Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.

Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019

Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following: 

• The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person. 
• Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault. 
• Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person. 
• Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.  
• Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.  
• Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published. 

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.

A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.

In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into a firearm discharge at a 42-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On December 13, 2020, at 9:58 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of the discharge of a firearm at a person. The PRP reported that on December 12, 2020 at approximately 10:47 p.m., PRP members responded to an address on Queen Street East, Brampton, regarding a male threatening neighbours with a knife.

When PRP officers arrived, the male was determined to be inside his apartment. PRP tactical officers set up on the apartment and established communication. At one point the male exited his apartment waving a knife and threatening the officers. The tactical unit officers deployed an Anti-Riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN) and a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) at the male. This proved ineffective as the male retreated into his apartment.

PRP officers obtained a Feeney [1] warrant to enter the male’s apartment to arrest him. Tactical officers eventually entered the male’s apartment and discovered he had barricaded himself in a bedroom. When negotiations failed, tactical officers entered the bedroom, where they encountered the male waving a utility knife at them. Police deployed an ARWEN gun and a CEW, and the male was apprehended.

The male was later identified as the Complainant.

The Complainant was transported to the Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH) where he was treated for self-inflicted wounds, believed to have been caused by a utility knife.                  

The Team

Date and time team dispatched:       12/13/2020 at 11:08 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene:     12/13/2020 at 12:15 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned:     3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned:     2

No civilian witnesses were canvassed or interviewed as the events occurred in the hallway of the apartment building and inside the Complainant’s residence.

Tenants residing on the floor were evacuated by police; therefore, they were not of evidentiary value to the investigation.

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

42-year-old male, not interviewed [2]

Subject Officials 

SO #1     Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
SO #2     Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials

WO #1     Interviewed
WO #2     Interviewed
WO #3     Interviewed
WO #4     Interviewed
WO #5     Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between December 18, 2020 and December 21, 2020.

Investigative Delay

Due to the coronavirus pandemic, SIU investigators tried to arrange with BCH staff to have the Complainant interviewed by telephone. Despite numerous requests, investigators were unsuccessful in arranging a telephone interview with the Complainant.

It was later learned that the Complainant had been remanded to the Maplehurst Correctional Facility (MCF) in Milton after he was released from BCH.

On December 17, 2020, SIU investigators contacted MCF and spoke with staff who indicated that a teleconference interview of the Complainant would be impossible to facilitate because correctional staff were inundated with video and audio conferences for court hearings and managing COVID 19 outbreaks inside the facility. Staff indicated that SIU investigators would be required to attend the facility to interview the Complainant. Due to the COVID 19 outbreaks within this correctional facility, investigators deemed it unsafe to attend the facility to interview the Complainant.

The witness officials were designated on December 14, 2020. The witness officials were scheduled on annual leave during the time of their designations. Upon returning to duty on December 18, 2020, they were interviewed by the SIU investigators by telephone.

                                  
                   

The Scene

There were two scenes involving this event, which were in an apartment complex on Queen Street East, Brampton. The first scene was the hallway on the floor where the Complainant resided. The second scene was the Complainant’s apartment.

Scene Diagram 

Physical Evidence 

The SIU collected the following exhibits from the hallway (appeared to have been moved to this location after the fact):

          1 – Arwen cartridge case
          2 – Arwen cartridge case;
          3 – Arwen projectile;
          4 – Arwen projectile;
          5 – CEW cartridge case (CC);
          6 – CEW CC;
          7 – CEW CC;
  

Figure 1 - ARWEN cartridge cases and projectiles, and CEW CCs and wire.

The second scene involved the inside of the Complainant’s apartment. Numerous CEW CC components littered the floor as well as a large quantity of popcorn. The hallway of the apartment was divided into 3 sections, as follows:
  
The west section – consisting of:
CEW probe;
CEW blast door; and
Anti-Felon Identification Tags (AFIDs).

The middle section – consisting of:
CEW blast doors x 4;
CEW ejectors, probe and wire; and
AFIDS.

The east section – consisting of:
CEW blast door and ejectors; and
AFIDS.


Figure 2 - Evidence of CEW discharges that was located inside the apartment.

Two CEW probes, found embedded in the east wall near the north corner of a bedroom, were seized.

The involved ARWENs and CEWs were photographed and examined.


Figure 3 - One of the ARWENs used during the incident.

Figure 4 - A utility knife that was located in the apartment.

Figure 5 - Two knives located inside the apartment.

Forensic Evidence

Data History of Five CEWs 

WO #2 triggered his CEW once at 10:47 p.m. [3]

WO #1 triggered his CEW twice, at 10:52:41 p.m. and again at 10:52:42 p.m.

WO #4 triggered his CEW seven times, at 8:32:41 a.m., 8:32:46 a.m., 8:32:51 a.m., 8:32:57 a.m., 8:33:03 a.m., 8:33:08 a.m. and 8:33:16 a.m.

WO #5 discharged his CEW five times, at 8:33:04 a.m., 8:33:06 a.m., 8:33:16 a.m., 8:33:26 a.m., and 8:33:32 a.m.

WO #3 triggered his CEW once, at 8:33:26 a.m.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

The PRP Computer-Assisted Dispatch (CAD) reports revealed that on December 12, 2020, at 9:07 p.m., a female caller reported to a 911 dispatcher she was a tenant in an apartment building at Queen Street East. She indicated a neighbour, now known to be the Complainant, was kicking her door and had broken the door handle, but that she remained safe inside her apartment.

The female caller told the 911 dispatcher that when she looked through the peephole, she saw the neighbour armed with a knife. It was later learned that the tenant’s brother-in-law and mother saw the neighbour (the Complainant) armed with a large kitchen knife. The female caller indicated to the 911 dispatcher that the police were called to the apartment complex earlier in the day for a disturbance involving the same neighbour (the Complainant). The neighbour (the Complainant) returned to his apartment. The female tenant believed the neighbour (the Complainant) was schizophrenic and indicated that she feared him.

The police dispatcher provided the responding officers with CPIC information indicating that the male, the Complainant, had cautions placed upon him identifying him as a spitter, a carrier of weapons, and had [a mental health disorder].

At 9:08 p.m., tactical officers were advised of the situation. TRU officers, including SO #1, WO #1, WO #2 and a canine handler, and uniformed officers were all dispatched to attend the scene and begin an interior and exterior containment of the apartment complex to ensure the Complainant did not escape.

The CAD indicated the involved officers could hear a male from an apartment sounding agitated.

At 10:00 p.m., tenants on the floor were evacuated by officers and negotiating officers were requesting a translator. There was a radio transmission believed to be a direction from a Tactical Incident Commander instructing responding officers that the Complainant was to be contained for public safety after threatening other residents in the building.

At 10:43 p.m., TRU members began radio transmissions to report the actions of the male (the Complainant). A radio broadcast indicated the apartment door was opened slightly and the male yelled from the back of his apartment threatening to kill officers and the landlord. Sounds of things banging were heard inside the apartment.

At 10:47 p.m., a TRU radio transmission reported the male (the Complainant) exited the apartment, a CEW was deployed, and the Complainant returned inside his apartment.

At 10:50 p.m., TRU members transmitted that the Complainant was slamming the apartment door, opening and closing the door, armed with a knife, and had uttered threats and returned to his apartment. A TRU member further transmitted that less lethal options were used but did not work.

At 10:55 p.m., a TRU radio transmission relayed that the Complainant broke a tactical unit barricade on the apartment door.

At 10:57 p.m., the Complainant was heard yelling from deep inside his apartment.

At 11:00 p.m., a TRU radio transmission reported all was quiet inside the apartment. The Complainant was isolated and contained in his apartment as tactical negotiators were trying to negotiate with him. Advance care paramedics arrived on scene and were told to remain on standby.

At 11:43 p.m., a TRU member transmitted the Complainant sounded like he was breaking things inside his apartment.

At 5:28 a.m., a TRU member reported that a tactical negotiator had knocked on the apartment door but received no response from the Complainant.

At 6:56 a.m., TRU members of (dayshift), including SO #2, WO #3 and WO #4, transmitted they were on scene.

From the period of 8:15 a.m. to 8:40 a.m., radio transmissions indicated that TRU members had entered the Complainant’s apartment and arrested him.

At 8:45 a.m., a TRU member reported that an officer who could act as a translator had arrived on scene and the Complainant’s apartment was secured.

Materials Obtained from Police Service 

SIU obtained the following records from the PRP from December 14, 2020 to January 28, 2021:

•  CAD Report;
•  Notes of the WOs;
•  Occurrence Report;
• Telewarrant and Attached Appendices;
•  PRP Preliminary Perimeter Control and Containment Directive; and
•  PRP Incident Response Directive.

The following scenario emerges from the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with a number of police officers who partook in the police operation and were present at the time the ARWENs were deployed. Regrettably, the Complainant could not be reached for an interview. As was their legal right, neither subject official chose to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

At about 9:07 p.m. on December 12, 2020, the PRP received a 911 call from a tenant of an apartment building on Queen Street East, Brampton, calling to report a disturbance. She indicated that a neighbour of hers– the Complainant – was kicking at her door and had broken the door handle. The Complainant, according to the caller, was armed with a knife and suffered from mental illness.

The PRP deployed a TRU team to the scene consisting of SO #1, WO #1 and three other officers. They convened on the floor where the Complainant lived and set about evacuating residents from the area. The Complainant had locked himself inside his unit by this time. An officer attempted to communicate with the Complainant through the door with no success. The sound of glass breaking and the Complainant screaming could be heard from within the apartment. There were reports of the Complainant threatening to kill officers and his landlord. To prevent the Complainant from suddenly exiting his apartment, the officers secured his apartment door with a piece of cord.

As negotiation attempts were ongoing, the Complainant opened his door. Seeing that the door handle had been secured with a cord, the Complainant began yelling and repeatedly slamming the door open and shut. The cord broke and the Complainant entered the threshold of the doorway, waving a knife in his left hand and again threatening to kill the officers and landlord. The knife was variously described by witnesses as having a blade anywhere between 15 to 25 centimetres in length.

The Complainant was told to drop the knife. When he did not do so, one of the officers, WO #2, fired his CEW at him. The time was about 10:47 p.m. While one of the probes found its mark, the other did not, and the Complainant was able to retreat back into his apartment, closing the door behind him. Minutes later, the Complainant exited a second time, once more threatening death to the officers. On this occasion, SO #1 fired his ARWEN weapon, twice, at about the same time as WO #1 discharged his CEW. The Complainant was not felled by either weapon and again returned to his apartment. There followed a protracted impasse with the Complainant and the officers maintaining their positions in and out of the apartment.

Negotiators attempted throughout the night to establish a line of communication with the Complainant. Their aim was to convince him to surrender peacefully. As these efforts were being pursued, the police applied for, and obtained, a Feeney warrant authorizing their forced entry into the apartment to arrest the Complainant. The warrant was secured at about 7:50 a.m.

Following receipt of the Feeney warrant, it was decided that TRU officers would enter the apartment to apprehend the Complainant. By this time, another TRU team had arrived on scene to relieve the previous shift of officers. At about 8:15 a.m., the team gained entry into the apartment and found the Complainant inside a bedroom sitting on a bed. From outside the room with the door ajar, officers spoke with the Complainant assuring him that they were there to help and asking that he give himself up peacefully. The Complainant was holding a blue box cutter. Beside him on a dresser was a larger kitchen knife. The Complainant said he disliked police officers and wanted to kill them.

After about ten minutes of negotiation through the doorway, the Complainant stood from the bed, raised the box cutter above his head, and was met by a round from an ARWEN discharged by SO #2. At about the same time, another TRU member, WO #4, discharged his CEW. The Complainant fell forward to the floor. The officers entered the bedroom and WO #4 discharged his CEW again at the Complainant, as did WO #5 and WO #3, as the Complainant still had hold of the box cutter in his right hand. Thereafter, officers converged on the Complainant, took control of his arms and handcuffed him.

The Complainant did not appear to have suffered any serious injuries at the hands of the police throughout the incident. He was taken to hospital, diagnosed with what appeared to be self-inflicted lacerations, and kept for psychiatric examination.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code -- Protection of persons acting under authority

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

The Complainant was involved in a lengthy standoff with PRP that spanned the evening of December 12, 2020 into the morning of December 13, 2020. In the course of the police operation that eventually culminated in the Complainant’s arrest, two PRP officers deployed their ARWEN [4] weapons. The two officers in question – SO #1 and SO #2 – were identified as subject officials for purposes of the SIU investigation. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either officer committed a criminal offence in connection with their ARWEN discharges.

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were authorized or required to do by law. The Complainant had accosted a neighbour through her locked door while holding a knife and kicking at the door. Thereafter, as the police responded to his apartment, he repeatedly threatened them with death, on occasion brandishing a knife in their presence. On this record, I am satisfied that the officers had grounds to arrest the Complainant for uttering threats and weapons offences.

Thereafter, there is insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that the ARWEN discharges by SO #1 and SO #2 constituted excessive force. Both discharges occurred in the context of protracted negotiations with the Complainant during which he could not be convinced to disarm himself and surrender into police custody. These efforts continued even after he opened the door to his apartment and before he was subjected to two shots fired from SO #1’s ARWEN. [5]  In the circumstances, when the Complainant stood at the threshold of his doorway threatening the officers and holding a knife, I am satisfied that SO #1 acted reasonably in attempting to incapacitate him from a distance with a less lethal weapon. [6]  The same may be said with respect to SO #2’s use of his weapon. Once again, the officer did not deploy his ARWEN until the Complainant stood up from his bed with a knife in hand, following several minutes of negotiations inside the apartment. This time, it would appear the weapon, perhaps in combination with the use by WO #4 of his CEW, had its intended effect. The Complainant fell to the floor allowing the officers to move in and safely take control of him.

In the result, as I am satisfied that both subject officials used their ARWENS prudently and reasonably in the course of their lawful efforts to apprehend the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.


Date: April 13, 2021


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit