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 death of a 34-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 3, 2024, at 4:00 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

Earlier in the day, two TPS officers responded to the area of 520 Ellesmere Road because the Complainant was tearing windshield wiper blades off nearby vehicles. The officers confronted the Complainant, and he produced a hammer. One of the officers deployed his conducted energy weapon (CEW); however, it had no effect. The other officer then discharged a firearm, striking the Complainant in the chest. The Complainant was taken by ambulance to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC), where he was undergoing surgery. The SO was transported to Scarborough Health Network (Birchmount Hospital) and WO #1 was transported to Scarborough General Hospital. Neither TPS officer was believed to have suffered serious injuries.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/06/03 at 4:04 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/06/03 at 6:55 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

34-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between June 3, 2024, and June 7, 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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between June 4, 2024, and June 25, 2024.

Investigative Delay

The investigation was delayed because of resource pressures in the SIU’s investigative contingent and Director’s Office.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the parking lot of the building situated at 520 Ellesmere Road, Toronto.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

On June 3, 2024, at 6:55 p.m., SIU forensic investigators arrived on scene, located within a driveway of a medical complex at the intersection of Ellesmere Road and Principal Road. The driveway to Medix College, 520 Ellesmere Road, ran north from Ellesmere Road and was a continuation of Principal Road. The area of the scene was on the east side of the driveway, north of Ellesmere Road, and was secured with police tape. To the east of the driveway was a raised concrete curb with a garden patch planted with tall grasses. Further to the east was a vehicle parking lot, and to the west was additional vehicle parking and the multi-story Medix College.

Numerous TPS police cruisers were within the scene as follows.

A Ford Explorer (SUV), grey in colour (Vehicle #1). This was a marked police cruiser, displaying graphics as designed by the TPS. The police cruiser was oriented in a northerly direction on the east side of the driveway and north of Ellesmere Road. It was running with its emergency lighting activated. In the rear storage area of the police cruiser was a Crescent hammer - a 28-ounce claw hammer with the manufacturer’s tag attached.

A Ford Explorer (SUV), grey in colour (Vehicle #2). This was a marked police cruiser, displaying graphics as designed by the TPS. This police cruiser was oriented in a northerly direction and was north of Vehicle #1. The rear emergency lighting of the police cruiser was on. A green-handled wood file – Nicholson brand – was located east of the left rear wheel. A CEW probe – intact with Taser wiring and flattened – was located on the driveway north of this police cruiser.

A Ford Taurus 4-door, grey in colour (Vehicle #3). This was a marked police cruiser (WO #1 and the SO), displaying graphics as designed by the TPS. The driver’s window was in the down position. The police cruiser was oriented in a northerly direction, within the driveway, north of Vehicle #2. North of the police cruiser was a Winchester 40 caliber S&W cartridge case covered by a small pylon. To the right of the right front wheel against the curb was a pile of cut sweatshirts with attached CEW darts and wire.

A Ford Explorer (SUV), grey in colour (Vehicle #4). This was a marked police cruiser, displaying graphics as designed by the TPS. The police cruiser was oriented in a westerly direction at the north end of the scene. Located on the driver’s floor mat was a Taser Model 7 that contained two cartridge cases.

The following evidence was collected by SIU forensic investigators at 520 Ellesmere Road:

• One Winchester 40 caliber S&W cartridge case
• Four yellow CEW cartridge end caps
• CEW Taser Model 7 (returned to TPS after examination)
• Two deployed CEW cartridge cases
• Crescent claw hammer
• Green-handled file

Figure 1 – Hammer collected at scene

Figure 2 – File collected at scene

The scene was processed and photographed by SIU forensic investigators, and released at 10:25 p.m.

The following evidence was collected and / or examined by SIU forensic investigators at TPS 41 Division:

• Service pistol of the SO – Glock Model 22
• One Winchester 40 caliber S&W cartridge from breach of pistol
• One Glock magazine containing 12 Winchester 40 caliber cartridges
• Two Glock magazines located in a double magazine pouch on the SO’s duty belt, each containing 14 Winchester 40 caliber S&W cartridges (returned to TPS)

Figure 3 - The SO’s firearm

The following evidence was collected by a SIU forensic investigator at the post-mortem examination:

• Projectile recovered from the middle, right back area of the Complainant

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data - Taser 7 - WO #1

On June 3, 2024, 2:03:49 p.m.,[2] the trigger was pulled, Bay 1 was deployed, and electricity was discharged for 8.800 seconds.

