avenue East and Morningside Avenue, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

The SIU arrived on scene and examined the main bedroom in the residence. A bed in the room appeared to have been pushed sideways. The dresser was between the bed and the closet. Beneath the dresser was a black revolver - a Smith Wesson Model 443, Calibre 38. There was pool of blood on the floor.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

TPS provided the SIU footage from the BWCs of the four officers who interacted with the Complainant on February 18, 2024.

Starting at about 1:22 a.m., the SO arrived at the Complainant’s residence and spoke to CW #3. The police officers explained to CW #3 that CW #4 had called the police to report that the Complainant was suicidal. CW #3 was reluctant to allow the officers into the residence and questioned why the mobile crisis team had not been sent. The officers explained that the team was not available and were adamant that they could not leave before checking on the Complainant. CW #3 relented and allowed the officers into the home.

Starting at about 1:26 a.m., police officers entered the residence. Inside they noticed a bedroom door partially ajar. The SO attempted to open the door and it was closed from the inside with the lights turned off. The SO spoke to someone inside the bedroom – CW #1 – and asked if the Complainant was there. The WO advised that CW #4 had called, and they needed to check on him. The SO and Officer #1 pushed on the outside of the door, but it did not open.

The Complainant said he was okay. The police officers said they needed to check on him. The SO told the Complainant the police officers were there to help and that CW #4 had called them. The door closed but was held ajar by the police officers. The WO placed his baton between the door and doorframe, then removed it. The SO and Officer #1 spoke with the Complainant. They asked him to stop pushing on the door and explained that they were there to help him. They also asked CW #1 to step away from the door.

The police officers discussed calling the Emergency Task Force (ETF).

CW #3 asked to speak to the Complainant. CW #3 spoke to the Complainant through the door and told him the police officers were not there to harm him. The Complainant yelled repeatedly from inside the bedroom and told the police officers to go away.

Starting at about 1:31 a.m., the Complainant stated, “It’s my life, if I want to take it, you can fuck off.” The SO told him they were there to help him and continued to speak through the door. The Complainant was irate and yelled at the police officers. CW #3 and the SO continued to speak with the Complainant about getting help. The Complainant replied that he did not trust the police officers. CW #3 told the Complainant that he needed help and CW #4 told him to think of his children.

Officer #1 and the WO updated police dispatch and learned that ETF was monitoring the call. CW #3 took over negotiations at the door and told the Complainant he had to go and get help. The Complainant repeated that he could choose the way he died, and repeated that he did not trust the police officers. CW #1 stated that he was in crisis and needed to go to the hospital. The SO started to negotiate with the Complainant again. He told the police officers to leave him alone.

Starting at about 1:44 a.m., noises came from inside the bedroom. One of the police officers asked what was going on and the door opened inward. Officer #2 entered the bedroom followed by Officer #1. The SO followed and turned the light switch on. The Complainant was face down on the floor at the foot of the bed with CW #1 leaning over him with her hands on his shoulder. Officer #2 was behind the Complainant with his hands on the Complainant’s shoulders.

At 1:44:46 a.m., a gunshot was heard. The WO asked what that was and the SO said the Complainant had shot himself. The SO used his extended baton to push a black revolver that was on the floor away from the Complainant. The Complainant’s hands were placed behind his back by Officer #2 and the SO, and he was handcuffed.

Starting at about 1:45:07 a.m., CW #1 exited the bedroom. Officer #2, Officer #1 and the SO remained inside the bedroom with the Complainant and began to apply first-aid to a gunshot wound to his head. CW #4 entered the bedroom with a towel to assist. The SO held a towel to the Complainant’s face and reassured him that he would be fine. The Complainant was on his side. The Complainant sat up on the floor and the SO continued to hold the towel to his lower face. The WO and Officer #1 reassured the Complainant and told him to stop moving to lower his heart rate.

Starting at about 1:50 a.m., Officer #1 took the handcuffs off at the SO’s request.

Starting at about 1:52 a.m., paramedics arrived and the WO told them the injury was to the right side of the Complainant’s lower jaw. The WO left the bedroom, and three paramedics began to treat the Complainant. Officer #2 remained at the foot of the bed throughout the treatment of the Complainant.

Starting at about 1:54 a.m., the Complainant was removed from the bedroom by paramedics and police officers.

Starting at about 1:55 a.m., the Complainant was placed on a stretcher that was positioned on the road near the ambulance.

Police Communication Recordings

At 1:15:20 a.m., February 18, 2024, a woman [later known to be CW #4] called to request assistance. She advised her family member [later known to be the Complainant] “was in crisis right now”. The family had been trying to get him to the hospital. He was barricaded.

At 1:15:51 a.m., CW #4 advised that the Complainant was being violent and a risk to himself. He was having general suicidal ideations. He had past suicidal tendency, took medications and had been taken to the hospital.

At 1:18:00 a.m., the SO and Officer #1, and the WO and Officer #2 were dispatched to the residence.

At 1:21:34 a.m., police officers were on scene.

At 1:33:40 a.m., the SO and Officer #1 advised police officers were inside the residence talking to the Complainant. He had barricaded himself inside a room and would not come out. They negotiated for him to come out.

At 1:35:20 a.m., ETF front desk was advised to monitor 43 Division ‘person in crisis’ call.

At 1:36:55 a.m., police officer advised the Complainant had evaded police at a gas station in their last interaction with him, and smashed police vehicles and ice box at a gas station.

At 1:44:53 a.m., the WO and Officer #2 advised, “We need to rush an ambulance, male discharged a firearm on himself.”

At 1:44:59 a.m., ambulance requested with a rush.

At 1:45:28 a.m., police officer advised, “One gunshot wound to the head.”

At 1:52:01 a.m., ambulance was on scene.

At 1:55:50 a.m., dispatch advised the Ontario Provincial Police that the TPS officers would be doing an emergency run and likely using Highway 401.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following materials from the TPS between February 18, 2024, and March 1, 2024:

• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
• Involved Officials List;
• Witness List;
• Communications recordings;
• Notes – the WO;
• General Occurrence Report;
• BWC footage;
• Policy – Use of Force; and
• Policy – Person in Crisis.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, as well as video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

In the early morning of February 18, 2024, police were called to a residence in the area of Lawrence Avenue East and Morningside Avenue, Toronto. CW #4 had called 911 to report that her family member – the Complainant – was at the address and suicidal. The SO was among the officers to respond, arriving on scene at about 1:20 a.m. He was joined by the WO, Officer #2 and Officer #1. The officers were greeted by CW #3, who questioned why the mobile crisis team had not been sent. They explained that the mobile crisis team was not available. After some back and forth in which the officers indicated they would not leave without checking on the Complainant, they were allowed into the house.

The Complainant was in a bedroom of the home with CW #1. He was distraught and contemplating self-harm. The Complainant refused to open the door to the officers. He told the officers that he did not trust them and explained that it was his life and he could end it if he wanted to.

The officers explained they were there to help the Complainant and pleaded with him to open the door. CW #1 consoled the Complainant and also encouraged him to exit. CW #4 and CW #3 did the same from outside the bedroom. The Complainant refused and told the officers to leave. They responded that they could not leave without ensuring he was okay.

At about 1:45 a.m., after rattling was heard from inside the bedroom, the officers entered. The Complainant was face down on the floor at the foot of the bed, CW #1 leaning over him with her hands on his shoulder. Shortly thereafter, a gunshot was heard. The Complainant had fired a revolver into his face. The officers reacted quickly and began to apply first-aid with the help of the family. Paramedics were summoned to the scene.

Paramedics arrived at about 1:52 a.m. and took charge of the Complainant’s care. He was transported to hospital and treated for a gunshot wound to the face.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

On February 18, 2024, the Complainant suffered a self-inflicted serious injury. As TPS officers were in the vicinity at the time, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The SO was identified as 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 Complainant’s injury.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s injury. In my view, there was not.

The SO and the other officers on scene were lawfully present and engaged in the execution of their duties throughout the series of events that culminated in the shooting. Having been called to the scene to assist with a person in crisis, the officers were duty bound to attend to do whatever they reasonably could to prevent harm coming to the Complainant.

I am also satisfied that the SO and his colleagues comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s wellbeing from start to finish. The video footage of their time at the residence depicts officers acting carefully to coax the Complainant out of the bedroom. Their decision not to immediately barge into the bedroom was a reasonable one given the potential for such conduct to provoke rash behaviour on the part of the Complainant. Their decision to enter the bedroom when they did is also entitled to deference, particularly as they had no reason to believe that the Complainant was in possession of a weapon. There was a rattling noise emanating from inside the bedroom, presumably prompting concern on the part of the officers of imminent harm in the making. Regrettably, unknown to the police or his family, the Complainant had a revolver on his person, which he used to shoot himself before anyone knew what was going on. Thereafter, the officers acted quickly to render care and arrange for paramedics.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: June 17, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit