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, April 19, 2005 at 0309 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the custody death of 46-year-old Deceased. It was understood by Notifying Officer that at about 0136 hrs, Deceased, a homeless person, was seen disrobing while darting in and out of traffic on a downtown street. The TPS was notified and responded to the scene. Shortly after arriving, a struggle ensued between TPS officers and Deceased. Deceased was subdued and moments later became breathless and went vital signs absent (VSA). An ambulance rushed Deceased to a nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead shortly after arriving.

The Investigation

Four SIU investigators and three SIU Forensic Identification Technicians (FIT) were dispatched to the incident scene and arrived within two hours. The SIU FIT videotaped and photographed the relevant areas, collected biological evidence, and went to Deceased’s post mortem examination on April 20, 2005.

SIU investigators interviewed a number of civilian witnesses, including ambulance personnel, and liaised with the TPS.

As a result of the preliminary SIU probe, the following TPS officers were designated subject officers:

  • Subject Officer #1
  • Subject Officer #2
  • Witness Officer #1

Witness Officer #1 was later re-designated as a witness officer based on additional information, which suggested that he/she was not involved in the restraint of Deceased.

The two subject officers, on the advice of counsel, refused to be interviewed by the SIU. The following TPS members were designated witness officers and interviewed on the noted dates:

  • Witness Officer #1 (June 6, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #2 (May 2, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #3 (May 2, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #4 (May 2, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #5 (May 2, 2005)
  • TPS Civilian Witness (May 2, 2005)

Upon request, the TPS provided the SIU with the following material:

  • Copy of the communication tape relating to the incident
  • Copy of the CAD printout relating to the incident, and
  • Sensitive Personal Information

During this investigation, the following civilian witnesses were interviewed on the noted dates:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (April 19, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (April 19, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (April 19, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #4 (April 19, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #5 (May 19, 2005)

Confidential 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 any of the officers involved in this case committed any criminal offence.

On April 19, 2005, members of the TPS were called to a location near St. Michael’s Hospital in downtown Toronto. There they saw Deceased acting in a bizarre, uncontrolled manner. They tried to calm him down but were unsuccessful. They then attempted to arrest him under the Mental Health Act and when they tried, he struggled. EMS personnel and a parking enforcement officer tried to assist the officers but no one was able to calm Deceased down. There is absolutely no evidence of excessive force being used by any of the officers or indeed, anyone else.

Just as the officers got him under control, Deceased stopped breathing and lost all vital signs. All attempts to save Deceased’s life failed. He died shortly thereafter in St. Michael’s Hospital.

The post-mortem examination in this case revealed no anatomical cause of death; however the toxicological tests performed on Deceased’s blood showed significantly elevated levels of cocaine and its metabolite.

Accordingly, while it will be for others to determine the exact cause of Deceased’s death, the evidence in this case satisfies me that no officer caused Deceased’s death.

July 12, 2005

Original signed by

James L. Cornish
Director
Special Investigations Unit