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 July 30, 2011, at 2005 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of a firearm death. Notifying Officer reported that on July 30, 2011 at 1850 hrs, during the Caribana parade, TPS officers responded to the area of 955 Lakeshore Blvd., W., in regard to gunshots being fired. Upon arrival, the officers noticed two black males assaulting a white male. When officers approached the men, one of the them pointed a firearm at the officers. At the time of the SIU notification, Notifying Officer reported that three people were shot and one was fatally wounded. No further information was available.

Overview

On July 30, 2011, at 1850 hrs, during the Scotiabank Caribbean Carnival (also referred to as the Caribana parade) on Lakeshore Blvd., W., Mr. Kevin Murray and Civilian Witness #29 robbed Civilian Witness #5 of his gold chain and crucifix (cross) pendant. Civilian Witness #5 and his friends chased Mr. Murray and Civilian Witness #29 eastbound on Lakeshore Blvd. When they caught up to the two men, they started fighting with them. Civilian Witness #4 observed the fighting, moved to the north curb, and took photographs of the fight. Civilian Witness #4 heard two gunshots, people panicked and ran eastbound on Lakeshore Blvd. Civilian Witness #4 held his camera down near his side but Mr. Murray and Civilian Witness #29 ran to him and held him down ordering him to give up his camera. When Civilian Witness #4 refused, Mr. Murray bit his right wrist and Civilian Witness #29 bit Civilian Witness #4’s right shoulder. Civilian Witness #4 released his grip on the camera and Mr. Murray grabbed it.

Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #2 heard the gunshots and ran westbound on Lakeshore Blvd with their service pistols drawn and approached the three fighting men. The officers ordered the men to stop fighting and to get down on the ground. Neither of the men reacted to the officers’ commands. Civilian Witness #29 ran toward Subject Officer #2. Subject Officer #2 grabbed Civilian Witness #29’ right wrist with his left hand and used his foot to trip Civilian Witness #29. As Civilian Witness #29 began to fall to the ground, Subject Officer #2 struck him on the back of the head with the butt of his service pistol. Subject Officer #2 knelt on Civilian Witness #29’ back to restrain him on the ground while he kept his focus on Mr. Murray. Mr. Murray ran in an arc near the centre of the roadway toward Subject Officer #1. Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #2 saw that Mr. Murray was holding a handgun in his right hand and he was raising it toward Subject Officer #1. Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #2 ordered Mr. Murray several times to drop his gun and get down on the ground but he refused to comply. The officers opened fire. Mr. Murray was struck four times. As he fell backwards, he threw the handgun, which landed behind Subject Officer #1 on the roadway.

Mr. Murray was treated by EMS at the scene and transported to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH) where the attending physician, Dr. Doctor, pronounced Mr. Murray deceased at 1938 hrs.

Two civilians, Civilian Witness #11 and Civilian Witness #16, were also shot. Civilian Witness #11 was shot in the back and was transported to SMH (----redacted) where he/she underwent surgery to remove a projectile from his/her back. Civilian Witness #11 suffered severe internal injuries and is expected to a have long-term recovery.

A bullet fragment grazed Civilian Witness #16’s left eye. Civilian Witness #16 was treated at Toronto General Hospital (TGH) and released. He/She sustained abrasions under his/her eye and these abrasions were expected to heal. Given the fact, that Civilian Witness #16 did not suffer a serious injury, his/her injury was not investigated by the SIU.

The investigation

On July 30, 2011 at 2035 hrs, six investigators and three forensic investigators (FIs) were assigned. The SIU arrived on scene at 2215 hrs, the same day, and immediately began an investigation. Civilian witnesses were identified and interviewed. A media appeal was made to have witnesses come forward and provide video or photographs taken of the incident. The incident area was forensically examined, police equipment was also seized and forensically examined, as was the 9 mm black Beretta attributed to Mr. Murray.

On July 31, 2011 at 0037 hrs, a SIU FI was assigned to attend a SMH operating room to seize a projectile that was surgically removed from Civilian Witness #11’s back.

The SIU Affected Persons Coordinator (APC) became involved in this incident at the outset, assisting family members and witnesses with several matters and making referrals to various resources.

Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #2 were designated as subject officers on July 30, 2011. They were interviewed on August 23, 2011, and provided copies of their notebook entries.

The following officers were designated as witness officers on August 4, 2011. They were interviewed and provided copies of their notebook entries on the dates indicated:

  • Witness Officer #1 (August 11, 2011)
  • Witness Officer #2 (August 11, 2011)
  • Witness Officer #3 (August 11, 2011)
  • Witness Officer #4 (August 11, 2011)
  • Witness Officer #5 (August 11, 2011), and
  • Witness Officer #6 (August 11, 2011)

Witness Officer #7 was designated as a witness officer on September 20, 2011. After a review of his/her notebook entries, Witness Officer #7 was not interviewed because his/her notebook entries were consistent with civilian witness statements, as well as Witness Officer #2’s, Subject Officer #1’ and Subject Officer #2’s evidence.

The following civilian witnesses were interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (July 30, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (July 30, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (July 30, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #4 (July 31, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #5 (July 31, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #6 (August 22, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #7 (July 31, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #8 (July 31, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #9 (July 31, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #10 (July 31, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #11 (September 8, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #12 (August 6, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #13 (July 31, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #14 (July 31, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #15 (July 31, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #16 (July 31, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #17 (July 31, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #18 (July 31, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #19 (August 4, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #20 (August 4, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #21 (August 12, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #22 (August 12, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #23 (August 26, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #24 (August 4, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #25 (August 4, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #26 (August 4, 2011)
  • Civilian Witness #27 (August 5, 2011), and
  • Civilian Witness #28 (September 23, 2011)

On July 30, 2011, Civilian Witness #29 declined an interview with the SIU. During the course of this investigation, one potential witness was identified as Civilian Witness #30. Civilian Witness #30 was with Civilian Witness #10 during the incident, however, Civilian Witness #30 fled the area when he heard the gunshots and as a result, he was not interviewed.

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

  • Copy of all witness officers’ notebook entries
  • Copy of Civilian Witness List and Statements
  • Subject Officer #2’s Use of Force Training Record Certification
  • Subject Officer #1’ Use of Force Training Record Certification
  • Copies of Scene Photographs
  • Copies of current TPS General Order Policies and Procedures regarding Use of Force
  • Compact disc of 911 calls and radio transmission recordings; and
  • Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) printouts.

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 #2 and Subject Officer #1, committed a criminal offence in relation to the death of Mr. Murray on July 30, 2011. Numerous civilian witnesses provided statements to the SIU investigators. As well, both subject officers submitted themselves to voluntary interviews with the SIU. Taking those statements into consideration, along with the forensic evidence collected at the scene, I am of the opinion that the events surrounding this incident are reasonably clear.

In the early evening of that day, Mr. Murray and an associate were at the Caribana Parade on Lakeshore Blvd West. They forcibly took a gold chain and crucifix pendant from another individual, Civilian Witness #5, causing Civilian Witness #5 and his friend to chase after the robbers. A fight ensued between the two groups. Another individual began recording the fight on his digital camera. Mr. Murray and his friend turned their attention on the photographer and began to attack him. At this point, civilian witnesses heard between two and four gun shots. A number of those witnesses observed that at some point in the altercation, Mr. Murray had a gun in his waistband. One of them saw Mr. Murray chasing the photographer with a hand gun in his right hand.

The two subject officers ran westbound on the north side of lakeshore Blvd and saw the fight in progress. They shouted at all three men to get down to the ground but they refused to comply. Mr. Murray and his friend ran toward the officers. Subject Officer #1 repeatedly told Mr. Murray to drop his weapon and get down on the ground. Mr. Murray refused to do so and pointed his gun in the direction of Subject Officer #1. Both subject officers opened fire and fatally wounded Mr. Murray. He was struck four times, and as he fell backwards, he threw his handgun away. It landed on the north side of the roadway behind Subject Officer #1.

In my view, both subject officers had the lawful authority to use lethal force in these circumstances under sections 27 & 34(2) of the Criminal Code Mr. Murray represented an imminent threat to not only Subject Officer #1 but those in the immediate vicinity. He was armed with a hand gun that he had discharged moments before he was shot, refused to comply with lawful police commands, and had aimed the hand gun at Subject Officer #1. That subject officer had the lawful authority to shoot Mr. Murray in self-defence and his partner had the authority to shoot because Mr. Murray was likely to cause immediate grievous bodily harm to either Subject Officer #1 or those in the vicinity. Accordingly, I have no reasonable grounds to believe that the two subject officers committed a criminal offence in the discharge of their firearms leading to the death of Mr. Murray.

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

As you will see from the attached appendix, a number of witness officers refused to answer a question in their SIU interviews, an apparent breach of s. 8 of O.Reg 267/10 to the Police Services Act.

Date: October 12, 2011

Ian Scott
Director
Special Investigations Unit