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: 03/20/2015 at 2345 hours
Notified By: Police

Overview

On Friday, March 20, 2015, at 2345 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) of a police shooting that left Deceased dead. Notifying Officer understood that at 1609 hrs, a female residing in a townhouse complex at a location, Mississauga, notified the PRP that she had received a death threat from a neighbour living in the same complex. Because of the heavy volume of calls to the PRP for service it was not until 2240 hrs that three PRP members interviewed the female. After speaking with the female, the three officers made their way to the suspect’s townhouse. Minutes later, a violent confrontation erupted between the deceased, Deceased, and the three officers. The confrontation culminated in Deceased being shot and fatally wounded. Notifying Officer reported that during the incident, a female residing in a nearby townhouse sustained a non-life threatening bullet wound, and two PRP officers sustained injuries. Subject Officer #1 suffered a stab wound to the leg and Subject Officer #3 sustained injuries to his/her hand and back. It was unclear if the injuries sustained by Subject Officer #2 were stab or bullet wounds.

The investigation

Response Type: Attend Immediately

Date and Time Team Dispatched: 03/21/2015 at 0010 hours

Date and Time SIU Arrived on Scene: 03/21/2015 at 0055 hours

Number of SIU Investigator(s) assigned: 7

Number of SIU Forensic Investigator(s) assigned: 3

Complainants

  • Deceased Deceased
  • Ms. Suzan Zreik Initial Interview: March 23, 2015

Civilian Witnesses

  • Civilian Witness #1 Initial Interview: March 21, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #2 Initial Interview: March 21, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #3 Initial Interview: March 21, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #4 Initial Interview: March 21, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #5 Initial Interview: March 21, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #6 Initial Interview: March 21, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #7 Initial Interview: March 22, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #8 Initial Interview: March 23, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #9 Initial Interview: March 21, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #10 Initial Interview: March 25, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #11 Initial Interview: March 25, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #12 Initial Interview: March 25, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #13 Initial Interview: March 25, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #14 Initial Interview: March 27, 2015
  • Ms. Suzan Zreik Initial Interview: March 23, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #15 Refused to provide a statement
  • Civilian Witness #16 Initial Interview: March 21, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #17 Initial Interview: March 21, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #18 Initial Interview: April 2, 2015

Subject Officers

  • Subject Officer #1 Declined SIU request for Interview
  • Subject Officer #2 Declined SIU request for Interview
  • Subject Officer #3 Declined SIU request for interview

All three subject officers declined an SIU request for copies of their notebook entries.

Witness Officers

  • Witness Officer #1 Not Interviewed. Nothing to Offer
  • Witness Officer #2 Initial Interview: March 21, 2015
  • Witness Officer #3 Not Interviewed. Nothing to Offer
  • Witness Officer #4 Not Interviewed. Nothing to Offer
  • Witness Officer #5 Not Interviewed. Nothing to Offer
  • Witness Officer #6 Initial Interview: March 21, 2015
  • Witness Officer #7 Not Interviewed. Nothing to Offer
  • Witness Officer #8 Not Interviewed. Nothing to Offer
  • Witness Officer #9 Not Interviewed. Nothing to Offer
  • Witness Officer #10 Not Interviewed. Nothing to Offer
  • Witness Officer #11 Not Interviewed. Nothing to Offer
  • Witness Officer #12 Not Interviewed. Nothing to Offer
  • Witness Officer #13 Not Interviewed. Nothing to Offer
  • Witness Officer #14 Not Interviewed. Nothing to Offer
  • Witness Officer #15 Not Interviewed. Nothing to Offer
  • Witness Officer #16 Not Interviewed. Nothing to Offer
  • Witness Officer #17 Initial Interview: March 22, 2015
  • Witness Officer #18 Not Interviewed. Nothing to Offer
  • Witness Officer #19 Not Interviewed. Nothing to Offer
  • Witness Officer #20 Not Interviewed. Nothing to Offer
  • Witness Officer #21 Initial Interview: March 21, 2015
  • Witness Officer #22 Not Interviewed. Nothing to Offer
  • Witness Officer #23 Initial Interview: March 21, 2015
  • Witness Officer #24 Initial Interview: October 2, 2015
  • Witness Officer #25 Not Interviewed. Nothing to Offer
  • Witness Officer #26 Initial Interview: March 21, 2015
  • Witness Officer #27 Not Interviewed. Nothing to Offer
  • Witness Officer #28 Initial Interview: March 21, 2015
  • Witness Officer #29 Initial Interview: March 21, 2015

Police Employee

Police Employee Not Interviewed. Nothing to Offer

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

  • CAD-Event Chronology
  • Occurrence Details PR----redacted
  • PRP Photographs taken of Subject Officer #3's injuries
  • PRP Photographs taken of Subject Officer #1's injuries, and
  • SIU Disclosure Log March 30

