SIU Director’s Report - Case # 11-OCD-146

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, July 24, 2011, at 0310 hrs, Notifying Officer of Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of the custody death of Mr. Keith Prescod. Notifying Officer reported that at 0215 hrs a passenger, later identified as Mr. Prescod, on a GO Transit Bus on the ramp to Terminal 3 approached the driver. He told the driver that someone was trying to shoot him. He started to fight with the driver. The driver stopped the bus and Mr. Prescod got off and jumped from the ramp to the ground below. He was approached by two airport workers and started to fight with them. He bit one of the workers. PRP officers arrived and restrained Mr. Prescod. Once he was rolled to his back he was vital signs absent (VSA). Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was started by firefighters at the scene. Mr. Prescod was transported to Etobicoke General Hospital (EGH) and pronounced dead.

Overview

On Sunday, July 24, 2011, shortly before 0200 hrs, Mr. Prescod flagged down a GO Transit bus on Dixon Rd. at Carlingview Ave. Mr. Prescod boarded the bus and told the driver to drive away because someone was trying to kill him. As the bus driver continued on his route to Pearson Airport, Mr. Prescod became increasingly agitated. A passenger on the bus called PRP on his/her cell phone. Mr. Prescod began to struggle with the bus driver for control of the steering wheel and demanded that the driver stop the bus.

The driver stopped the bus on an elevated access ramp leading to the airport terminal and Mr. Prescod exited the bus. Mr. Prescod climbed over the railing of the access ramp, fell to the ground below and began to run. A maintenance worker from Pearson Airport tried to assist Mr. Prescod, but was bitten on the arm. PRP officers arrived and Mr. Prescod was taken to the ground and lost consciousness. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) paramedics arrived and determined that Mr. Prescod was VSA.

Mr. Prescod’s identity was not known at the time of the incident. His identity was confirmed, and next of kin were notified at 1500 hrs on July 24, 2011.

The investigation

On July 24, 2011, at 0340 hrs, six SIU investigators and three Forensic Investigators (FIs) were assigned to investigate the incident. Investigators arrived at the scene at 0515 hrs. The scene was examined, photographed and videotaped, and a scale drawing was prepared. The area was canvassed for witnesses to the incident, as well as any video recording equipment.

It was discovered that the GO Transit bus is equipped with a video camera which was not operating. There are several video cameras on airport property in the vicinity of the incident, but none of these cameras showed the area where this incident occurred.

The following civilian witnesses were interviewed on the dates indicated:

• Civilian Witness #1 (July 24, 2011)
• Civilian Witness #2 (July 24, 2011)
• Civilian Witness #3 (July 24, 2011)
• Civilian Witness #4 (July 24, 2011)
• Civilian Witness #5 (July 24, 2011)
• Civilian Witness #6 (July 24, 2011)
• Civilian Witness #7 (July 24, 2011)
• Civilian Witness #8 (July 24, 2011)
• Civilian Witness #9 (July 24, 2011)
• Civilian Witness #10 (July 25, 2011)
• Civilian Witness #11 (July 25, 2011)
• Civilian Witness #12 (July 25, 2011)
• Civilian Witness #13 (July 25, 2011)
• Civilian Witness #14 (July 24, 2011)
• Civilian Witness #15 (July 24, 2011)
• Civilian Witness #16 (July 24, 2011)
• Civilian Witness #17 (July 24, 2011)
• Civilian Witness #18 (July 29, 2011)
• Civilian Witness #19 (July 29, 2011)
• Civilian Witness #20 (July 29, 2011)
• Civilian Witness #21 (July 29, 2011)
• Civilian Witness #22 (July 29, 2011)

The following officers were designated as witness officers on July 24, 2011. They were interviewed and provided copies of their notes on the dates indicated:

• Witness Officer #1 (July 24, 2011)
• Witness Officer #2 (July 24, 2011)
• Witness Officer #3 (July 24, 2011)
• Witness Officer #4 (July 24, 2011)
• Witness Officer #5 (July 25, 2011)
• Witness Officer #6 (July 25, 2011)
• Witness Officer #7 (July 29, 2011)

Witness Officer #8 was designated as a witness officer. His/Her notes were reviewed and he/she was not interviewed.

The following officers were designated as subject officers. They have refused to provide notes or a statement to SIU:

• Subject Officer #1
• Subject Officer #2, and
• Subject Officer #3

The SIU requested, received and reviewed the following documents and materials from PRP

• CAD report
• communications audio recording
• list of civilian witnesses
• shift roster, and
• occurrence report

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 investigation by this Unit has been completed, the file has been closed and no further action is contemplated. In my view, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the named subject officers, Subject Officer #1, Subject Officer #2 and/or Subject Officer #3, committed a criminal offence in relation to the death of Mr. Prescod on July 24, 2011. In the early hours of that day, Mr. Prescod boarded a GO Transit bus on Dixon Rd at Carlingview Ave. He was acting in a bizarrely paranoid fashion and at one point struggled with the driver for control of the bus. The driver dialled 911 and stopped the bus on an elevated ramp leading to the airport terminal. Mr. Prescod left the bus, climbed over a railing to the ground and began to run. Shortly thereafter, an airport maintenance worker saw him crawl over a barrier and fall to the ground. He approached the decedent who grabbed and tried to pull him to the ground. In the process, Mr. Prescod bit him in the forearm. The three subject officers appeared on scene and two of them tried to restrain him by pinning him down. They handcuffed his hands behind his back, and, by the time the firefighters and EMS attendants arrived, Mr. Prescod was lying on his back with his eyes open but appearing to be unconscious. One subject officer had his foot on the decedent’s chest. The firefighters tried CPR; however, the EMS attendants determined Mr. Prescod to be ‘vital signs absent.’ He was transported to Etobicoke General Hospital where he was pronounced deceased.

During some of the material time of police restraint, the only civilian witness, the maintenance worker, said his view was obscured by the attending EMS workers. The three subject officers did not provide statements to the SIU investigators as is their legal right.

A forensic autopsy report was received by the SIU on December 6, 2011. The forensic pathologist who conducted the autopsy adverted to the question of whether positional or restraint asphyxia could have been the cause of death and rejected that hypothesis. She further noted that there were multiple minor blunt force injuries on the body, but none of them caused his death. The pathologist concluded that the cause of death was cardiac arrhythmia in the presence of hypertensive heart disease, cocaine intoxication and physical exertion or struggle.

In my view, the results from the post-mortem examination are dispositive of the criminal legal issues with respect to this incident. On the basis of that examination, it would appear that his death was the result of a pre-existing medical condition exacerbated by the ingestion of cocaine and physical exertion. Accordingly, the three subject officers were not responsible for its cause in any material sense, and I cannot form the requisite grounds to believe that either collectively or individually they committed a criminal offence in relation to Mr. Prescod’s demise.

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

As you will see from that attached appendix, a number of witness officers refused to answer a question posed in their SIU interview, an apparent breach of s. 8 of O.Reg 267/10.

Date: December 9, 2011

Original signed by

Ian Scott
Director
Special Investigations Unit