SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-TFP-410

Warning:

This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.

Mandate of the SIU

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.

Information Restrictions

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.

Mandate Engaged

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 at a 38-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On September 25, 2024, at 3:59 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On September 25, 2024, at 1:48 p.m., TPS officers responded to a call for service involving a suicidal woman at an address near Eglinton Avenue West and Kipling Avenue, Toronto. When officers arrived at the door, the Complainant came out with a knife. The Subject Official (SO) discharged a less-lethal shotgun at the Complainant. The shot missed and struck the door frame. The Complainant was apprehended under the Mental Health Act (MHA) and taken to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/09/26 at 8:30 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/09/26 at 9:00 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

38-year-old female; interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on October 1, 2024.

Subject Official

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

Witness Official

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed not necessary

The witness officials were interviewed on October 4, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired within the confines of an apartment near Eglinton Avenue West and Kipling Avenue, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

The apartment featured a large foyer leading to various rooms. A Remington R-870 shotgun with an orange stock and slide was found propped against a wall near a bedroom. An empty shotgun round was found on the living room floor near the kitchen, and a lime green mark from a discharged bean bag was observed on a door frame. The bean bag itself was recovered from the southeast corner of a bedroom.

In the living room, a black-handled knife measuring 31.5 cm in total length, with a 19 cm blade, was discovered near the northeast corner.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Communications Recordings

The Complainant contacted the TPS in distress stating she was suicidal. During the call, she disclosed that she had a knife and intended to harm herself. Shortly after, the call was disconnected, and attempts to reach her went directly to voicemail. The Complainant also contacted 32 Division, indicating her intent to take her life. Paramedics were dispatched to her residence but, initially, no TPS officers were available to respond to the call.

WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and the SO were assigned to attend the Complainant’s residence

Upon arrival, WO #2 reported via radio that they had made contact with the Complainant, who was holding a large knife. The officers were equipped with a conducted energy weapon, C8 rifle, and a less-lethal option.

WO #2 further updated that WO #1 was speaking with the Complainant, who continued to hold the knife to her throat. After a period of negotiation, the Complainant was safely apprehended, and the knife was secured. During the incident, a less-lethal shotgun had been discharged by the SO, though the Complainant was not struck.

Following her apprehension, the Complainant was transported to Etobicoke General Hospital for further care.

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - WO #2

The footage began on September 25, 2024, at 1:26:44 p.m.

Starting at about 1:27 p.m., WO #2 entered the lobby with WO #1. They were met by a paramedic, who briefed them that the door to the apartment was open and the Complainant was armed with a large knife, threatening to kill herself. WO #1 and WO #2 proceeded to the Complainant’s apartment.

Starting at about 1:31 p.m., WO #2 had a visual into the apartment; the door was partially open. A paramedic stretcher was blocking the door on the hallway side. The Complainant stood at the end of a hallway inside the apartment, holding a knife to her throat. She was shouting that she wanted to be killed and shot with a gun. She was holding a knife to her neck doing cutting motions. She then lifted her shirt and placed the knife to her stomach doing stabbing motions.

Starting at about 1:39 p.m., the SO and WO #3 arrived. WO #2 entered the apartment with WO #3 in front of him and the SO behind him. He observed the Complainant at the door of a bedroom. The Complainant was in distress and yelling.

Starting at about 1:43 p.m., the Complainant sat on the bed holding a knife to her neck as the officers continued talking to her.

Starting at about 1:47:51 p.m., the Complainant stood up from her bed and began closing the door of the bedroom. At 1:47:52 p.m., the SO discharged the less-lethal shotgun once. The projectile hit the left side of the door frame and did not contact the Complainant. The sound startled the Complainant, and she dropped the knife and went onto the bed.

Starting at about 1:48 p.m., WO #3 placed handcuffs on the Complainant. She was secured on a stretcher and examined by paramedics.

Starting at about 1:52 p.m., the paramedics left the apartment with the Complainant and WO #2.

TPS BWC Footage - The SO

The BWC commenced on September 25, 2024, at 1:42:26 p.m., with the Complainant shouting, “[…] There was no help, there was nowhere for me to go. I am not going to a hospital, please just shoot me.”

Starting at about 1:43 p.m., the Complainant stood at the door to a bedroom holding a knife to her throat. She was observed sitting on a bed, still holding a knife to her throat.

Starting at about 1:47:51 p.m., the Complainant stood up from her bed and began closing the door to the bedroom. The SO discharged the less-lethal shotgun once. The projectile hit the left side of the door frame and did not contact the Complainant. The sound startled the Complainant, and she dropped the knife and retreated onto bed.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between October 1, 2024, and October 9, 2024:

  • General Occurrence Report;
  • Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
  • BWC footage;
  • In-car camera footage;
  • Notes – WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4;
  • Communications recordings; and
  • TPS History – the Complainant.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses, and video footage that 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.

TPS officers were dispatched to an address near Eglinton Avenue West and Kipling Avenue, Toronto, in the afternoon of September 25, 2024. The Complainant had called the police to report that she had a knife and was intent on harming herself.

WO #1 and WO #2 were the first to arrive on scene. They were followed shortly by the SO and WO #3. From the hallway, officers attempted to negotiate with the Complainant, whom they could see inside the apartment through the partially open front door. She was holding a knife, variously pointed at her neck and abdomen.

The Complainant was distressed. She could not be persuaded to drop the knife by the officers and, instead, retreated further into the apartment.

WO #3, WO #2 and the SO entered the apartment when the Complainant left their line of sight and found her in a bedroom. She continued to hold the knife in her right hand threatening to harm herself with it. Shortly after her entry into the bedroom, the Complainant approached the bedroom door to close it. At about that time, she was startled by a bean bag round that had been fired by one of the officers. Though it did not strike her, the discharge was enough to convince her to drop the knife.

The SO had fired the bean bag from her less-lethal shotgun. The time was about 1:47 p.m., approximately 17 minutes from when the officers first arrived at the apartment.

The Complainant was taken into custody shortly after the SO fired her weapon without further incident. She had not sustained any serious injury.

Relevant Legislation

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.

Analysis and Director’s Decision

On September 25, 2024, the TPS notified the SIU that an officer had fired a less-lethal shotgun at a woman – the Complainant – in the course of the woman’s apprehension. 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 use of the less-lethal shotgun.

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.

There is evidence that the Complainant’s suicidal ideations were the result of mental illness. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the SO and her colleagues were within their rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody under section 17 of the Mental Health Act so she could be assessed at hospital.

I am also satisfied that the SO comported herself lawfully when she fired her less-lethal shotgun at the Complainant. The officers had attempted to de-escalate the situation peacefully through communications from a distance. They were willing to give negotiations a chance to work even as the Complainant held the knife to her person. What it seems the officers were not willing to do was forego a chance to bring the standoff to a safe resolution by losing an opportunity to disarm the Complainant from a distance. That, it seems to me, was a reasonable posture, particularly as a direct physical engagement would have risked the knife being brought into play to cause harm to the officers or the Complainant. Accordingly, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO acted precipitously when she fired her less-lethal shotgun at the Complainant as she was closing the bedroom door.

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

Date: January 22, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

  • 1) Unless otherwise specified, the information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s findings of fact following its investigation. [Back to text]
  • 2) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]

Note:

The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.