At 2:03:53 p.m., the trigger was pulled, Bay 2 was deployed, and electricity was discharged for 4.932 seconds.[3]

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[4]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – WO #1

On June 3, 2024, at 3:03:22 p.m., the video began with WO #1 driving a police cruiser wearing black gloves. He pointed towards a building and, at 3:03:43 p.m., drove into the driveway of 520 Ellesmere Road.

At 3:03:47 p.m., the driver’s door of the police cruiser opened and a man - the Complainant - was observed standing with his hands in front of his body in the parking lot walking east from the building. WO #1 exited the police cruiser as the Complainant walked towards the vehicle with a claw hammer in his right hand raised above his right shoulder. The Complainant also had a dark thin object in his left hand raised above his waist and pointed forward.

At 3:03:50 p.m., the SO walked towards the Complainant from the front of the police cruiser as WO #1 had his CEW in a two-handed grip in front of him. The Complainant’s left hand went down to his left side and his right hand remained above his right shoulder.

At 3:03:52 p.m., WO #1 pointed his CEW at the Complainant as he began to walk backwards. The SO was seen with her firearm drawn. A red sedan leaving the parking lot was stopped in the driveway facing south as the Complainant walked past the back of it with both his hands raised.

At 3:03:53 p.m., the SO yelled, “Get down!” and WO #1 yelled, “Taser,” as he (the officer) continued walking backwards. The Complainant continued to walk towards WO #1 with the hammer raised above his right shoulder and the object in his left hand raised above his left shoulder. The Complainant walked towards WO #1 as the SO yelled, “Get back!” The Complainant suddenly ran towards WO #1.

At 3:03:55 p.m., the CEW wires from WO #1’s CEW extended towards the Complainant, and he fell to the pavement on his right side and yelled, “Ahhh!” The Complainant rolled onto his back as the electricity cycle of the CEW was heard. The SO approached from the driver’s side of the police cruiser and started to bring her firearm towards her holster.

At 3:03:58 p.m., WO #1 said, “Under power,” and the Complainant started to get up from the pavement. The SO yelled, “Drop it!” as the Complainant got up on his feet and the CEW electricity cycled. The SO ran backwards as the Complainant ran towards her holding the hammer with a two-handed grip above his head.

At 3:04:03 p.m., a gunshot was heard as WO #1 said, “Fuck,” and ran north along the driver’s side of the police cruiser. The SO stood north of the police cruiser with her firearm pointed down in front of her. The Complainant was laying on the pavement on his right side with his head towards the east curb. A hammer was laying on the pavement nearby as WO #1 walked towards the Complainant with his firearm pointed at him. The SO approached the Complainant along the east side of the driveway and WO #1 asked what was in the Complainant’s hand. She replied, “I don’t know,” and kicked the hammer further south in the driveway. WO #1 announced over the radio, “Shots fired, shots fired.”

At 3:04:17 p.m., WO #1 tended to the Complainant and announced on the radio, “Shots fired, I need EMS, subject has been shot.” A male voice was heard on the radio, “520 Ellesmere, in the parking lot, Medic College.” The Complainant was rolled onto his left side and WO #1 asked where he had been shot. The SO replied, “In the stomach.”

At 3:05:39 p.m., WO #1 spoke to Officer #1 and stated, “He had two weapons, taser deployed two times and firearm.”

At 3:07:05 p.m., WO #2 asked the SO how often the Complainant was hit. She stated, “Once, I shot once.”

At 3:10:50 p.m., WO #3 was on scene. WO #1 advised her that the SO had used lethal force.

At 3:13:37 p.m., an ambulance arrived. The paramedics were advised that the Complainant had been shot in the abdomen.

At 3:23:46 p.m., WO #1 turned off his BWC.

BWC Footage – The SO

On June 3, 2024, at 3:03:23 p.m., the video captured a police cruiser in motion. The police cruiser came to a stop, and the SO exited the passenger door and walked to the front of the police cruiser.

At 3:03:48 p.m., a man dressed in black - the Complainant - walked east in the driveway with his right hand raised to his shoulder and his left hand raised to chest level. Both hands had objects in them. As the Complainant continued to walk east in the driveway towards the driver’s side of the police cruiser, a claw hammer was observed in his right hand and an unknown object in his left hand.

At 3:03:51 p.m., WO #1 stood at the back of the police cruiser on the driver’s side with both hands raised and pointed at the Complainant. The Complainant’s left hand was pointed at WO #1 and his right hand was raised above his shoulder. The SO had her firearm (pistol) in her hands. The Complainant had both hands raised above his shoulders as he walked towards WO #1, who was walking backwards.

