Explanatory note

The Ontario Government is releasing past SIU Director Reports (submitted to the Attorney General prior to May 2017) that include fatalities involving a firearm, physical altercation, and/or use of conducted energy weapon, or other extensive police interaction that did not result in a criminal charge.

Justice Michael H. Tulloch made recommendations about the release of past SIU Director Reports in the Report of the Independent Police Oversight Review, released on April 6, 2017.

Justice Tulloch explained that since past reports were not originally drafted for public release they may have to be edited substantially to protect sensitive information. He took into account that confidentiality assurances were given to various witnesses during the course of SIU investigations, and recommended that some information be redacted in the interests of privacy, safety, and security.

As recommended by Justice Tulloch, this explanatory note is being provided to assist the reader’s understanding of why certain information is redacted in these reports. Notes have also been inserted throughout the reports to help describe the nature of the information that was redacted and why it was redacted.

Law enforcement and personal privacy information considerations

Consistent with Justice Tulloch’s recommendations and guided by section 14 of the Freedom of Information and Protection to Privacy Act (FIPPA) (relating to law enforcement information), portions of these reports have been removed to protect:

  • confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by the SIU
  • information whose release could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding
  • witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation, provided to the SIU in confidence

Consistent with Justice Tulloch’s recommendations and guided by section 21 of FIPPA (relating to personal privacy information), personal information, including sensitive personal information, has also been redacted, except that which is necessary to explain the rationale for the Director’s decision. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

  • subject officer name(s)
  • witness officer name(s)
  • civilian witness name(s)
  • location information
  • other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation, including in relation to children
  • witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation, provided to the SIU in confidence

Personal health information

Information related to the personal health of individuals that is unrelated to the Director’s decision (taking into consideration the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004) has been redacted.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may have also been excluded from these reports 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.

Director’s report

Notification of the SIU

On Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 0144 hrs, Notifying Officer of the York Regional Police Service (YRPS) notified the SIU of the firearm death of a male suspect, later identified as Mr. Jeffrey Black. Notifying Officer reported that officers of the YRPS had attempted to stop a fleeing van. The van collided with another motor vehicle at the intersection of Esna Park Dr. and Alden Rd. in Markham. Three suspects then fled from the vehicle and were chased on foot by the police. One suspect was apprehended a short distance from the van and officers chased the remaining suspects on foot.

In the area of 30 Alden Rd., Mr. Black brandished a knife at Subject Officer. An altercation took place between Subject Officer and Mr. Black, resulting in Subject Officer sustaining a stab wound to his head. Subject Officer continued to pursue Mr. Black on foot and they were eventually joined by Witness Officer #1. Mr. Black, still armed with the knife, was pepper sprayed by Witness Officer #1 with no effect. As Mr. Black attempted to stab Witness Officer #1, he was shot by Subject Officer.

Mr. Black was transported by York Regional Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Paramedics to the Scarborough Grace Hospital and pronounced dead.

The investigation

On Tuesday October 18, 2005 at 0202 hrs, four SIU investigators and three SIU FIT were dispatched to Markham and commenced an investigation. The investigators met with YRPS liaison officer, Notifying Officer who provided a briefing. As a result of information provided by Notifying Officer, Subject Officer was designated as a subject officer.

On October 31, 2005, Subject Officer, accompanied by his counsel Counsel, supplied copies of his duty notes and was interviewed by the SIU on audiotape.

SIU FIT videotaped, photographed and completed a Total Station mapping of the scene located in the paved parking lot to the north of 30 Alden Rd. SIU FIT located and seized samples of bloodstains, two spent 40 cal. cases, a silver metal knife and items of clothing from the scene.

The body of Mr. Black was sealed by SIU FIT and transported to the Forensic Morgue at the Coroner’s building in Toronto for a post mortem examination to be conducted by Dr. Doctor.

Later that same day, Dr. Doctor performed a post mortem examination on Mr. Black’s body and he/she determined that the cause of death was “gunshot wounds to the torso with perforating injury to inferior vena cava and right common iliac artery.”

The items seized by SIU FIT were sent to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) for examination to determine the approximate distance between the subject officer and Mr. Black when he was shot. After sending these items to the CFS, the witness officer and subject officer were interviewed by SIU investigators. Both officers said that Mr. Black was within feet of them when the subject officer shot him. At the time of writing of this report, CFS examination results had not been received.

SIU investigators interviewed the following witness officers on the dates indicated:

  • Witness Officer #1 (October 19, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #2 (October 20, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #3 (October 22, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #4 (October 22, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #5 (October 23, 2005), and
  • Witness Officer #6 (October 23, 2005)

SIU Investigators interviewed the following civilian witnesses on the dates indicated:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (October 18, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (October 18, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (October 19, 2003)
  • Civilian Witness #4 (October 26, 2005), and
  • Civilian Witness #5 (November 23, 2005)

Throughout the investigation the YRPS provided numerous copies of documentary and videotape-recorded information. The relevant material provided to the SIU for review is listed below:

  • Communications recordings
  • Aerial scene photos
  • Memo book duty notes of Witness Officer #1
  • Memo book duty notes of Witness Officer #2
  • Memo book duty notes of Witness Officer #3
  • Memo book duty notes of Witness Officer #5
  • Memo book duty notes of Subject Officer
  • Memo book duty notes of Witness Officer #3
  • Memo book duty notes of Witness Officer #4
  • Mr. Black’s CPIC printout
  • Civilian Witness #1 CPIC printout
  • Civilian Non-Witness CPIC printout
  • Incident Reports from various police services throughout Ontario relating to offences Sensitive Personal Information
  • YRPS Incident Report
  • Toronto Police Service (TPS) stolen motor vehicle occurrence report
  • Call history for incident ----redacted
  • Call history for incident ----redacted
  • YRPS motor vehicle accident report
  • YRPS Mobile Work Station (MWS) communication reports, and
  • YRPS crime scene continuity report

Throughout the investigation the SIU also obtained and reviewed the following materials:

  • Videotape recorded security footage from the Estee Lauder plant (near the incident scene)
  • Ambulance Call Report (ACR) for medical treatment by Paramedics for Mr. Black
  • ACR for medical treatment by Paramedics for Subject Officer
  • Mr. Black’s Probation history, and
  • Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) in custody misconduct records of Sensitive Personal Information

Witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence (Law Enforcement and Privacy Considerations)

Director’s decision under s. 113(7) of the Police Services Act

There are no reasonable grounds to believe that the subject officer committed any criminal offence in this case.

The early morning of October 18, 2005 started as a routine one. Two officers went to investigate a possible entry at an industrial mall in York Region and while doing their notes in their cruisers after checking the property they saw some suspicious driving by some men in a van. They followed the van and the van fled. It crashed into another van being driven by an unsuspecting citizen who was on his way home from work. The three men from the van split up and ran. Mr. Black was one of those men. The subject officer followed him on foot.

There were two confrontations between Mr. Black and the police that night. The first one involved just Mr. Black and the subject officer. In the course of that confrontation Mr. Black taunted the officer, daring him to shoot and at one point attacked the officer. The officer thought that he was being punched when in fact he was being stabbed. The officer only noticed the knife in Mr. Black’s hand once the stabbing started.

The officer had his firearm out before the stabbing but had holstered it when he thought that the confrontation was an empty handed one. By the time the officer realized that Mr. Black had a knife, he had no real opportunity to pull his gun; he was by then engaged in a life and death struggle with Mr. Black.

Mr. Black broke off the attack and the officer drew his gun yet again. Mr. Black appeared unfazed and continued to taunt the officer telling him to shoot, daring him to shoot. The officer, no longer fearing death or serious bodily harm, believed that he had no authority to use lethal force at that particular time and did not shoot.

Mr. Black and the officer worked their way around to the rear of an industrial mall and there the final confrontation unfolded. It was here where another officer cut off Mr. Black’s only route of escape and it is here that the YRPS helicopter illuminated Mr. Black in its spotlight. It is here that Mr. Black swung out at the other officer and fearing for the life of the other officer, the subject officer shot and killed Mr. Black.

The officers ensured that Mr. Black was no longer a threat and then tried to save his life. They were unsuccessful.

The SIU recovered Mr. Black’s knife. The subject officer had been injured in the initial attack but the injury was not as great as it would have been had the officer not been wearing his bulletproof vest and had he not been able to fight Mr. Black off. It is unfortunate that the subject officer did not realize that his radio was not on throughout this incident. The officer did not realize that none of his broadcasts were being heard and furthermore, the officer heard none of the broadcasts from the helicopter or other officers.

In summary, based upon the evidence gathered in the course of this thorough investigation, I believe that the officer in this case showed a keen awareness of his duties as a police officer and adjusted his choices of force options appropriately to meet the situation with which he is confronted. It was only when he reasonably believed that Mr. Black was about to kill or seriously injure another officer that the subject officer felt he had no choice but to shoot Mr. Black.

Date: December 7, 2005

James L. Cornish

Director

Special Investigations Unit