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 Sunday, December 27, 2009 at 2000 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU that at 1932 hrs, officers had shot and killed a man in front of the Cineplex theatres at 1901 Eglinton Avenue E. in Toronto. There were no further details available at the time of notification to the SIU.

The deceased was later identified as 34-year-old Mr. Paul Daniel of Laval, Quebec.

The investigation

The SIU immediately dispatched nine investigators and three forensic investigators. The first SIU investigator arrived at the scene at 2105 hrs.

The SIU photographed the scene and made videotape recordings of the area. The scene was also measured using a Total Station device for forensic mapping purposes. Clothing, spent ammunition cases and several projectiles were collected from the scene. Also recovered from the scene was a pellet gun that Notifying Officer identified as having been carried by Mr. Daniel.

An SIU investigator went to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Sunnybrook Hospital) and met with the TPS officers who accompanied Mr. Daniel to the hospital. From those officers the SIU investigator obtained a projectile that was found in Mr. Daniel’s clothing, a projectile that Dr. Doctor had removed from Mr. Daniel’s chest and the remainder of Mr. Daniel’s clothing.

On December 27, 2009, the SIU issued the following officer designations:

  • Subject Officer #1 - subject officer
  • Subject Officer #2 - subject officer
  • Subject Officer #3 - subject officer
  • Subject Officer #4 - subject officer
  • Witness Officer #1 - witness officer
  • Witness Officer #2 - witness officer

An SIU forensic investigator seized the following items from the subject officers:

  • Subject Officer #3’ pistol
  • Subject Officer #2’s pistol and his exterior (plainclothes) clothing
  • Subject Officer #1’s pistol
  • Subject Officer #4’s pistol, pants and boots

The clothing that was collected from the subject officers was collected in order to preserve blood staining evidence that was on the clothing. The duty belts of the uniform officers (Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #4) were photographed in order to document the use of force options available to them.

On December 29, 2009, a post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Doctor at the Coroner’s Building in Toronto. The cause of Mr. Daniel’s death was determined to be a gunshot wound to the torso. One projectile and several projectile fragments were recovered from Mr. Daniel during the post-mortem examination. Mr. Daniel was positively identified by his fingerprints following the examination.

All four subject officers were interviewed on December 30, 2009. They did not consent to the release of their notes to the SIU.

SIU investigators interviewed the following civilian witnesses on the dates noted:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (December 31, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (December 29, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (December 28, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #4 (December 30, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #5 (December 27, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #6 (January 4, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #7 (December 31, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #8 (December 31, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #9 (December 31, 2009)
  • Civilian Witness #10 (December 27, 2009)

On January 4, 2010, the spent cartridge cases recovered from the scene and the firearms carried by the subject officers were submitted to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS), in order to confirm the number of shots fired by each officer. Also submitted at that time was Mr. Daniel’s coat to determine, if possible, the separation between the officers and

Mr. Daniel at the time that the shots were fired. Biological samples obtained during the post-mortem examination were submitted for toxicology.

A Buick Allure that was parked at the east end of the theatre at the time of this incident was found to have a bullet hole in the front passenger side door. The vehicle was examined at the time but the projectile could not be found inside the vehicle. Arrangements were made to have the front passenger seat examined when the car was brought in for repairs. On January 25, 2010, the repairs were performed and a projectile was recovered from the front passenger seat.

In the course of this investigation the SIU requested, obtained and reviewed the following materials:

  • A copy of the security video recording from the Cineplex theatre
  • A copy of several TPS Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) reports
  • Memobook notes of several officers who recorded the license plate and occupant information of vehicles that were allowed to exit the parking lot following the incident
  • A copy of the witness statements recorded by the TPS
  • A copy of the TPS radio and telephone communications
  • Sensitive Personal Information
  • TPS Use of force training records for all four subject officers, and
  • Sensitive Personal Information

Sensitive Personal Information

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

In my view, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the named subject officers, Subject Officer #1, Subject Officer #2, Subject Officer #3 and/or Subject Officer #4, committed a committed a criminal offence in relation to the shooting death of the decedent, Mr. Daniel, on December 27, 2009. The material facts are not in dispute. The involved officers in this matter responded to a complaint that a man, now known to be Mr. Daniel, had pointed a firearm at an individual in front of the Cineplex Theatre at 1901 Eglinton Avenue in the evening of December 27th. After they arrived, Mr. Daniel was pointed out to them. The subject officers yelled at Mr. Daniel to go to the ground. Mr. Daniel, instead of complying with the officers’ requests, took what appeared to be a black handgun with a long barrel out of his clothing and pointed it at them. The subject officers responded by discharging their police issued firearms at him, causing his death. Upon inspection, the handgun was determined to be a pellet gun.

In my view, the subject officers were justified in law in causing the death of Mr. Daniel. They had received credible information that he had pointed a firearm at a citizen. Given this information, they had the lawful authority to command him to lie on the ground pursuant to ss. 25(1) of the Criminal Code Further, they had the lawful authority to use lethal force pursuant to ss. 25(3) of the Criminal Code when Mr. Daniel pointed the firearm at them because they reasonably believed that it was necessary for their self- preservation, and there was no alternative to using this force. They also had the right to use lethal force under s. 27 of the Criminal Code when he pointed the firearm at other officers in order to prevent the commission of an offence that would likely cause immediate and serious injury to others. While the death of Mr. Daniel was unfortunate, the subject officers were justified in causing it in the circumstances of this incident, and there are no grounds to believe that they committed a criminal offence.

I intend to add the following to the Chief’s letter:

Immediately after this incident, Toronto police officers took statements from two material civilian witnesses, Civilian Witness #10 and Civilian Witness #5. Given the dramatic nature of this shooting, it should have been clear to all involved officers that this incident reasonably fell within the mandate of the SIU, and pursuant to s. 5 of O.Reg 673/98, the Unit would be deemed to be the lead investigator. In these circumstances, the interviewing of these witnesses should have been referred to the SIU investigators. While I appreciate that you do not intend to inform me of what, if any, action you intend to take with respect to this apparent breach of the SIU regulation, I intend to continue to bring them to your attention. Minimally, they are being recorded by the Ministry of the Attorney General under a protocol agreement with the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services entitled ‘Referral and Resolution of Issues of Concern identified by the SIU’ entered into by both ministries in July 2009.

Date: February 17, 2010

Original signed by

Ian Scott
Director
Special Investigations Unit