At 3:03:55 p.m., the SO walked along the passenger side of the police cruiser as WO #1 continued walking backwards towards a raised driveway curb on the east side of the driveway with the Complainant closing in on him. WO #1 had his CEW pointed at the Complainant, and the Complainant fell to the pavement on his right side. The wires from WO #1’s CEW were observed leading towards where the Complainant was laying.

At 3:03:59 p.m., the Complainant got up from the pavement with the hammer in both hands. The SO yelled, “Stop it!” as the Complainant ran towards her with the hammer raised above his head in a two-handed grip. The SO had her firearm pointed at the Complainant as she retreated backwards.

At 3:04:03 p.m., a single gunshot was heard, and the Complainant fell to the pavement on his back with his head pointed north. The Complainant rolled onto his right side with his arms across his stomach as WO #1 approached the Complainant. The SO continued to point her firearm at the Complainant. A hammer was seen laying in the driveway east of the Complainant on the pavement.

At 3:04:10 p.m., WO #1 approached the Complainant and yelled, “Drop it, drop it!” WO #1 stated, “What did you hit?” and the SO replied, “I don’t know, what’s in his hand.”

At 3:04:18 p.m., the SO picked up the hammer from the pavement as WO #1 attempted to gain control of the Complainant’s left hand. WO #1 spoke into his radio and stated, “Shots fired, need EMS,” as the SO assisted in controlling the Complainant’s right arm. The Complainant did not say anything. He was subsequently handcuffed, and first-aid commenced.

At 3:05:05 p.m., WO #1 asked where the Complainant was shot, and the SO replied, “In the stomach.” The Complainant was rolled onto his right side, exposing his left stomach area with what appeared to be a gunshot wound to the left side of his stomach. An unidentified police officer asked how many times he was shot, and the SO replied, “Once, I shot once.”

At 3:10:50 p.m., WO #1 spoke to a sergeant - WO #3 - and advised her that the SO had used lethal force, and he had used less-lethal force. WO #1 further stated that he deployed his CEW twice and the SO shot the Complainant. WO #3 escorted the SO to a police cruiser, and the SO sat in the front passenger seat.

At 3:12:54 p.m., an officer was with the SO at the passenger door of the police cruiser. He told her that he would walk her through what would happen, but not talk about the incident.

At 3:16:03 p.m., Officer #1 asked the SO who witnessed the shooting. WO #3 told Officer #1 that no statements were to be taken.

WO #3 seized the SO’s duty belt and firearm.

At 3:28:00 p.m., a police officer drove the police cruiser with the SO from the scene.

At 3:28:09 p.m., the video ended.

TPS Communications Recordings - 911 Calls

On June 3, 2024, a woman called 911 and advised that the police were needed on Ellesmere Road just west of Warden Avenue. She reported that a man was running around on the road trying to get into cars. She did not know the man’s name and had not seen him before. She said the man was breaking windshield wipers off of cars and, “Throwing himself on the street.” The 911 operator asked, “Do you think he’s having a mental crisis?” The caller replied, “Absolutely.” The 911 operator inquired if anyone was injured, and the caller replied, “Not as far as I know.” The caller went on to say that the man was trying to pull a woman out of her car, but she had escaped. The caller described the man.

At 2:51:26 p.m., a second woman called 911 and reported that “a drunk guy just tried to carjack me, I fought him off and pushed him to the ground.” The 911 operator asked, “Where did this happen?” She replied it occurred in the area of Ellesmere and Crocus. The 911 operator then asked how long ago it happened, and the caller said five to ten minutes. The 911 operator asked if there were any weapons involved. The caller advised that there were not and that “he just looked really drunk, randomly walking in the middle of Ellesmere”. The 911 operator asked, “How did he try to carjack you?” The caller replied, “He ran to my door and grabbed it to try and open it. I was trying to get it locked but he opened it. I pushed him to the ground, got back into the car and left.” She advised further that the man had two beers with him, and that he smelled of alcohol and was clearly “drunk”.

TPS Communications Recordings - Radio

At 2:48:30 p.m., June 3, 2024, TPS dispatch broadcast a call for a high priority response involving violent behaviour at Warden Avenue and Ellesmere Road. A description of a man was provided. Further information broadcast was that the man was running around in the roadway damaging vehicles, and he had tried to pull a woman from her car.

At 2:50:44 p.m., WO #1 volunteered to attend the area.

