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

Notification Date and Time: 03/28/2014 at 1127 hours

Notified By: Police

Notifying Officer of the Peel Regional Police (PRP) reported that at 1059 hrs, a male person later identified by the SIU investigation to be Mr. Charnjit Bassi came to the screening area of the Wm. Davis Court House at 7755 Hurontario St. Brampton and began discharging a firearm. An officer later identified by PRP to be [Subject Officer] was struck in the abdomen and was then at Brampton Civic Hospital. Witness Officer #5, reportedly shot the male who was deceased at the scene.

Overview

On March 28, 2014, at approximately 1050 hrs, Mr. Charnjit Bassi attended the Brampton Court House, located at 7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton. The Court House is designed to funnel all people entering the building into two distinct lines of access. There is a line designed for the general public which is situated to the right as soon as one enters the Court House’s exterior doors. The public entrance requires all individuals to place their bags and objects onto a conveyer belted x-ray machine. Individuals must themselves walk through a metal detector and submit to hand-held wand searches if metal objects are detected on their person before they can enter the Court House. The second line of access into the Court House is to the left of the exterior doors and is reserved for Court House staff and criminal law professionals. This access lane requires the presentation of official identification, but does not require the x-ray of bags and/or objects, or personal searches.

At the point in time when Mr. Bassi entered the Court House, PRP Witness Officer #2 was working the x-ray machine, Witness Officer #5 was working the metal detector and wanding area, and Subject Officer was working the Court House staff and professional entrance area.

Mr. Bassi was dressed in a fedora styled hat, a tan coloured mid length coat, a brown sweater and brown striped dress pants. Mr. Bassi was also wearing a tan coloured shoulder holster that contained a 9mm Sig Sauer P226 semi-automatic pistol. The pistol was concealed underneath his coat and under his left arm. The pistol was loaded with one live cartridge in the barrel and five live cartridges in the magazine.

Mr. Bassi attempted to enter the Court House through the staff and criminal law professionals entrance area while a few other professionals were entering. Subject Officer questioned Mr. Bassi about who he was and Mr. Bassi provided an unsuitable response. Subject Officer directed Mr. Bassi to go back out and enter through the public entrance area. At that time Subject Officer and Mr. Bassi were within feet of each other and Mr. Bassi drew his pistol and fired two shots at Subject Officer, who was not wearing his protective vest. One projectile entered the front of Subject officer’s torso and the other projectile lodged in the desk Subject Officer was standing at. Subject Officer fell backwards and down onto the floor.

Mr. Bassi moved to his right and began running towards the metal detectors where Witness Officer #5 was positioned. Witness Officer #5 heard the report of Mr. Bassi’s pistol and hastily moved to his left and to a position of cover behind a structural column behind the x-ray machine.

Mr. Bassi was able to enter into the Court House lobby after Witness Officer #5 vacated his position and Mr. Bassi turned to his right and followed behind Witness Officer #5. Witness Officer #5 from his position of cover drew his service pistol and then moved out from behind the column. Witness Officer #5 came face to face with Mr. Bassi at a distance of a few metres. Both Witness Officer #5 and Mr. Bassi discharged their pistols at each other. Mr. Bassi’s projectile missed Witness Officer #5 and struck the base of the wall that leads to the cafeteria. Witness Officer #5’s projectile struck Mr. Bassi in the front of his right thigh and then travelled through the inner left thigh exiting the rear of Mr. Bassi’s left leg and lodging in a wall near courtroom 101.

At about the same time Subject Officer, who was on the ground and now behind Mr. Bassi, discharged his service pistol three times at Mr. Bassi. Two of Subject Officer’s shots struck Mr. Bassi from behind. One projectile entered Mr. Bassi’s lower left flank and penetrated his aorta. The other projectile entered the base of Mr. Bassi’s neck and exited through the front left of his jaw. Subject Officer’s third round missed Mr. Bassi completely and lodged in a door frame.

After being shot by both Subject Officer and Witness Officer #5, Mr. Bassi collapsed to the floor onto his stomach. Witness Officer #5 re-holstered his firearm, moved to Mr. Bassi and proceeded to handcuff his arms behind his back.

The Brampton Court House, with several hundred members of the public and Court House staff, was locked down by the PRP. No member of the public or Court House staff was allowed to enter or leave the Court House building. Many PRP officers began to arrive to search for any possible accomplices of Mr. Bassi.

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel and firefights also began to arrive to attend to the medical needs of Subject Officer and Mr. Bassi.

The investigation

Response Type: Attend Immediately

Date and Time Team Dispatched: 03/28/2014 at 1130 hours

Date and Time SIU Arrived on Scene: 03/28/2014 at 1154 hours

Number of SIU Investigator(s) assigned: 19

Number of SIU Forensic Investigator(s) assigned: 3

Complainant

Charnjit Singh Bassi Deceased

Civilian Witnesses interviewed

  • Civilian Witness #1 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #2 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #3 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014 Follow-up Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #4 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #5 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #6 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014 Follow-up Interview: April 29, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #7 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #8 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #9 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #10 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #11 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #12 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #13 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #14 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #15 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #16 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #17 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #18 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #19 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #20 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #21 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #22 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #23 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #24 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #25 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #26 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #27 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #28 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #29 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #30 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #31 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #32 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #33 Initial Interview: April 1, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #34 Initial Interview: April 1, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #35 Initial Interview: April 1, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #36 Initial Interview: April 2, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #37 Initial Interview: April 2, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #38 Initial Interview: April 3, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #39 Initial Interview: April 3, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #40 Initial Interview: April 4, 2014

Witness Officer #5 was initially designated a subject officer; however, based on the results of the autopsy it became apparent that Witness Officer #5’s projectile did not fatally wound Mr. Bassi. Thus, Witness Officer #5 was re-designated to the status of witness officer.

The SIU obtained a copy of a video recording of the outside of the Brampton Court House for March 28, 2014. The video did not record the incident and was of no assistance to further this investigation.

Subject Officer

Subject Officer Declined to provide a statement or a copy of notes.

Witness Officers

  • Witness Officer #1 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Witness Officer #2 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Witness Officer #3 Initial Interview: March 30, 2014
  • Witness Officer #4 Initial Interview: March 30, 2014
  • Witness Officer #5 Initial Interview: April 4, 2014
  • Witness Officer #6 Initial Interview: April 17, 2014
  • Witness Officer #7 Initial Interview: June 23, 2014
  • Witness Officer #8 Initial Interview: June 24, 2014

Police Employee

Police Employee Initial Interview: March 28, 2014

Peel Regional Paramedic Services and Brampton Fire & Emergency Services

  • Emergency Personnel #1 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Emergency Personnel #2 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Emergency Personnel #3 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Emergency Personnel #4 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Emergency Personnel #5 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Emergency Personnel #6 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Emergency Personnel #7 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Emergency Personnel #8 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014
  • Emergency Personnel #9 Initial Interview: March 28, 2014

Civilian Witnesses identified but not interviewed

  • Civilian Witness #41 N/A
  • Civilian Witness #42 N/A
  • Civilian Witness #43 N/A
  • Civilian Witness #44 N/A
  • Civilian Witness #45 N/A
  • Civilian Witness #46 N/A
  • Civilian Witness #47 N/A
  • Civilian Witness #48 N/A
  • Civilian Witness #49 N/A
  • Civilian Witness #50 N/A
  • Civilian Witness #51 N/A
  • Civilian Witness #52 N/A
  • Civilian Witness #53 N/A

Upon request the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the PRP:

  • Copy of the communications recordings relative to incident
  • Copy of sequestered witnesses prepared by Non-Witness Officer #1
  • Copy of sequestered witnesses prepared by Non-Witness Officer #2
  • Copy of sequestered witnesses prepared by Non-Witness Officer #3
  • Disclosure Log - Cell Phones
  • Disclosure Log March 30, 2014
  • Notes of Witness Officer #3
  • Notes of Witness Officer #7
  • Notes of Witness Officer #6
  • Notes of Witness Officer #5
  • Notes of Witness Officer #2
  • Notes of Witness Officer #1
  • Notes of Witness Officer #4
  • Copy of witness Statement of Civilian Witness #6, and
  • Copy of witness Statement of Civilian Witness #25

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

At about 1100 hrs on March 28, 2014, Charnjit Bassi showed up at the Brampton Court House located at 7755 Hurontario Street. He was armed with a loaded 9mm semi- automatic pistol. Mayhem in the Court House soon followed. When the dust settled, a PRP officer lay grievously wounded and Mr. Bassi was dead.

It was clear from the outset that police gunfire had felled Mr. Bassi, triggering this office’s investigative mandate. The SIU’s investigation having concluded, I am satisfied that there are no grounds to believe that any police officer committed a criminal offence in connection with Mr. Bassi’s death.

The following story emerges from the voluminous evidence gathered in this investigation, including statements from about 40 civilian witnesses and eight police officers, a forensic scene examination, an autopsy and ballistics analyses of several guns, spent cartridge cases and fired bullets. Mr. Bassi showed up at the Court House wearing a tan/beige jacket, fedora-style hat, brown slacks, brown sweater and black shoes. Secreted in a holster beneath his jacket and under his left arm was the 9mm pistol. He entered the building and attempted to make his way through the access line reserved for Court House staff and criminal law professionals. Unlike the adjacent access line intended for members of the public, the route Mr. Bassi had chosen would not include him having to walk through a metal detector, nor would it involve a more personalized search performed by an officer with a wand device. Manning the access line for Court House staff and criminal law professionals was Subject Officer. It seems Mr. Bassi attempted to blend in undetected into this line with the flow of persons making their way into the Court House, but the officer was on his guard.

