Director's Report Details

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.

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. 

Pursuant to section 21 of FIPPA (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this document. 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; 
• 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.

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 serious injury sustained by a 47-year-old female (the Complainant) during an interaction with police on October 3, 2018.

Notification of the SIU

At approximately 2:00 p.m. on October 3, 2018, the York Regional Police (YRP) notified the SIU of the serious injury sustained by the Complainant.

The YRP reported that at 11:24 a.m., on that same date, the YRP had received a call from York Region Victims Services (YRVS) reporting that the Complainant was in crisis and had suicidal thoughts. Police officers responded and found the Complainant at a Canadian Tire store on Morton Avenue in the Community of Keswick; the Complainant was armed with a machete. The police officers tried to calm her down, but she ran into a forest in the area and the YRP tactical team was called. The Complainant was later found coming out of the forest on Carrick Avenue at Tuck Road. As she turned to run, an Anti-Riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN) was deployed. The ARWEN projectile struck the Complainant in the knee, following which she was taken to the hospital, having sustained a knee fracture.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

SIU investigators attended and documented the scene. A canvass of the scene for closed circuit television (CCTV) footage was conducted with negative results. Civilian witnesses (CWs) identified during the canvass were interviewed.

Complainant:

47-year-old female interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed
CW #6 Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed
WO #2 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed
WO #4 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed
WO #5 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed
WO #6 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

Subject Officers

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right
SO #2 Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right

On October 3, 2018, at about 10:24 a.m., the Complainant telephoned the YRVS. Over the course of an hour long conversation, the Complainant said she no longer wanted to live and was going to go out, into the public, with a machete, so that police officers would shoot her in the head. The Complainant said she was going to buy a bottle of whisky and drink it in order to provide herself with the “liquid courage” required to enable her to carry out her plan. The YRVS reported the conversation to the YRP.

The police were dispatched to the area, and located the Complainant in a motor vehicle parked in a parking lot. Upon seeing the police officers, the Complainant was seen to retrieve a black 18” machete from her vehicle, whereupon she repeatedly shouted at the police officers, “Just kill me, just shoot me, I’m going to fucking kill you with this knife.” At times, she brandished the machete, or held it to her throat, threatening to take her own life if the police officers approached her. The Complainant then fled through a forested area, and exited onto a residential street, where she was spotted by a number of CWs, who then contacted the YRP and updated them as to the Complainant’s location.

At about 1:28 p.m., an Emergency Response Unit (ERU) team, consisting of Subject Officer (SO) #1, SO #2, and Witness Officer (WO) #4, arrived at the Complainant’s location, in the area of Tuch Drive and Carrick Avenue, and approached her; that Complainant was still armed with a machete at that time. The Complainant then ran a short distance westbound on Tuch Drive, before stopping and turning to face SO #1 with the machete in hand. SO #2 then shouted, “Legs, legs legs!” and SO #1 discharged his ARWEN once, with the projectile striking the Complainant in the right knee.

Nature of Injuries / Treatment

The Complainant was transported to the hospital where an X-ray was taken, which revealed that the Complainant had sustained transverse fractures to the right patella (kneecap).

Surgery was required to repair the fractured patella, but the Complainant refused to sign the necessary consent form, resulting in her only being treated with pain medications, following which she was discharged from hospital.

The Scene

The scene was located on the lawn of a residence at the corner of Carrick Avenue and Tuch Drive, within a residential neighbourhood, in the Community of Keswick, in York Region.

An SIU forensic investigator (FI) digitally photographed and measured the scene. Additional digital photographs were taken of relevant areas near the wooded lot and shopping plaza where the initial police interaction began. A Total Station was employed to create a scale drawing of the incident scene.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

The location of the confrontation, with Exhibit markers indicating the presence of: #2, the ARWEN projectile, # 3, the machete, and #4, the whisky bottle.



The machete




The ARWEN projectile

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,

Section 88(1), Criminal Code -- Possession of weapon for dangerous purpose

88 (1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.