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

Deceased died in a hail of police gunfire on March 20, 2015. He was wounded by bullets discharged by each of three PRP officers – Subject Officer #1, Subject Officer #2 and Subject Officer #3. The incident occurred just outside of Deceased’s unit of the townhouse complex located at a location in Mississauga. The officers were there responding to reports that Deceased and his mother, Civilian Witness #10 (also a resident of the unit), had threatened a neighbour earlier in the day. The shooting followed a brief physical altercation between the parties near the unit’s front door as the officers attempted to arrest Deceased. For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied the subject officers were legally justified in firing their weapons at Deceased and that, therefore, there are no reasonable grounds for proceeding with criminal charges against any one or more of the officers.

Notwithstanding the absence of statements and notes from the subject officers, who chose to exercise their right to silence, there is sufficient evidence from other sources to reconstruct with confidence the events in question. This evidence comes from a number of civilian witnesses who heard or saw parts of what occurred, a video recording captured by one of these civilians of the actual shooting, and forensic evidence derived from the post-mortem examination and exhibits obtained from the scene and elsewhere.

The story begins in the afternoon of March 20, 2015 and a threat made by Civilian Witness #10 against a neighbour, Civilian Witness #17. The two had not been seeing eye-to-eye of late, but their conflict took a decided turn for the worse as Civilian Witness #10 went out to confront Civilian Witness #17, who she believed had been sweeping dirt from a common walkway onto her property. Civilian Witness #10 had a knife with her. She accused Civilian Witness #17 of being a “witch”, threatened to kill her, and threw the knife in her direction. Retreating to her unit, and learning that a person had video-recorded part of the confrontation, the police were called and the threat reported.

It was not until about 2200 hours that officers were available to attend at Civilian Witness #17’s residence to investigate the complaint. They viewed the video recording and decided to arrest Civilian Witness #10 and her son, Deceased. Given what they had seen and been told, the officers clearly had grounds to do so. They did not have far to travel; the family unit was directly across the common walkway separating the rows of townhomes. Deceased answered the door. He resisted his arrest and began to scuffle with the officers. The struggle ended up on the ground as the parties tripped over the metal piping perimeter around the front yard. Deceased resisted strenuously as the officers attempted to secure him in custody. As this was happening, Civilian Witness #10 exited the home and approached Subject Officer #2 from behind, striking the back of her head with a metal pot. A stunned Subject Officer #2 disengaged from the altercation. Deceased seized the opportunity to extract himself from the melee and flee eastward away from the officers, who turned their attention on Civilian Witness #10. Subject Officer #2 and Subject Officer #3 had Civilian Witness #10 on the ground when Deceased returned. He screamed at the officers to let his mother go, clearly wielding a knife in his right hand. Subject Officer #1, who by this time realized he had been injured in the earlier struggle, drew his firearm, pointed it at Deceased and ordered him to stop. The officer was standing on the walkway looking east at Deceased at the time. Deceased did not stop and was shot by all three officers as he continued to close the gap with Subject Officer #1. Deceased was felled by the volley of gunfire, landing on his back. The time was about 2240 hours. Deceased would later be pronounced dead at the scene by an attending paramedic.

A total of 19 bullets were discharged by the three officers: ten, five and four from the guns of Subject Officer #1, Subject Officer #2 and Subject Officer #3, respectively. Deceased’s cause of death was determined to be multiple gunshot wounds at autopsy. He had sustained 11 gunshot wounds in total, four of which (to the lungs and neck) would have been fatal in and of themselves.

A kitchen knife with a handle and blade measuring about 11 and 16 centimetres, respectively, was recovered by the SIU at the scene. Civilian witnesses had observed the knife in Deceased’s right hand. Deceased’s DNA was found on the knife in subsequent testing at the Centre of Forensic Sciences. Pursuant to section 34 of the Criminal Code, an individual is legally justified in using force to defend oneself or others if she or he reasonably believes they are under attack and the force used is reasonable in the circumstances. I am satisfied, on the record in this case, that the officers and the shooting are entitled to the protection of the provision. As Deceased continued to close the distance between him and the officers, he clearly did so with an unlawful and dangerous purpose. He was armed with a knife and clearly intending to do harm with it. In fact, he had already used the knife to inflict injury on Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #3, each of whom had been cut by Deceased during the initial skirmish on the ground. Subject Officer #1 was aware of his/her wound - a laceration to the right thigh that was bleeding - as he/she raised his/her firearm in Deceased’s direction and ordered him to stop. Neither he/she nor Subject Officer #3 and Subject Officer #2 would have been aware that Deceased had armed himself with a knife intending to assault the officers with it prior to opening the door; however, the fact that he did so, as is apparent on the evidence of Civilian Witness #1 Confidential Witness Statement., lends credence to Deceased’s disposition for violence and the nature and extent of the danger the officers were confronting at the time. There was no real opportunity for retreat by the officers; by the time Deceased had re-appeared following his initial flight, he was on the officers and closing in on their position quickly. Despite an imminent knife attack, Subject Officer #1 was able to warn Deceased several times to desist before finally discharging his/her firearm, in concert with the other officers, as Deceased continued his advance. One of the eyewitnesses with a view of the unfolding events, Civilian Witness #14, indicates that Subject Officer #1 and Deceased were separated by about “eight feet” at the time of the shooting. This is not inconsistent with the forensic evidence, which suggests a distance within a range of two and five metres between the officers and Deceased as the shots were discharged. As for the number of shots fired by the officers, the evidence indicates that these were fired quickly in a cluster In fact when you watch the video of the incident at regular speed it is difficult to make out more than eight or nine distinct sounds of gunfire., suggesting, I am satisfied, that the nature of the threat posed byDeceased and reasonably perceived by all the officers did not change materially throughout the volley of gunfire. In view of the totality of this evidence, I am satisfied that the officers’ apprehensions of the nature of the threat and their need to take action, when they did and as they did, were reasonable within the terms of section 34 of the Criminal Code and that the shooting, therefore, was legally justified.

Of course, aside from the death of Deceased, the investigation established that the gunfire resulted in inadvertent wounds to Suzan Zreik and Subject Officer #3. The former was in her kitchen when a bullet fired from Subject Officer #3’s gun entered through the window and lodged in her back. It has since been surgically removed. Subject Officer #3 suffered a serious bruise to the back, the result of being struck by one of the rounds fired by Subject Officer #2. The officer has his/her bullet-proof vest to thank for not having suffered a more serious injury. Having determined that there are no grounds to charge one or more of the officers in connection with Deceased’s death because the shooting was legally justified under section 34 of the Criminal Code, I am bound to conclude that there are no grounds to charge the officers with criminal offences in relation to the injuries suffered by Ms. Zreik and Subject Officer #3. Some may wonder whether the injuries sustained by Ms. Zreik and Subject Officer #3 were the result of criminal negligence. Criminal negligence requires a marked and substantial departure from the conduct of a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances: R. v. R. (J.), 2008 SCC 30. In deciding that the shooting was justified under s. 34 I had to be satisfied that the act of self-defence (or defence of others) in this case was “reasonable” in the circumstances; Criminal Code s.34 (1)(c). Having come to that conclusion, the offence of criminal negligence is precluded in this situation as it is impossible for an act to be a “marked and substantial departure” from reasonable conduct (as criminal negligence requires) and reasonable conduct (as self- defence requires). Stated another way, it is not possible to find that the officer was acting in self-defence and then go on to consider whether he/she was nevertheless criminally negligent. They were injured because they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time through no criminal fault of anyone else.

In closing, I note for the record what appears to have been a serious and flagrant violation by the PRP of the regulations governing SIU investigations. Suzan Zreik, one of the SIU’s principal witnesses and herself a seriously injured party, was approached the morning after the shooting by PRP officers and, as she puts it, pressured into going to the police station and making a statement to the police. Ms. Zreik says she was taken from the hospital directly to a police station She was taken there despite her telling the officers that she wanted to go home and rest. At the time she was without shoes and still dressed in a hospital gown as her blouse and bra had been taken from her. She was not even given an opportunity to get a change of clothes and in fact had to borrow a jacket from her sister. wearing sweatpants and a hospital gown. The SIU’s interview of Ms. Zreik occurred two days later on March 23, 2015, at which time she complained of the police service’s heavy-handedness. To reiterate, Ms. Zreik had been shot in the back by one of the subject officers, a fact that would have been known to the police service at the time. What happened to her was clearly the subject of an SIU investigation, as was her evidence regarding the shooting death of Deceased. Until the facts were established she was a possible complainant in a criminal negligence causing bodily harm or careless use of a firearm scenario. The conduct of the PRP in this instance is a serious violation of O. Reg. 267/10, which confers upon the SIU the status of lead investigative agency in these cases. It is simply unacceptable in this day and age, some 25 years after the inception of the SIU and more than 16 years after the enactment of the regulation, that any police service, including this one, should continue to flaunt the rules that are in place to ensure the effectiveness of independent civilian investigations of police shootings. I will be bringing this matter to the attention of the Chief of police in the hope that she intercedes to ensure that the practices of her members in the aftermath of any incident that triggers the SIU’s mandate comply with the spirit and letter of the regulation.

Date: November 19, 2015

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit