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, March 12, 2011 at 2038 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) notified the SIU that Subject Officer had shot and fatally wounded 34 year old Deceased. Notifying Officer understood from preliminary sources that at approximately 1927 hrs, the same date, a number of citizens had called 911 to report that Deceased was driving a motor vehicle in an erratic and dangerous manner. Minutes later, Subject Officer stopped Deceased’s vehicle on Walkers Line, north of Mainway. A violent confrontation erupted between Deceased and Subject Officer, during which Subject Officer fired one shot from his service pistol, striking Deceased in the abdomen. Deceased was transported to the Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital (JBMH), where he was pronounced deceased shortly after.

The investigation

Within minutes of the notification, the SIU dispatched eight investigators, augmented by three forensic investigators (FIs) to the scene of the shooting. The first SIU investigator arrived at the site within one hour. The SIU FIs videotaped and photographed in and around the shooting scene. They seized a number of items of evidentiary value, including a spent bullet casing, a police issued vest, and property belonging to Deceased. Subject Officer’s service pistol and duty belt were also seized. Evidence considered relevant to the investigation was later sent to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) for examination. The FIs also mapped out the scene with the aid of a Sokkia Total Station. On March 13, 2011, a FI attended the post-mortem examination of Deceased.

The SIU investigators sought out and interviewed a number of civilian witnesses. During the ensuing investigation, the SIU interviewed a total of 37 civilian witnesses. The SIU also liaised with the HRPS and as a result of a preliminary investigation, the SIU designated Subject Officer as a subject officer. Upon the advice of his counsel, Subject Officer declined an SIU request for a statement, but provided his notes relating to the incident.

As well, the SIU designated the following HRPS personnel as witness officers. All provided their notes and were interviewed on the dates noted:

  • Witness Officer #1 (March 13, 2011).
  • Witness Officer #2 (March 13, 2011)
  • Witness Officer #3 (March 13, 2011)
  • Witness Officer #4 (March 13, 2011)
  • Witness Officer #5 (March 14, 2011)
  • Witness Officer #6 (March 18, 2011)

Upon request, the HRPS provided the following material to the SIU:

  • C/D of HRPS communications during the incident
  • a copy of CAD printout
  • Sensitive Personal Information
  • copies of civilian witness statements taken by the HRPS

During the investigation, the SIU interviewed the following civilian witnesses on the dates noted:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (March 12, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (March 12, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (March 12, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #4 (March 12, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #5 (March 13, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #6 (March 13, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #7 (March 13, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #8 (March 13, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #9 (March 13, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #10 (March 14, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #11 (March 14, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #12 (March 14, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #13 (March 14, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #14 (March 14, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #15 (March 14, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #16 (March 14, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #17 (March 15, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #18 (March 15, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #19 (March 15, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #20 (March 15, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #21 (March 15, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #22 (March 15, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #23 (March 15, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #24 (March 15, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #25 (March 15, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #26 (March 16, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #27 (March 16, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #28 (March 16, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #29 (March 16, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #30 (March 16, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #31 (March 17, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #32 (March 17, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #33 (March 17, 2011)
  • Emergency Medical Personnel #1 (Paramedic) (March 23, 2011)
  • Emergency Medical Personnel #2 (Paramedic) (March 23, 2011)
  • Emergency Medical Personnel #3 (Paramedic) (March 26, 2011)
  • Emergency Medical Personnel #4 (Paramedic) (March 26, 2011)

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 officer, Subject Officer, committed a criminal offence in relation to the firearms death of Deceased on March 12, 2011. The subject officer received information regarding a black Acura vehicle driving, first, northbound in the southbound lanes of Guelph Line, then eastbound in the westbound lane of Fairview Street and, then, northbound in the southbound lanes of Walkers Line. The Acura was driven by the decedent, Deceased. While stopped in the southbound lane of Walkers Line, the subject officer observed the suspect vehicle running a red light at the corner of Walkers Line and Mainway. The subject officer made a u-turn to follow the Acura. He observed it cutting in and out of the southbound lane as it drove northbound on Walkers Rd. The subject officer activated his emergency lights on his unmarked police vehicle. The suspect vehicle came to immediate halt, causing the subject officer to bring his police cruiser to stop directly behind it. Both vehicles were in the southbound lane facing northbound. Both the subject officer and Deceased stepped out of their vehicles, and Deceased approached the subject officer, yelling repeatedly, “you have no right” and “you’ll obey.” The subject officer told Deceased to calm down and get back. The subject officer drew his firearm and order the suspect to “lie down, get back.” Deceased stopped his advances but continued to yell at Subject Officer. The subject officer observed that Deceased did not have a weapon and accordingly holstered his firearm and took out his pepper spray. Deceased began advancing toward the officer and attacked him, grabbing him in the throat area. Subject Officer pepper sprayed Deceased and punched him in the face. He removed his ASP baton from his police issued Kevlar vest. Deceased again attacked the subject officer, grabbing his throat, punching him in the face and grabbing his hair. Subject Officer pepper sprayed Deceased again and struck him multiple times with his extended ASP. None of these use of force techniques slowed Deceased down. Deceased tore the subject officer’s Kevlar vest off his body, causing the officer to drop his ASP. Deceased picked up the ASP and began to advance on the subject officer. The subject officer drew his firearm, trained it on Deceased, and yelled at him to “stay back, calm down.” Deceased continued to act in a menacing fashion toward the subject officer and advancing toward him. The subject officer discharged one round into Deceased’s torso area, causing him to fall to the ground. He later died as a result of this single gunshot wound.

I base this summary of the incident on a combination of the multiple civilian witness statements, a cell phone video, and the notes of the subject officer which are consistent with the first two noted pieces of information. The subject officer declined to give a statement.

The subject officer had the lawful authority to initiate a suspect apprehension pursuit after observing the vehicle driven by Deceased to drive in a manner dangerous to the public. He further had the authority to minimally detain and probably arrest the driver, Deceased, for dangerous driving under the Criminal Code after the suspect vehicle came to a halt. When Deceased began acting in an aggressive manner towards him, he had the authority to use more escalating force against him under either s. 25(1) or s. 34(1) of the Criminal Code. The subject officer did precisely that; initially using verbal orders, then pepper spray, then punches and then his ASP. Unfortunately, Deceased increased his aggression to a higher level when he picked up the subject officer’s ASP and advanced toward him in a threatening manner, causing Subject Officer to discharge one round into Deceased’s torso. In my view, under, s. 34 (2) of the Code, the subject officer was justified in using lethal force because he had been unlawfully assaulted by Deceased, he had a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm based upon the decedent’s prior aggression and his advancing upon him with a weapon in hand, and he reasonably believed that he could not escape from the situation. Accordingly, in my view, his action of causing Deceased’s death by discharging his firearm at him is legally justified and I cannot form grounds that a criminal offence took place.

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

As you will see from the attached appendix, a number of witness officer refused to answer a question put to them in their SIU interviews, an apparent breach of s. 8 of O.Reg 267/10 to the Police Services Act. I would be grateful if you inquired into this apparent breach and provided my office with a written response.

Date: April 20, 2011

Ian Scott
Director
Special Investigations Unit