At 3:03:34 p.m., the SO advised dispatch that they had located the man at “1520” Ellesmere [now know to be 520 Ellesmere Road].

At 3:04:06 p.m., WO #1 broadcast, “Shots fired, shots fired,” over the radio.

At 3:04:26 p.m., a male TPS officer requested an ambulance and stated, “Subject’s been shot.”

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between June 4, 2024, and June 21, 2024:

• Names, badge numbers, and roles of involved police officers
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• General Occurrence and Supplementary Reports
• BWC footage
• Communications recordings
• Use of Force and Firearms training records - the SO
• CEW deployment data - WO #1

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between June 5, 2024, and June 6, 2024:

• Dashboard camera video – CW #5
• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from Ontario Forensic Pathology Service

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

The Complainant was of unsound mind in the afternoon of June 3, 2024. While on foot in the area of Warden Avenue and Ellesmere Road, he was disrupting traffic, had torn the windshield wipers off one or more vehicles, and had attempted to carjack a vehicle waiting to turn onto Ellesmere Road from Crocus Drive (west of Warden Avenue). The Complainant had also entered the Home Depot on Ellesmere Road, east of Warden Avenue, and stolen a hammer and metal file. Citizens affected by this behaviour called 911.

The SO was partnered with WO #1 when they heard of the 911 calls over the radio. They were in the vicinity and decided to attend the area to locate the Complainant. With WO #1 driving, the officers made their way onto Ellesmere Road and travelled east, east of Warden Avenue. They were flagged by Home Depot employees, who were pointing in the direction of the Complainant. The Complainant had turned left into the driveway of the parking lot east of the building at 520 Ellesmere Road. He was holding a hammer in his right hand, and a metal file in his left. WO #1 turned left, bringing the cruiser to a stop facing north a short distance into the driveway.

WO #1 exited the cruiser and was confronted by the Complainant west of his location. The Complainant walked towards the officer, the hammer held high in his right hand, the file in his left. WO #1 drew his CEW, pointed it at the Complainant and backed up to a position behind the cruiser. The SO had exited the cruiser and had her firearm out. She tracked the Complainant as he advanced on WO #1, repeatedly telling him to “get back”. The Complainant continued to approach WO #1 and was within about three metres of the officer when he fired his CEW twice. The second of the discharges caused the Complainant to fall to the ground.

The Complainant rose to his feet within two to three seconds of falling, turned towards the SO, several metres to his north, and started to run at her, the hammer held high. The SO ran backwards along the passenger side of the cruiser. The parties had just cleared the front end of the cruiser when the SO fired a single shot. The Complainant was no more than a metre or two from the officer at the time. He was struck in the torso and immediately felled by the shot.

WO #1 and the SO approached the Complainant and handcuffed him. Additional officers arrived on scene and first-aid was administered.

The Complainant was transported to hospital in ambulance and subsequently pronounced deceased.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to a penetrating gunshot wound to the abdomen.

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 passed away on June 3, 2024, the result of a gunshot fired by a TPS officer. 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 Complainant’s death.

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.

WO #1 and the SO were engaged in the lawful execution of their duties through the series of events that culminated in the shooting. Aware of his erratic and violent behaviour, the officers were within their rights in attending at the scene to do what they could to take the Complainant into custody and ensure public safety.

There is no doubt that the SO fired her weapon believing it was necessary to protect herself from a reasonably apprehended attack by the Complainant. The officer did not provide that evidence firsthand to the SIU, as was her legal right, but the circumstances surrounding the events in question lead inexorably to that inference. The Complainant had just threatened her partner, advancing on him with purpose while brandishing a hammer and file, and he was now running towards her with the same weapons. There could be little doubt that the SO was at imminent risk of attack and that defensive action was necessary to preserve herself.

There is also no doubt that the SO’s choice of defensive force, namely, a single gunshot, was reasonable. Knowing what she knew of the Complainant’s behaviour prior to police arrival, and knowing that her partner’s CEW discharges had not proven effective in deterring the Complainant, it would have been apparent to the officer that her life hung in the balance if action was not taken to stop the Complainant’s advance. The hammer in the Complainant’s hands was clearly capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm or death, and nothing short of the immediate stopping power of a firearm would do in the circumstances. It should be noted that the SO did attempt to create distance from the Complainant, but he was closing the gap and was within striking range at the time of the shot. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO acted unreasonably when she met a threat of lethal force with a resort to lethal force of her own.

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

Date: March 6, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit