SIU Director’s Report - Case # 20-TFD-098
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
Mandate of the SIU
The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving police officers where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. The Unit’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.
Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation. If, after an investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the officer. Alternatively, in all cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director does not lay criminal charges but files a report with the Attorney General communicating the results of an investigation.
Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation. If, after an investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the officer. Alternatively, in all cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director does not lay criminal charges but files a report with the Attorney General communicating the results of an investigation.
Information Restrictions
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”)
Pursuant to section 14 of FIPPA (i.e., law enforcement), certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:- Confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by law enforcement agencies; and
- 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.
- Subject Officer name(s);
- Witness Officer name(s);
- Civilian Witness name(s);
- Location information;
- Witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence; and
- Other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation.
Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (“PHIPA”)
Pursuant to PHIPA, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included. Other proceedings, processes, and investigations
Information may have also been excluded from this report 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.Mandate Engaged
The Unit’s investigative jurisdiction is limited to those incidents where there is a serious injury (including sexual assault allegations) or death in cases involving the police.
“Serious injuries” shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. “Serious Injury” shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault. Where a prolonged delay is likely before the seriousness of the injury can be assessed, the Unit should be notified so that it can monitor the situation and decide on the extent of its involvement.
This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the death of a 30-year old man (the “Complainant”).
“Serious injuries” shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. “Serious Injury” shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault. Where a prolonged delay is likely before the seriousness of the injury can be assessed, the Unit should be notified so that it can monitor the situation and decide on the extent of its involvement.
This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the death of a 30-year old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On April 30, 2020, at 12:45 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the firearms-related death of the Complainant.The TPS advised that on April 30, 2020, at about 12:18 p.m., TPS officers from 31 Division responded to a report of a man [now determined to be the Complainant] armed with a knife and firearm sitting in a vehicle in the parking lot of the Best Western Plus hotel at 50 Norfinch Drive in Toronto. At the time TPS reported the incident, limited information was available other than shots were fired by police and the Complainant had been struck.
It was later learned from the TPS that the Complainant was declared dead on scene by attending paramedics and not transported to hospital.
It appeared only one police officer, now determined to be the Subject Officer (SO), discharged his firearm and he was taken to hospital for assessment. The scene had been secured and the TPS Identification Unit had set up tents to protect evidence from the rain.
The Team
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4 Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3
Complainant:
30-year-old male, deceasedCivilian Witnesses
CW #1 InterviewedCW #2 Interviewed
Witness Officers
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
Additionally, the notes from four other officers were received and reviewed.
Subject Officers
SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject officer’s legal rightEvidence
The Scene
The location of the incident was 50 Norfinch Drive, Toronto, in the parking lot of the Best Western Plus hotel. This location was also directly beside the TPS 31 Division building. The scene of the incident was in the parking lot approximately 57 metres southeast of the Best Western Plus hotel office. There were two TPS tents protecting the scene. There were three involved vehicles within the scene. The parking lot was being protected by TPS officers.
Figure 1 - The Best Western Plus hotel parking lot and the involved vehicles.
Norfinch Drive is basically a north and south road but at this area the road bends and is a north to west, south to east road. For the purposes of scene description, the road will be considered a north to south road. The parking lot for the Best Western Plus hotel is a large lot with two entrances on the west side of the road. The entrances lead to the parking lot which is on the south side of the Best Western Plus hotel. There is a third entrance which travels behind and around the building but was not involved in the incident. The TPS 31 Division building is directly south of the parking lot and a high wooden fence separates the Best Western Plus hotel parking lot from the police station.
Two Toronto EMS ambulances were at the scene. One of the EMS ambulances held the body of the Complainant. The Complainant’s body was examined by the Coroner in the ambulance. Investigators photographed the Complainant’s body inside the ambulance during the examination. The Complainant was identified through identification found at the scene. Subsequently, the Complainant’s body was taken by ambulance to the Coroner’s Building, where it was secured.
An SIU investigator attended TPS 31 Division to obtain the uniform and equipment of the SO.
1. A black, 2011 BMW 3 series. It was parked in a parking spot facing south. The windows were tinted. The engine was off and the key was in the ignition. There was a phone in a holder attached to a dash vent. There was the securing carrier for a child’s car seat in the left rear portion of the vehicle. There was a purse on the rear seat used to hold clean diapers. There was a soft side carry case in the rear seat which contained water bottles. On the front passenger seat was an employee benefit document.
2. A 2016 Ford Taurus TPS fully marked police cruiser painted grey and white with TPS decals and a full light bar was at the location. The cruiser was parked facing northwest off the left front corner of the BMW. This cruiser was equipped with an in-car camera system (ICCS) on the front dash and a C8 rifle in its holder between the two front seats. The car was running and the wipers were operating on intermittent mode. There was a police officer’s duty bag on the front seat with a cell phone on top. There were two duty books on the instrument panel. Two black police gloves were in the front area: one on the driver’s seat and the other on the duty bag.
3. A 2014 Ford Explorer SUV TPS marked police vehicle painted white with blue stripes was at the location. The cruiser was marked with TPS decals and had a full light bar. This cruiser was parked facing south southwest off the left rear corner of the BMW. It was equipped with an ICCS on the dash and there was a C8 rifle mounted between the front seats, but the rifle was missing. A duty bag was on the passenger seat.
The area between the front of the BMW and the left side of the 2017 grey Ford Taurus cruiser was the area protected with two tents. In this area there were three Tim Hortons cups which had been placed overtop of three cartridge cases. There was a pair of sunglasses, wallet, medical debris and a black handled Cuisinart kitchen knife.
Norfinch Drive is basically a north and south road but at this area the road bends and is a north to west, south to east road. For the purposes of scene description, the road will be considered a north to south road. The parking lot for the Best Western Plus hotel is a large lot with two entrances on the west side of the road. The entrances lead to the parking lot which is on the south side of the Best Western Plus hotel. There is a third entrance which travels behind and around the building but was not involved in the incident. The TPS 31 Division building is directly south of the parking lot and a high wooden fence separates the Best Western Plus hotel parking lot from the police station.
Two Toronto EMS ambulances were at the scene. One of the EMS ambulances held the body of the Complainant. The Complainant’s body was examined by the Coroner in the ambulance. Investigators photographed the Complainant’s body inside the ambulance during the examination. The Complainant was identified through identification found at the scene. Subsequently, the Complainant’s body was taken by ambulance to the Coroner’s Building, where it was secured.
An SIU investigator attended TPS 31 Division to obtain the uniform and equipment of the SO.
TPS police cruisers and complainant’s vehicle
2. A 2016 Ford Taurus TPS fully marked police cruiser painted grey and white with TPS decals and a full light bar was at the location. The cruiser was parked facing northwest off the left front corner of the BMW. This cruiser was equipped with an in-car camera system (ICCS) on the front dash and a C8 rifle in its holder between the two front seats. The car was running and the wipers were operating on intermittent mode. There was a police officer’s duty bag on the front seat with a cell phone on top. There were two duty books on the instrument panel. Two black police gloves were in the front area: one on the driver’s seat and the other on the duty bag.
3. A 2014 Ford Explorer SUV TPS marked police vehicle painted white with blue stripes was at the location. The cruiser was marked with TPS decals and had a full light bar. This cruiser was parked facing south southwest off the left rear corner of the BMW. It was equipped with an ICCS on the dash and there was a C8 rifle mounted between the front seats, but the rifle was missing. A duty bag was on the passenger seat.
The area between the front of the BMW and the left side of the 2017 grey Ford Taurus cruiser was the area protected with two tents. In this area there were three Tim Hortons cups which had been placed overtop of three cartridge cases. There was a pair of sunglasses, wallet, medical debris and a black handled Cuisinart kitchen knife.
Figure 2 - The tented area of the parking lot that contained three Tim Hortons coffee cups covering cartridge cases, a black-handled knife, medical debris and the Complainant’s belongings.
Scene Diagram
Physical Evidence
The duty vest of the SO
The SO’s duty vest contained the following: an ICCS microphone, handcuffs and a lighter, a flashlight, a small container of Purell hand sanitizer, two loaded C8 magazines and a portable radio.
The SO’s pistol and magazines
The duty belt had a holster containing a Glock 22 pistol with one chambered .40 calibre cartridge. The magazine in the pistol grip was a 15 round capacity magazine and it contained ten .40 calibre cartridges. The two spare magazines for the SO’s Glock 22 were each 15 round capacity magazines which had fourteen .40 calibre cartridges in each.
Figure 3 - The SO's firearm.
Scene Diagram
Physical Evidence
The duty vest of the SO
The SO’s pistol and magazines
Figure 3 - The SO's firearm.
Attached to the duty belt were Peerless handcuffs; Pepper Spray; a 21” ASP baton; and, a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) with two seated cartridges.
The Glock pistol and all three magazines and cartridges were collected by investigators. Furthermore, the SO’s uniform pants, shirt and boots were collected. Also collected were an inner belt, a toque, and two latex gloves.
Exhibits recovered at scene
Figure 4 - The knife that was located at the scene.
There were also three cartridge cases found at the scene, each of them was silver and each had the headstamp of WIN 40 S&W.
The Complainant’s cellphone was found at the scene in the BMW. The cellphone was turned on, but it was protected with a password. The Complainant’s wallet was found at the scene. It was a brown wallet containing Canadian, US, and Afghan money. There were various cards in the name of the Complainant. The ownership, insurance card for the BMW, and a temporary Driver’s Licence had the first name as the Complainant but a different last name. The address and date of birth was the same as those for the Complainant.
Police Communications Recordings
At 12:16:07 p.m., April 30, 2020, a man called the 911 operator and the following conversation took place:The operator asked whether the caller wanted police, fire or ambulance?
A man [now determined to be the Complainant] [1] indicated he wanted police.
Operator asked where is the emergency?
The Complainant responded there was a person in a car with a knife and a gun at the Best Western on Norfinch (Best Western Plus hotel at 50 Norfinch Drive).
The operator asked when this person was seen?
The Complainant replied a couple of minutes ago.
The operator then asked what type of vehicle they were in?
The Complainant replied a black BMW.
The operator asked whether he had seen the licence number?
The Complainant said no.
The operator asked how many people were in the vehicle?
The Complainant said he did not see.
The operator asked what the person looked like?
The Complainant indicated he had a white complexion.
The operator asked how old?
The Complainant replied he could not tell.
The operator came back and asked for their approximate age.
The Complainant replied maybe 30.
The operator asked long hair or short hair?
The Complainant said short.
The operator asked what kind of gun?
The Complainant said a handgun.
The operator asked whether it was a revolver or semi-automatic? The Complainant replied he could not tell and that it was black.
The operator asked what the knife looked like?
The Complainant replied it looked like a kitchen knife.
The operator asked were they holding them, threatening, waving them?
The Complainant replied, “No in their car, just saw, I got to go.”
The operator asked for the caller’s name.
At 12:17:56 p.m., the call was disconnected.
At 12:18:52 p.m., a woman called the radio room and said, “I have a person with a gun.”
At 12:19:13 p.m., the dispatcher came on the police radio and said, “I have you already there, 50 Norfinch Drive, person with a gun.”
At 12:19:14 p.m., the communications room called the Emergency Task Force and advised there was a person with a gun in 31 Division.
At 12:19:23 p.m., the dispatcher advised on the police radio that a male caller said he just saw a man in a car with a gun and a knife in a black BMW in front of the hotel. The male was white and in his 30s.
At 12:19:43 p.m., a male police officer said, “I’ll head over, it’s probably military personnel.”
At 12:19:54 p.m., a male police officer said, “You said a black BMW?”
At 12:20:01 p.m., a male police officer asked if the dispatcher had a marker or location in the parking lot.
At 12:20:04 p.m., the dispatcher advised in front of the hotel, and indicated the person had a gun and a kitchen knife.
At 12:20:46 p.m., a male police officer said, “Shots fired, shots fired subject down.”
At 12:20:48 p.m., the dispatcher repeated, “Shots fired, subject down.”
At 12:20:54 p.m., a male police officer told the dispatcher the subject was down and to [summon an ambulance]. He indicated more officers were needed to tape off the area.
At 12:21:05 p.m., a male police officer advised that the subject was still breathing.
At 12:21:09 p.m., a male police officer was heard over the police radio, “Are you conscious, can you hear me, put the knife down.”
At 12:21:15 p.m., the dispatcher told two units to head over.
At 12:21:51 p.m., the dispatcher asked if it was the male in the black BMW that was shot.
At 12:21:56 p.m., a male police officer reported that the suspect was shot, and the police officers were not hurt.
At 12:22:04 p.m., a male police officer asked for more units to head over.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence
TPS Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) Video
TPS ICCS Video
One police cruiser was operated by WO #1. The cruiser’s ICCS video was recorded after the shooting occurred. The video footage began at 12:23:48 p.m. and showed WO #1 and the SO on the driver’s side of the SO’s grey fully marked police cruiser. The Complainant was on the ground beside the driver’s side of the cruiser.
The second police cruiser was operated by the SO. There was no video recorded. [2] The display showed a black screen. Audio was recorded and captured the following:
At 12:20:29 p.m., there was the sound of a car door opening. A man’s (believed to be that of the SO) voice said, “Put the knife down.” A car horn sounded. The man said, “Put the knife down, drop the knife, drop it,” followed by three gunshots;
At 12:20:52 p.m., a man’s voice said, “Shots fired, subject down.” The dispatcher repeated, “Shots fired, subject down.” A man said, “Is he still breathing, conscious, let go of the knife, let go of the knife, let go of the knife so we can help you”;
The dispatcher asked for other units to attend. A man tells someone to start taping off the area. A man’s voice said, “Cuff him.” And then a man’s voice ordered the street (Norfinch Drive) to be closed. A man said, “Buddy stay with me.” The dispatcher told units to slow down but make their way to the scene;
The dispatcher confirmed the subject was shot and that no police officers were injured. A man said, “Keep breathing buddy, I know it’s hard but keep breathing, take another breath.” The dispatcher asked for an update for the ambulance. A man said, “Approximately 35 years, still breathing”; and
At 12:27:00 p.m., a man advised the Toronto Fire Department was on scene.
There were several more hours of recordings of no evidentiary value.
CCTV from Best Western Plus parking lot
At 11:31:40 a.m., a TPS sergeant arrived in the parking lot and entered the Best Western Plus hotel lobby; [3]
At 11:33:08 a.m., the sergeant left the hotel;
At 11:35:00 a.m., the sergeant returned and parked in the parking lot;
At 11:37:30 a.m., two grey marked police cruisers entered the parking lot and parked beside the sergeant’s cruiser where they remained for some time;
At 11:58:00 a.m., the sergeant left in his cruiser but the two grey TPS cruisers remained parked driver’s door to driver’s door;
At 12:07:36 p.m., the Complainant drove into the parking lot driving a black BMW and parked next to a black stretch limousine;
At 12:10:34 p.m., the Complainant turned his BMW around and parked in the position it was found after the shooting;
At 12:11:42 p.m., a grey TPS police cruiser left the parking lot;
At 12:12:21 p.m., a second grey police cruiser left the parking lot. The Complainant’s BMW remained parked in the lot;
At 12:20:40 p.m., the SO’s police cruiser drove directly up to the front driver’s side of the Complainant’s BMW and the cruiser’s roof lights were turned on. As soon as the SO’s cruiser appeared to stop, the Complainant exited his BMW. The BMW and cruiser were parked in such a way that they were obstructed by a pillar from the hotel lobby canopy and, as a result, the SO’s actions were not visible on the video;
At 12:20:41 p.m., WO #1’s SUV police cruiser arrived from the left of the screen, approached the rear driver’s side of the Complainant’s BMW and stopped;
At 12:20:41 p.m., the Complainant paused at the passenger side of his BMW for several seconds before he started to move towards the SO’s police cruiser. The Complainant moved and was obstructed by the pillar and his actions were not visible;
At 12:20:51 p.m., the Complainant dropped to the ground (this location corresponded with where the medical debris and sunglasses were found). The view of WO #1 was obscured by another pillar and his movements could not be seen; and
At 12:20:52 p.m., WO #1 was seen running towards the SO and the Complainant.
Forensic Evidence
Biology Report
On June 4, 2020, a Forensic Scientist with the Biology Section of the CFS issued a report in which she concluded a swab of the handle produced “DNA from at least two people, including at least one male”. The profile developed was compared to the profile developed from the swab of blood from the Complainant which was obtained during the post-mortem examination.
The Forensic Scientist’s conclusion indicated, “[The Complainant] cannot be excluded as the source of a male DNA profile (STR Profile 1; see Testing Summary) from the handle of a knife (item 4-1) from the scene.”
Firearms Report
The results of the examination were as follows:
The Glock 22 was a semi-automatic pistol and it was examined and assessed for mechanical operability (including safeties) prior to test firing. It was received in firing condition.
The three cartridge cases located at the scene were compared to the cartridge cases test fired from the SO’s pistol and there was an agreement of class and individual characteristics between the items.
A black “Eddie Bauer” insulated jacket was examined visually, microscopically and with infrared photography. Three defects were noted, two to the midsections and one to the right shoulder. No firearms discharge residues were located and as a result no distance determination testing was undertaken.
Materials obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the TPS:- Communications Recordings;
- General Occurrence Report;
- Intergraph Computer-Assisted Dispatch;
- TPS ICCS Recordings;
- Notes of WO #1 and four other officers;
- Records about previous incidents at the Best Western Hotel;
- TPS Policy-Emotionally Disturbed Persons and Appendices;
- TPS Policy-Use of Force and Appendices; and
- TPS-Involved Officer List.
Materials obtained from Other Sources
Information from non-police sources:- Preliminary Autopsy Findings from Ontario Forensic Pathology Service;
- Report of Post-mortem Examination from Coroner’s Office, received by SIU in October 2020;
- Biology Report from Centre of Forensic Sciences;
- Firearms Report from Centre of Forensic Sciences; and
- CCTV video from Best Western Plus hotel.
Incident Narrative
The following scenario emerges on the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the lone third-party eyewitness to the shooting, WO #1, in the vicinity at the time of the incident. The investigation was also assisted by video and audio recordings of the events in question captured by the ICCS of two TPS cruisers.
At about 12:16 p.m. on April 30, 2020, a male called 911 to report that he had seen another male with a knife and handgun seated in a black BMW that was parked in the lot of the Best Western Plus hotel on Norfinch Drive. The male in the vehicle, according to the caller, was white and had short hair. As the call-taker pressed for more details, the male hung-up saying he had to go.
The male in the BMW was the Complainant. And it was the Complainant who placed the 911 call. [4] He had entered the parking lot of the hotel situated at 50 Norfinch Drive minutes earlier and stationed his vehicle adjacent to a limousine in the most southern row of parking spots. The hotel’s parking lot was immediately north of TPS 31 Division. The front end of the Complainant’s BMW was facing the police station when it came to a stop.
The SO and WO #1, both 31 Division officers, heard the call over the radio of a person with a knife and gun in a BMW just north of their location. They entered their respective cruisers – the SO in a marked sedan and WO #1 operating a marked SUV – and drove quickly to the lot. The SO spotted the BMW in question, not far from the southernmost entrance into the parking lot, and brought his cruiser to a stop in a northwest orientation with its front end up against the driver’s side front end of the BMW. The officer activated his emergency lights. The time was about 12:20 p.m.
As the SO was bringing his vehicle to a stop, the Complainant opened the driver’s door and exited his BMW. In his left hand, held tight against his left leg, was a knife. At about the same time, WO #1 had stopped his SUV such that its front end was beside the driver’s side rear of the BMW. As the Complainant moved forward along the passenger side of the SO’s cruiser, WO #1 yelled, “Knife.” The Complainant continued along the cruiser’s passenger side and around its trunk toward the SO, who by this time was out of his cruiser with his gun pointed at the Complainant. The officer yelled at the Complainant to drop the knife. The Complainant continued his advance, knife in hand, and was shot by the SO when he neared to within about a metre of the officer on the driver’s side of the cruiser.
The SO discharged his weapon three times. Two bullets entered the front of the Complainant’s abdomen and a third, the right shoulder.
The Complainant was felled by the gunfire. He lay on the ground, his head pointed toward the hotel and his feet in the direction of the police station. WO #1 approached the Complainant and removed the knife from his left hand. Additional officers began to arrive on scene and CPR was commenced on the Complainant. Paramedics soon took over the Complainant’s care and attempted to resuscitate him, to no avail. The Complainant was pronounced deceased at the scene.
A forensic pathologist attributed the Complainant’s death to “gunshot wounds to torso”.
At about 12:16 p.m. on April 30, 2020, a male called 911 to report that he had seen another male with a knife and handgun seated in a black BMW that was parked in the lot of the Best Western Plus hotel on Norfinch Drive. The male in the vehicle, according to the caller, was white and had short hair. As the call-taker pressed for more details, the male hung-up saying he had to go.
The male in the BMW was the Complainant. And it was the Complainant who placed the 911 call. [4] He had entered the parking lot of the hotel situated at 50 Norfinch Drive minutes earlier and stationed his vehicle adjacent to a limousine in the most southern row of parking spots. The hotel’s parking lot was immediately north of TPS 31 Division. The front end of the Complainant’s BMW was facing the police station when it came to a stop.
The SO and WO #1, both 31 Division officers, heard the call over the radio of a person with a knife and gun in a BMW just north of their location. They entered their respective cruisers – the SO in a marked sedan and WO #1 operating a marked SUV – and drove quickly to the lot. The SO spotted the BMW in question, not far from the southernmost entrance into the parking lot, and brought his cruiser to a stop in a northwest orientation with its front end up against the driver’s side front end of the BMW. The officer activated his emergency lights. The time was about 12:20 p.m.
As the SO was bringing his vehicle to a stop, the Complainant opened the driver’s door and exited his BMW. In his left hand, held tight against his left leg, was a knife. At about the same time, WO #1 had stopped his SUV such that its front end was beside the driver’s side rear of the BMW. As the Complainant moved forward along the passenger side of the SO’s cruiser, WO #1 yelled, “Knife.” The Complainant continued along the cruiser’s passenger side and around its trunk toward the SO, who by this time was out of his cruiser with his gun pointed at the Complainant. The officer yelled at the Complainant to drop the knife. The Complainant continued his advance, knife in hand, and was shot by the SO when he neared to within about a metre of the officer on the driver’s side of the cruiser.
The SO discharged his weapon three times. Two bullets entered the front of the Complainant’s abdomen and a third, the right shoulder.
The Complainant was felled by the gunfire. He lay on the ground, his head pointed toward the hotel and his feet in the direction of the police station. WO #1 approached the Complainant and removed the knife from his left hand. Additional officers began to arrive on scene and CPR was commenced on the Complainant. Paramedics soon took over the Complainant’s care and attempted to resuscitate him, to no avail. The Complainant was pronounced deceased at the scene.
Cause of Death
Relevant Legislation
Section 34, Criminal Code -- Defence of person - Use of threat of force
34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) They believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;(b) The act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and(c) The act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:
(a) the nature of the force or threat;(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;(c) the person’s role in the incident;(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.
Analysis and Director's Decision
On April 30, 2020, the Complainant was shot in the parking lot of a Best Western Plus hotel by a TPS officer and subsequently died at the scene of the shooting. The SO had discharged his firearm three times at the Complainant and was therefore identified as the subject officer for purposes of the SIU investigation. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s death.
Section 34 of the Criminal Code sets out the law of self-defence in Canada. The provision provides that conduct that would otherwise amount to an offence is legally justified where it is intended to thwart a reasonably apprehended attack, actual or threatened, against oneself or another person. In order to attract the protection of section 34, the conduct must also be reasonable in all the circumstances, including with reference to such considerations as the nature of the force or threat, the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force, and whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon.
The evidence establishes that the SO’s conduct was justified in self-defence. The officer was engaged in the execution of his duties when he responded to an urgent call of a male in the possession of a knife and handgun in the parking lot of the hotel just north of his location. Arriving within seconds, the SO quickly spotted the Complainant’s BMW and positioned his cruiser so as to prevent its movement forward, a reasonable tactic given the risk of the Complainant fleeing the scene. Thereafter, the officer exited his cruiser and was almost immediately confronted by the Complainant, who seemed intent on provoking a confrontation with police. The Complainant was holding in his left hand a kitchen knife with a serrated blade about 15 centimetres in length, an object clearly capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm or death. He also gave every indication of wanting to use it to harm the SO; despite repeated calls from the SO and WO #1 that he drop the knife, the Complainant persisted, quickly advancing on the SO with knife in hand. The SO backtracked an extent and then fired his weapon three times when the Complainant neared to within about a metre. At that distance, the officer had every reason to believe that his life was in imminent peril and that shooting the Complainant was necessary if he was going to protect himself from a knife attack. In fact, though the officer did not provide a statement to the SIU, I am satisfied that the SO was of that mindset; the circumstantial evidence is so compelling that it permits of no other reasonable inference. With respect to the number of shots fired, given the rapidity of their discharge one after the other, and the evidence regarding the location of the wounds coupled with WO #1’s eyewitness account suggesting the Complainant was on his feet throughout the gunfire, there is no reason to believe that the nature and extent of the threat changed appreciably from shots one through three.
It is unclear why the Complainant acted as he did in the course of these tragic events. There was evidence gathered in the investigation that the Complainant suffered from mental illness suggesting, possibly, that he was of unsound mind at the time. Be that as it may, the SO would have had no knowledge of mental illness being a factor at play as he made his way to the scene and confronted the Complainant. The entire interaction from start to finish was over in a matter of seconds. In that brief period of time, given what he knew and was faced with, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO acted other than lawfully when he discharged his firearm.
For the foregoing reasons, there are no grounds to proceed with criminal charges in this case and the file is closed.
Date: February 4, 2021
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Section 34 of the Criminal Code sets out the law of self-defence in Canada. The provision provides that conduct that would otherwise amount to an offence is legally justified where it is intended to thwart a reasonably apprehended attack, actual or threatened, against oneself or another person. In order to attract the protection of section 34, the conduct must also be reasonable in all the circumstances, including with reference to such considerations as the nature of the force or threat, the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force, and whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon.
The evidence establishes that the SO’s conduct was justified in self-defence. The officer was engaged in the execution of his duties when he responded to an urgent call of a male in the possession of a knife and handgun in the parking lot of the hotel just north of his location. Arriving within seconds, the SO quickly spotted the Complainant’s BMW and positioned his cruiser so as to prevent its movement forward, a reasonable tactic given the risk of the Complainant fleeing the scene. Thereafter, the officer exited his cruiser and was almost immediately confronted by the Complainant, who seemed intent on provoking a confrontation with police. The Complainant was holding in his left hand a kitchen knife with a serrated blade about 15 centimetres in length, an object clearly capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm or death. He also gave every indication of wanting to use it to harm the SO; despite repeated calls from the SO and WO #1 that he drop the knife, the Complainant persisted, quickly advancing on the SO with knife in hand. The SO backtracked an extent and then fired his weapon three times when the Complainant neared to within about a metre. At that distance, the officer had every reason to believe that his life was in imminent peril and that shooting the Complainant was necessary if he was going to protect himself from a knife attack. In fact, though the officer did not provide a statement to the SIU, I am satisfied that the SO was of that mindset; the circumstantial evidence is so compelling that it permits of no other reasonable inference. With respect to the number of shots fired, given the rapidity of their discharge one after the other, and the evidence regarding the location of the wounds coupled with WO #1’s eyewitness account suggesting the Complainant was on his feet throughout the gunfire, there is no reason to believe that the nature and extent of the threat changed appreciably from shots one through three.
It is unclear why the Complainant acted as he did in the course of these tragic events. There was evidence gathered in the investigation that the Complainant suffered from mental illness suggesting, possibly, that he was of unsound mind at the time. Be that as it may, the SO would have had no knowledge of mental illness being a factor at play as he made his way to the scene and confronted the Complainant. The entire interaction from start to finish was over in a matter of seconds. In that brief period of time, given what he knew and was faced with, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO acted other than lawfully when he discharged his firearm.
For the foregoing reasons, there are no grounds to proceed with criminal charges in this case and the file is closed.
Date: February 4, 2021
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) Automatic number identification or automatic location identification commonly referred to as ANI/ALI is used by TPS to identify callers making 911 calls to the police using their cell phones. In this case the ANI/ALI identified the incoming cell phone number as that belonging to the Complainant. [Back to text]
- 2) TPS advised the ICCS was malfunctioning. [Back to text]
- 3) This occurrence at 50 Norfinch Drive involved an earlier complaint reported at 11:23 a.m. and was unrelated to the Complainant. [Back to text]
- 4) The cell phone number that was used to call police was registered to the Complainant. [Back to text]
Note:
The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.