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 Friday, January 14, 2005 at 0336 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the custody death of 34-year-old Mr. Paulo Medeiros. It was Insp Raybould’s understanding that sometime before 0200 hrs, TPS 12 Division drug squad officers executed a drug search warrant at a location in the west end of Toronto. At 0207 hrs, a member of the drug team requested an ambulance for a person (Mr. Medeiros) having trouble breathing. At 0217 hrs, Mr. Medeiros was taken to a nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead shortly after.

The investigation

On January 14, 2005 at 0400 hrs, six SIU investigators and four Forensic Investigative Technicians (FIT) were dispatched to a location. The first investigator arrived at the address within an hour. The FIT carried out an exhaustive forensic examination in and around a location. This included videotaping, photographing, and the seizure of both physical and biological evidence. Because of the complexities inherent in the investigation, members of the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) attended the address and conducted a number of examinations, including bloodstain pattern interpretation. Members of the SIU went to the post mortem examination of Mr. Medeiros.

The SIU carried out an extensive canvass in and around a location. Over the next several weeks, numerous witnesses were identified and interviewed. As a result of the preliminary SIU investigation, the following TPS officers were designated as subject officers:

  • Subject Officer #1
  • Subject Officer #2
  • Subject Officer #3
  • Subject Officer #4
  • Subject Officer #5
  • Subject Officer #6
  • Subject Officer #7
  • Subject Officer #8
  • Subject Officer #9

On April 14, 2005, Subject Officer #1, Subject Officer #2 and Subject Officer #3 all provided statements and their duty notes to the SIU. The remaining six subject officers refused to be interviewed by the SIU.

In addition, the following TPS officers were designated as witness officers, all of whom provided a statement and copies of their duty notes to the SIU on the noted dates:

  • Witness Officer #1 (February 9, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #2 (February 9, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #3 (February 9, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #4 (February 9, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #5 (February 17, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #6 (February 17, 2005)

Upon request the TPS provided the SIU with the following:

  • Copy of a TPS communication tape relevant to the incident
  • Copy of TPS CAD printout relevant to the incident
  • Copy of TPS GPS printout relevant to the incident
  • Copies of TPS arrest forms relevant to the incident
  • Copy of search warrant left behind at house (bears an endorsement allowing nighttime entry):
  • Numerous pieces of TPS equipment, including service pistols, ammunition, duty belts, gloves etc. worn by the subject officers at the time of the incident, and
  • Copies of other TPS rules, regulations, occurrences and reports felt to be relevant by the SIU investigators

During the lengthy SIU probe a total of sixty-one (61) civilian witnesses including the Deceased’s relatives and acquaintances, paramedics, firefighters and medical experts were interviewed. The complexity of certain evidence examined and tested by both the CFS and the Coroner’s office resulted in a substantial delay in the SIU completing its investigation.

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 subject officers in this case committed any criminal offence. Although the exhaustive investigation of this Unit has been unsuccessful in disclosing the exact means and mechanism of Mr. Medeiros’ death, the investigation has ruled out any criminal act by the officers as being the cause. In other words, although the evidence does not allow me to state definitively what caused Mr. Medeiros’ death, this Unit has examined all the circumstances surrounding his death and based upon that investigation I do not believe the officers committed any criminal act that caused his death.

In the early morning hours of January 14, 2005, various members of the TPS special task force obtained sufficient information to secure a search warrant for a location. That warrant authorized the search of the premises for marihuana, based upon the information the police had that marihuana was being trafficked from that house.

The officers believed that there were many occupants of the house and that some were children, so they chose an early morning time for the search so as to minimize the danger to children. The warrant allowed for nighttime entry into the house. They also were concerned about possible resistance to their entry into and search of the residence, so they decided to enter without prior warning by breaking open the front door and entering quickly. This they were able to do while yelling “Police, search warrant.” Because of the risks associated with drug searches, all officers had their firearms drawn as they entered the house.

When the officers got to the main floor bedroom its door opened and then quickly started to close. The officer nearest the door feared what might happen if the door closed so he/she tried to stop it with one hand. The door closed on his/her hand, crushing it and causing significant injury.

Notwithstanding that injury, the officer forced the door open and entered a dark room (lit only by the officer’s flashlight) and was met by an angry and combative Mr. Medeiros. Mr. Medeiros was 5’8” tall and weighed 300 pounds. The officers who struggled with him described Mr. Medeiros as powerful.

The first officer commenced the struggle, continuously identifying himself/herself as police and ordering Mr. Medeiros to stop resisting. Mr. Medeiros refused to obey. During that struggle the first officer lost his/her gun. It was later recovered. Another officer entered the melee and he/she too was unable to control Mr. Medeiros. Sensitive Personal Information The officers recall hearing a Civilian Witness trying to get the Deceased to stop. He did not. The struggle continued. During it, the officers repeatedly struck Mr. Medeiros.

Yet another officer got involved. He/She sprayed Mr. Medeiros twice with pepper spray, which had no immediate effect. He/She then struck Mr. Medeiros repeatedly on his leg with an ASP baton without achieving the desired effect, which was to secure compliance.

Finally the officers were able to secure Mr. Medeiros’ hands behind his back and place him in a seated position. Once he was sitting up, the officers noticed Mr. Medeiros was having trouble breathing. An ambulance was called and the officers tried to put Mr. Medeiros in a position where his breathing would be easier. His condition continued to deteriorate, and the officers asked that the ambulance hurry. The records secured by this Unit show that entry to the house was made at 0157 hrs, Mr. Medeiros was controlled at 0205 hrs, and the ambulance was first called at 0206 hrs with a request for a rush. The rush request was repeated at 0208 hrs, and the officers continued to check where the ambulance was until it arrived at 0215 hrs. All the while the officers continued to monitor Mr. Medeiros’ deteriorating condition.

The police found 1.5 pounds of marihuana in various packages throughout the house. They also found an electronic scale and packaging material. The police also had information that an extensive video surveillance system was installed in this house. Indeed there was and the SIU seized and analyzed the recordings. Unfortunately the quality of the video is not good, neither is the audio. Segments of the conversations could be discerned. You could hear the police identifying themselves, yelling that they had a warrant, telling Mr. Medeiros not to resist and a female screaming and saying “you’re killing him.”

Based upon all the evidence I believe that the officers were lawfully in the execution of their duty that night and that being so, Mr. Medeiros had no right to resist them. He did resist and the officers were justified to use force to overcome that resistance, arrest Mr. Medeiros and of course, to protect themselves. In so doing, our law is clear that they need not measure the amount of force to a nicety. Of course, the force cannot be unreasonable but given the totality of the circumstances they faced (facing a powerful and irate man in the course of what is always felt to be a dangerous type of search), I do not think the amount of force used could be said to be unreasonable. I say this acknowledging that the Deceased’s family would have seen this as a very upsetting event, perhaps the most traumatic they have ever seen.

In short I believe the officers were lawfully in the execution of their duties, Mr. Medeiros violently resisted them, the officers met his force with force, striking him with hands, a foot, an ASP, their guns and using pepper spray. The force used was necessary in all the circumstances and although it was significant force I do not believe it was excessive.

Date: June 23, 2005

Original signed by

James L. Cornish
Director
Special Investigations Unit