Subject Officer confronted Mr. Bassi and instructed him to join the other line where he would undergo the same security checks as other citizens. Mr. Bassi baulked and instead reached in behind his left jacket panel with his right hand and pulled out his firearm. He pointed the gun at Subject Officer and fired two rounds at point-blank range. One of the bullets entered through the front of the officer’s torso, knocking the officer to the ground. The other shot missed its target; it struck and lodged in the desk beside the officer.

The gunfire set off pandemonium, particularly in the area of the security check point near the entrance to the building which was busy with court staff and the comings and goings of people with business at the Court House. Mr. Bassi made his way through the security check point and turned to his right, where he confronted Witness Officer #5. Witness Officer #5 had been working with Subject Officer at the front security area performing searches of persons entering the Court House with his metal detector wand. He saw and heard Mr. Bassi shoot his partner and took cover behind a nearby pillar, drawing his firearm in the process. Witness Officer #5 quickly found himself face to face with Mr. Bassi, who pointed his gun in the officer’s direction. There was an exchange of gunfire as the officer and Mr. Bassi discharged a single round each. At about the same time, Subject Officer, who had managed to get back to his feet and drawn his firearm, steadied himself and fired his weapon three times at Mr. Bassi (although his utterances to some of the other witnesses suggest he thought he only fired twice).

Witness Officer #5’s round struck Mr. Bassi’s right leg and exited through his left leg. Mr. Bassi’s shot missed Witness Officer #5. Subject Officer missed Mr. Bassi with one of his three discharges. Another of his shots entered the back of Mr. Bassi’s neck area and exited through the front of the left side of his face. The other bullet struck Mr. Bassi’s left back and lodged in the anterior abdominal wall. According to the pathologist at autopsy, it was this bullet that caused Mr. Bassi’s death.

Mr. Bassi slumped to the floor and was quickly handcuffed by Witness Officer #5. Other officers in the Court House began to converge on the scene and immediately rendered first aid to Subject Officer and Mr. Bassi. Paramedics and firefighters arrived quickly. Subject Officer was taken to hospital and treated for his wounds. Mr. Bassi could not be resuscitated and was pronounced dead at the Court House.

Section 25(3) of the Criminal Code authorizes the use of lethal force by police officers in the execution of their duties where such force is reasonably necessary to one’s self- preservation or the protection of others from grievous bodily harm or death. Section 34 of the Code authorizes force used in self-defence or the defence of others where the force in question, including lethal force, is reasonably necessary in the circumstances. In the case of the force used against Mr. Bassi, I have no difficulty in concluding on the evidence that the shots fired by Subject Officer and Witness Officer #5 were legally justified pursuant to either section. Subject Officer had just been shot by Mr. Bassi. He had every reason to believe that his life and the lives of those around him were endangered, and that he could not otherwise meet that danger than by shooting at Mr. Bassi in turn. The same goes for Witness Officer #5. He had just seen Mr. Bassi attempt to kill Subject Officer and was the last line of defence before Mr. Bassi made it further into the Court House. Confronted by Mr. Bassi pointing a gun in his direction at close range, the officer’s decision to shoot Mr. Bassi was eminently justifiable.

Precisely why Mr. Bassi tried to enter the Court House armed with a loaded firearm is unclear, nor was this a focus of the SIU’s investigation. The SIU is aware of at least one unconfirmed police report suggesting he was there looking to exact retribution against an unascertained person or persons for some perceived injustice. Be that as it may, it is clear that Mr. Bassi came prepared to use his firearm, whether against his intended target or other innocent parties. Subject Officer and Witness Officer #5 would not have it. It was their duty that day to ensure that any risk to the safety of the Court House and the people within it was checked at the door. Despite being shot in the torso and suffering a grievous wound, Subject Officer was able maintain his composure, right himself and return gunfire before collapsing from his injuries. Witness Officer #5 was in shock with what he had just seen and did well to immediately find cover before Mr. Bassi could shoot him as well. He then quickly drew his firearm and was able to strike Mr. Bassi with his one and only shot as Mr. Bassi pointed the gun in his direction and fired. These officers did their duty and acted valiantly and with courage in the line of fire. Because of their interventions, everyone present at the Court House was able to go home safely that day.

The officers, however, were not alone in distinguishing themselves. In the midst of the turmoil that followed the shots fired by Mr. Bassi, there was plenty of bravery and quick- thinking on display from the regular citizenry. A court clerk ushering a presiding judge to safety, a lawyer forcing her client to the ground upon hearing the sound of gunfire and an accused person at the Court House on drug possession charges rushing to be among the first to render first aid to Subject Officer’s wounds once the shooting stopped, are just some of the stories of ordinary people and their extraordinary acts on this most unfortunate day.

Date: October 8, 2014

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit