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 injuries of a 32-year-old man (the Complainant).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 23, 2024, at 7:45 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of a TPS-involved shooting.

According to the TPS, at 7:15 p.m., TPS officers responded to information about a male with a knife at Carlton Street and Parliament Street, Toronto. A police officer discharged a firearm, and a male [subsequently identified the Complainant] was struck. No further details were available at the time of notification.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/07/23 at 8:11 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/23 at 9:30 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

32-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on August 3, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between July 24 and 26, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Not interviewed; notes and body-worn camera (BWC) footage reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes and BWC footage reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness official was interviewed on August 6, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the north sidewalk and roadway of Carlton Street, Toronto, in the area of Carlton Street and Parliament Street.

Scene Diagram

The following SIU diagram depicts the area of interaction.

Physical Evidence

On July 23, 2024, at 9:30 p.m., SIU investigators arrived at the scene. The scene was protected by uniformed police officers from TPS.

Carlton Street was aligned in a general east-west direction. The area of interaction occurred on the north sidewalk and roadway of Carlton Street.

On July 23, 2024, the firearm, bullets and magazine issued to the SO were collected by the SIU. Five firearm shell casings were located at the scene.

The SO’s service-issued Glock magazine was capable of holding 15 rounds. There were nine rounds identified remaining in the SO’s firearm / magazine. Her two spare magazines contained 15 rounds each. BWC footage suggested that five shots were fired, and five used cartridge shells were located on the roadway.

The photographs below were taken of the SO’s Glock firearm, one used magazine, two spare magazines, and the remaining rounds located in the used magazine and breech of the weapon.

SO’s firearm and ammunition.">

Figure 1- The SO’s firearm and ammunition

SO’s spare firearm magazines.">

Figure 2 - The SO’s spare firearm magazines

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – WO #1

On July 23, 2024, at 6:16:06 p.m.,[2] the CEW was activated.

At 6:16:12 p.m., the trigger was pulled. Electricity was discharged for .06 seconds.

At 6:16:13 p.m., the trigger was pulled again, and electricity was discharged for nearly five seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

TPS BWC Footage – The SO, WO #1, WO #3, and WO #2

On July 23, 2024, at 7:16:14 p.m., the SO and WO #1 arrived on Carlton Steet. CW #1 was captured walking past the Complainant, who sat on the steps of a building. The Complainant subsequently stood up. He had a knife held in front of him at the abdomen and walked towards the officers.

At 7:16:26 p.m., the SO drew her firearm and WO #1 drew her CEW. Both pointed their weapons at the Complainant and told him to drop the knife. The Complainant started to approach the curb. Both the SO and WO #1 backed away and the Complainant lowered the knife to the right side of his body. Both officers told him to drop the knife and said they wanted to help him. The Complainant said, “No.”

At 7:16:32 p.m., the Complainant ran towards the SO. The SO discharged her firearm and WO #1 discharged the CEW. The Complainant continued towards the SO, who discharged her firearm several more times in quick succession.

The Complainant fell to the road still holding the knife in his right hand. WO #1 again told the Complainant to drop the knife. WO #1 held the Complainant’s left arm and threw the knife away. WO #1 requested a rush on an ambulance and indicated that shots had been fired. The Complainant yelled that he wanted to die. WO #3 and WO #2 arrived along with a nurse, all of whom assisted in providing first-aid until paramedics arrived.

At 7:29:47 p.m., the Complainant was placed in the rear of an ambulance. During transport, he told paramedics that he tried to get the police to shoot him. He had a knife in his hand and tried to kill himself.

TPS Communications[4]

On July 23, 2024, a female called 911 and reported a man [the Complainant] crying and holding a knife. Shortly after, she said police had arrived and, in a panicked voice, “They tazed him, he’s okay, the police are with him.”

At 7:14:09 p.m., dispatch requested a crew to respond for the Complainant who had asked a passerby to call 911. He had a knife in his hand, was cut from the neck and crying.

At 7:16:33 p.m., the SO and WO #1 responded and requested an ambulance.

At 7:17:19 p.m., WO #1 advised shots had been fired.

Video Footage – Building #1 and Building #2

At 6:55:23 p.m., the Complainant was visible with blood on the front of his shirt and a knife in his left hand. He walked and eventually sat on the front steps of a building, placing the knife down next to him on the step.

At 7:16:23 p.m., the Complainant picked the knife up with his left hand and walked towards the curb before pausing and then running onto the street.

Civilian witnesses ran or fled for cover.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between July 24, 2024, and August 16, 2024:

• BWC footage;
• In-car camera footage;
• Communications recordings;
• CAD Report;
• General Occurrence Report;
• CEW deployment data - WO #1;
• Video footage – Building #2;
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3;
• Policies – Use of Force & Persons in Crisis; and
• Training records – the SO.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

Between July 23, 2024, and August 19, 2024, the SIU obtained the following records from the other sources:

• Video footage – Building #1; and
• The Complainant’s medical records from SMH.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was her legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of her notes.

In the evening of July 23, 2024, the SO and her partner, WO #1, were dispatched to an address on Carlton Street in the area of Parliament Street. A female passerby had contacted police to report a male in the area who was bleeding.

The male was the Complainant. The Complainant was of unsound mind at the time. He had cut himself in the neck with a knife before asking for help from passersby on Carlton Street.

The SO and WO #1 arrived on scene at about 7:16 p.m., parking their cruiser a distance from the Complainant’s location. The Complainant was sitting on a step of the front stoop of a building, a knife by his side. As the officers approached his location on foot, the Complainant took possession of the knife and rose to his feet. The officers drew their weapons – the SO, her firearm, and WO #1, her CEW – and ordered the Complainant to drop the knife. The Complainant began to advance on the officers with the knife held in front of him as the officers retreated towards their cruiser. When the Complainant started to run in the direction of the SO, at a distance of about eight to ten metres from the officer, she fired her weapon two to four times.[5] At about the same time, WO #1 discharged her CEW. It is unclear whether either weapon struck the Complainant, who continued his advance on the SO. The officer fired an additional three times, striking and felling the Complainant onto the roadway.

The officers moved in, handcuffed the Complainant and, with the arrival of additional officers, started to apply first-aid. Paramedics arrived on scene and transported the Complainant to hospital.

The Complainant had been struck twice – once in the left arm and once in the lower right abdomen. He would recover from his wounds in hospital.

Section 34, Criminal Code - Defence of Person – 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.

(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.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

The Complainant was seriously injured in Toronto on July 23, 2024, the result, in part, of police gunfire. The SIU was notified of the incident and 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 shooting.

Section 34 of the Criminal Code provides that conduct that would otherwise constitute an offence is legally justified if it was intended to deter a reasonably apprehended assault, actual or threatened, and was itself reasonable. The reasonableness of the conduct is to be assessed in light of all the relevant circumstances, including with respect to such considerations as the nature of the force or threat; 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; whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon; and, the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force.

In the instant case, I am satisfied that the SO fired her weapon intending to defend herself from a reasonably apprehended attack. Though the officer, as was her legal right, did not provide that evidence firsthand to the SIU, the circumstances surrounding the shooting naturally give rise to the inference. Simply put, the Complainant was approaching the SO with a knife in hand in a fashion that could only be described as threatening.

I am also satisfied that the force the SO used to defend herself, namely, gunfire, constituted reasonable force in the circumstances. The SO was confronted with a lethal threat – a male brandishing a knife and advancing in her direction. The officer had tried to deter his advance with verbal direction while retreating to give her more time and space to work with. A complete withdrawal from the scene was not a viable option given the presence of civilians in the area. Nor was a resort to lesser force necessarily a better recourse, as the ineffectiveness of WO #1’s CEW discharge made clear. What was required in the split seconds that the SO had to defend herself was the stopping power of firearm. On this record, the first two shots the officer fired were commensurate with the exigencies of the situation. When that failed to deter the Complainant, the officer was within her rights in firing a second volley of shots for precisely the same reasons.

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

Date: November 6, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit