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 Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 1725 hrs, Notifying Officer of Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) notified the SIU of Mr. Gino Petralia’s death. Notifying Officer was notified by the Duty Inspector at 1640 hrs, that shots were fired and a man had been shot by police. Notifying Officer stated a woman called DRPS and said she had been stabbed and the police responded. He stated an unidentified man attacked an adult man, an adult woman, and four children with a knife and hammer at a location, Oshawa. The unidentified man was confronted by Subject Officer and shot. The man who was shot by Subject Officer was taken to Lakeridge Health – Oshawa Division (LH-OD). The other man, woman, and children were also taken to LH- OD).

The investigation

On Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 1640 hrs, six SIU investigators and two forensic investigators (FIs) were assigned and immediately started an investigation. The first investigator arrived at the incident scene at 1835 hrs. The scene was videotaped, measured, and photographed, and the area was canvassed for witnesses. Scale drawings were prepared and witnesses were interviewed.

Subject Officer was designated as a subject officer. He waived his right to remain silent and was interviewed on December 2, 2008.

The following officers were designated as witness officers. They supplied copies of their notes and were interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Witness Officer #1 (November 30, 2008)
  • Witness Officer #2 (November 30, 2008)
  • Witness Officer #3 (November 30, 2008)
  • Witness Officer #4 (November 30, 2008)
  • Witness Officer #5 (November 30, 2008)
  • Witness Officer #6 (December 2, 2008)
  • Witness Officer #7 not interviewed, and
  • Witness Officer #8 not interviewed

SIU investigators received and reviewed the following materials from the DRPS:

  • Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Report
  • General Occurrence Report
  • 911 recordings
  • Dispatch recordings
  • Shift duty roster, and
  • Identification photos

The following civilian witnesses were interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (November 29, 2008)
  • Affected Person #1 (November 29, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (November 29, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (November 29, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #4 (November 29, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #5 (November 29, 2008)
  • Affected Person #2 (December 1, 2008), and
  • Civilian Witness #6 (December 2, 2008)

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

In my view there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the subject officer in this matter committed any criminal offence in shooting and killing Gino Petralia. Indeed I am satisfied that had the officer not done so, more people would have either been seriously injured or killed by Mr. Petralia.

In the late afternoon of November 29, 2008 the affected family were engaged in what appeared to be the ordinary events of a family leading up to Christmas. Mother and father were upstairs wrapping presents, their three sons and two other relatives (one of whom lived with them and the other who was visiting) were scattered through the house either watching television or playing computer or video games. The normalcy of this setting was quickly shattered by the arrival of Mr. Petralia who, armed with a knife, attacked Affected Person #2.

A violent struggle ensued within which Affected Person #2 was repeatedly stabbed. Affected Person #3 was also stabbed by Mr. Petralia when she intervened and attempted to protect herself, her husband and family by striking the attacker with a hammer. She was disarmed and Mr. Petralia turned his homicidal focus on Affected Person #3 and two of her sons. Sometime during this horrific scenario Affected Person #3 managed to call 911.

Mr. Petralia broke off his attack when a person (who was in the home) confronted him and asked him to stop. This worked but only momentarily. Affected Person #2 fled the home after believing that he had disarmed Mr. Petralia of the knife (he had but he did not know that Mr. Petralia had another strapped to his body) and alerted the first officer attending to what was happening.

The subject officer witnessed Mr. Petralia exit the family unit still armed with the hammer. The officer did not shoot Mr. Petralia at this point but was attempting to convince Mr. Petralia to disarm even when Mr. Petralia advanced upon the officer in a menacing manner. The subject officer nonetheless was aware of the potential for further injury and closely followed Mr. Petralia as he made his way to a neighbouring unit and forced his way inside.

There Mr. Petralia advanced on a seated man (as it turns out Affected Person #2’s father) and was obviously about to strike blows upon the seated man when the subject officer felt, quite justifiably, that he must shoot Mr. Petralia in order to end this horrific spree of violence.

Even when Mr. Petralia was shot he continued to resist the subject officer’s attempts to secure his hands and appeared to be reaching for something. As it turns out that something appears to be the second knife he had brought along.

Whatever caused the homicidal behaviour of Mr. Petralia it is clear that he was bent on mass murder that day and unfortunately he carried out his intent. Affected Persons #2 and #3 both lost their lives as did one of their young sons, despite the best efforts of these parents to protect their family. In my view had it not been for the actions of this subject officer more people would have been hurt if not killed. That being so I believe that the use of deadly force was legally justified in this situation and this tragic case is closed.

Date: January 9, 2009

James L. Cornish

Deputy Director

Special Investigations Unit