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, August 29, 2010, at 1523 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the firearm death of Mr. Reyal Jardine-Douglas.

Notifying Officer reported that police confronted a man with a knife on a bus at 1841 Victoria Park Ave., Toronto. The complainant was shot by one officer and taken to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC) where he was pronounced dead. An officer was taken to hospital, but it was not known which hospital or what the officer’s injuries were. The scene was secured and believed to be limited to the bus.

The investigation

On August 29, 2010, at 1617 hrs, seven SIU investigators and four forensic investigators (FIs) were assigned to investigate this incident. The first investigators arrived at the scene at 1809 hrs. The scene was examined, photographed and videotaped. Physical evidence was collected and a scale drawing was prepared. The area was canvassed for witnesses to the incident, and video evidence was secured from the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) bus involved.

Based on information received, Subject Officer was designated as the subject officer. He was interviewed on September 8, 2010. A copy of Subject Officer’s notes was provided to the SIU by the TPS on October 5, 2010.

The following officers were designated as witness officers on August 29, 2010. They were interviewed and provided copies of their notes on the dates indicated:

  • Witness Officer #1 (August 29, 2010 and November 30, 2010)
  • Witness Officer #2 (August 30, 2010)
  • Witness Officer #3 (August 30, 2010)
  • Witness Officer #4 (August 30, 2010)
  • Witness Officer #5 (August 30, 2010)
  • Witness Officer #6 (August 30, 2010)
  • Witness Officer #7 (August 30, 2010)
  • Witness Officer #8 (August 30, 2010).

The following officers were designated as witness officers and their notes were reviewed. They were not interviewed as they did not have any information to advance the investigation of this incident:

  • Witness Officer #9
  • Witness Officer #10
  • Witness Officer #11
  • Witness Officer #12, and
  • Witness Officer #13.

The following civilian witnesses were interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (August 29, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (August 29, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (August 29, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #4 (August 29, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #5 (August 29, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #6 (August 29, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #7 (August 29, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #8 (August 30, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #9 (August 30, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #10 (August 31, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #11 (September 1, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #12 (September 1, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #13 (September 1, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #14 (September 1, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #15 (September 3, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #16 (September 3, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #17 (September 9, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #18 (September 9, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #19 (September 15, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #20 (September 15, 2010)
  • Civilian Witness #21 (September 29, 2010)

SIU requested and received the following documents and materials from the TPS:

  • CAD report
  • Communications audio recording
  • Use of Force Training Record for Subject Officer
  • Occurrence Report
  • List of Identified Civilian Witnesses, and
  • TPS Policies pertaining to Use of Force, the SIU, and Emotionally Disturbed Persons (EDP).

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

The delay in this report can largely be attributed to the receipt of the final post-mortem report by the Unit on January 18, 2011.

In my view, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the named subject officer, Subject Officer, committed a criminal offence in relation to the firearms death of the decedent, Mr. Jardine-Douglas, on August 29th, 2010. On that day, the subject officer was dispatched to deal with an allegedly emotional disturbed person who was a passenger on a TTC bus traveling southbound on Victoria Park Avenue. He followed the bus for a few blocks and pulled in front of it when it stopped at Victoria Park Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard. He entered the bus, received information from the bus driver, and turned his attention to Mr. Jardine-Douglas, who was standing near the rear door. Mr. Jardine- Douglas reached into a bag and produced a knife. The subject officer ordered him to drop the knife. The decedent did not comply and deliberately walked toward Subject Officer. The subject officer repeated his command, and began backing out of the bus, drawing his handgun. Subject Officer continued to back up toward a hedge, and Mr. Jardine-Douglas was repeatedly told to drop the knife. When the decedent was within three to four feet of the subject officer, he fired three shots, one of which entered his right hip area. This shot caused Mr. Jardine-Douglas to stumble and fall on the ground. According to a witness, Mr. Jardine-Douglas attempted to rise from the ground and the subject officer fired another round which entered his left shoulder area and into his left chest cavity. This fourth shot caused fatal injuries to Mr. Jardine-Douglas.This fourth shot caused fatal injuries to Mr. Jardine-Douglas.

In my view, the subject officer was justified in using lethal force under s. 34(2) of the Criminal Code. For no apparent reason, other than the fact that in the days prior to the shooting he had grown paranoid of the police, Mr. Jardine-Douglas attacked the officer with a knife. The subject officer backed off the bus, issued numerous commands to drop the knife, and continued to retreat until he was backed up against a hedge. He fired three rounds at Mr. Jardine-Douglas, causing him to falter and fall down. Subject Officer clearly had a reasonable belief that he was in imminent risk of grievous bodily harm or death at this point. The final fatal round was discharged when the decedent was attempting to rise at a time when he continued to represent an imminent threat because he either continued to hold the knife or it was not apparent that he had disarmed himself. Accordingly, in the moments preceding the fatal shot, I am of the opinion that the subject officer had a reasonable apprehension of imminent grievous bodily harm or death given the prior lead- up events, the short distance between them and his reasonable apprehension that the decedent was still armed with a knife that he intended to use. Finally, Subject Officer could not extricate himself from the threat because he had been backed up against a hedge.

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

There are a number of issues that arose in this investigation that impacted up its integrity.

First, as you will see from the attached appendix, eight witness officers refused to answer the question regarding whether they wrote up their notes before conferral with counsel, an apparent breach of s. 8 of O.Reg 267/10 to the Police Services Act.

Second, in this incident, one counsel Counsel represented all witness and subject officers. Because of a lawyer’s professional obligation to share information, there may be a breach of the segregation provision of s. 6 of the same regulation.

The combination of conferral with a lawyer before notes are written and the use of the same lawyer for all involved officers causes me to question their reliability. Fortunately, in this incident, there is enough other information through civilian witnesses, videotapes, and forensic evidence, to satisfy me that I have a clear enough understanding of the events that I did not have to rely extensively on these notes and interviews.

Finally, as you will see from the enclosed article, Counsel, shortly after the incident, disclosed information about the incident to the media. The reporting of this sort of information has the potential of deleteriously affecting the witness interview process. I appreciate that Counsel cannot be disciplined for misconduct because he/she is not a police officer. However, as counsel for the subject officer, he/she is acting as his agent. Through that agency relationship, the statements of his lawyer can be attributed to his/her client. I have corresponded directly to Counsel on this issue, and would appreciate it if you would also inquire in this apparent breach of s. 12 of the SIU regulations.

On the issue of inquiring in apparent breaches of the regulations, I have written to your office on numerous occasions in the past, bringing these matters to your attention and requesting that you apprise my office in writing of the results. I have done this in an attempt to work out these issues through a dialogue and to respect your role as the one in charge of accountability for disciplinary issues. In over two years, I have not received a substantive response to the questions I have raised. Many of the apparent breaches I have highlighted seem to continue in an unabated fashion. I am asking that you reconsider your position with respect to your decision not to respond to my queries.

Date: January 26, 2011

Ian Scott
Director
Special Investigations Unit