On October 3, 2018, at 11:18:55 a.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) Communications Centre (CC) received a 911 call from the York Region Victim Services (YRVS) reporting that a call had come into their service and the caller was indicating a desire to commit suicide by having the police shoot her. The caller was identified as the Complainant. The YRVS provided an address and telephone number for the Complainant.

At 11:25:17 a.m., the police were dispatched to attempt to locate the Complainant. Initially, seven police officers were dispatched and the Complainant’s cell phone was “pinged” using GPS technology, in order to attempt to locate the Complainant. 34 units in total, were eventually dispatched prior to this matter being resolved.

At 11:32:25 a.m., the YRP call taker placed a call to the Complainant’s cellular phone and spoke to the Complainant; the Complainant, during the course of the call, told the call taker, “I’m going to do an armed robbery and I’m going to force the police to … I’m going to come at you with a machete and I want you to shoot me. I want to die and I can’t do it myself and I’m going to give you no choice. Don’t call me again, you will hear from me soon.”

Following this call, unfortunately, the Complainant disposed of her cell phone in the parking lot, following which she made her way through a forested area at the rear of the Canadian Tire store on Woodbine Avenue.

Two additional 911 calls were received by the YRP CC almost simultaneously, shortly after 1:22 p.m., with the first call reporting that a suspicious person had been seen walking past the public school on Carrick Avenue with something in her hands, while a second 911 caller reported that a female had jogged north on Carrick Avenue and was now lying down on the front lawn of a residence at the corner of Carrick Avenue and Tuch Drive, in the Community of Keswick. The 911 caller further reported that the woman was holding a knife.

At 1:24:26 p.m., a radio transmission was sent out to all units repeating the information received in the various 911 calls and, at 1:28:30 p.m., Witness Officer (WO) #1 responded that he was en route with a tactical paramedic.

At 1:30:05 p.m., a radio transmission was received from WO #1 stating that the Complainant was in custody and that an ambulance was required. The Complainant was then transported to the hospital, by ambulance, where she was assessed, and it was discovered that she had sustained transverse fractures to the right patella (kneecap).

During the course of this investigation, in addition to the Complainant, six civilian and six police witnesses were interviewed; while Subject Officer (SO) #1, one of two designated SOs in this matter, declined to be interviewed, the second subject officer, SO #2, consented to an interview. In addition to the eyewitness evidence, SIU investigators had access to, and reviewed, the memorandum book notes of all the witness police officers, as well as the communications recordings, the 911 calls, and the Complainant’s medical records. There is no dispute as to the facts.

Following the making of the above-noted call to the Crisis Counsellor at the YRVS, and being informed by the counsellor that the counsellor would have to notify the police because of what the Complainant had disclosed to the counsellor about her intentions, the Complainant disposed of her cell phone in the bushes in order to thwart the efforts of the police to locate her. She then returned to the motor vehicle that she had been using and took a machete, which the Complainant described as being 18 inches to 2 feet in length, and a bottle of whisky, which she then consumed until she became intoxicated. The Complainant then entered a forested area, while still carrying both the machete and the bottle of whisky.

Between the time of the first 911 call, and the Complainant’s subsequent arrest, YRP officers set up a perimeter around the forested area where the Complainant had concealed herself, while making numerous effort to communicate with the Complainant, without any response from her.

Eventually the Complainant left the forested area in the opposite direction, and began to walk on Carrick Avenue. Upon arriving in the area of Carrick Avenue and Tuch Drive, the Complainant was observed by an independent civilian witness, CW #3, staggering on the sidewalk and speaking with herself, while carrying the sheathed machete in one hand and the bottle of whisky in the other. CW #3, who began following the Complainant in his motor vehicle, observed the Complainant then ‘hide’ under a tree on the southwest corner of Carrick Avenue and Tuch Drive, and he contacted the YRP CC and notified them of the Complainant’s location and kept them updated as to what she was doing.

CW #3 observed a marked YRP Marine Unit vehicle, driven by WO #6, arrive and CW #3 pointed out to the officer where the Complainant was hiding. WO #6 was observed to approach the Complainant, to within ten to 15 feet of her location, and direct her to get down onto the ground; CW #3 indicated that WO #6 had not drawn any use of force options. When the Complainant yelled at WO #6 to, “Back away, I’ll kill you, I don’t want to kill you but I will kill you, just leave me alone, back away!”, WO #6 began to back up to his vehicle, while the Complainant aggressively came out from under the tree and walked towards WO #6, while swinging the sheathed machete in WO #6’s direction.

A marked YRP vehicle with a team from the Emergency Response Unit (ERU), which consisted of SO #2, SO #1 and WO #4, then arrived at the Complainant’s location and all three officers exited the vehicle dressed in their tactical uniforms. CW #3 heard one of the officers address the Complainant by her first name and tell her, “We do not want to hurt you,” at which point the Complainant turned to face the officers and raised the machete in her right hand. At that same moment, CW #3 heard a shot ring out and saw that SO #1 was holding a long gun, which had smoke coming from the end of the barrel. The Complainant then said, “Ow”, following which she fell to the ground and the three officers moved in to gain control over her.

CW #5, the Advanced Care tactical paramedic who was called in to assist the Complainant, observed that there was a machete and an empty bottle of whisky lying on the grass about two metres east of the Complainant, after the ARWEN (Anti-Riot Weapon Enfield)had been deployed, and that the Complainant was hysterical and was shouting and crying. When CW #5 moved in to assess the Complainant, he saw that she was extremely intoxicated, was slurring her words, and had the odour of alcohol on her breath. When CW #5 examined the Complainant’s knee, he found a minor abrasion on the right knee and a bit of a divot or imprint on her kneecap.

The evidence of SO #2, and the police witnesses interviewed, is consistent with that of these two CWs. SO #2 stated that on October 3, 2018, at approximately 12:36 p.m., he and WO #4 and SO #1, of the Emergency Response Unit (ERU), responded to a call for service regarding a suicidal female who was armed with a machete and had threatened to harm herself by committing an armed robbery and who would then advance on police with the machete in order to force a confrontation with the police, who she hoped would then shoot her.

Following receipt of information that the Complainant had been seen in the area of Carrick Avenue and Tuck Drive, the ERU team drove directly to that location. While en route, SO #2 instructed SO #1 to arm himself with the long range, less lethal, ARWEN and WO #4 was to arm himself as back up with his less lethal Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW), while SO #2 would provide lethal coverage, with his AR 15 rifle.

As they approached the intersection of Carrick Avenue and Tuch Drive, SO #2 saw the Complainant at the bottom of a large tree on a side lawn of a residence on Carrick Avenue, just south of Tuch Drive; SO #2 saw that the Complainant had a machete in her right hand and a bottle in her left.

All three ERU officers then exited their vehicle and SO #2 described himself as going north on Carrick Avenue, toward Tuch Drive, while SO #1 and WO #4 went around the south side of the tree. SO #2 then saw the Complainant, who was shouting obscenities, break into a slight jog heading away from the officers, with SO #1 and WO #4 repeatedly directing the Complainant to drop the knife.

SO #2 then described the Complainant as turning to face WO #4 and SO #1, while continuing to jog backwards, and SO #2 shouted out, “Legs, legs, legs!” in order to alert SO #1, who was some ten to 15 yards east of the Complainant, to target the Complainant’s leg area with his ARWEN. SO #2 explained that his thinking was that they could not allow the Complainant, while still armed with the machete, to get away from them and possibly confront another police officer, a citizen, or children from the nearby school.

Within two seconds of his shout, SO #2 then heard one discharge of the ARWEN, and the Complainant crumpled to the ground, dropping the machete as she did so, followed by the officers moving in and containing the Complainant.

SO #2 further explained that, ultimately, it was the decision of SO #1 whether or not he felt it was safe to fire the ARWEN at the Complainant, despite his direction to SO #1 to do so. He further explained that when using an ARWEN, areas to be avoided included the genitalia, spine, head, stomach and chest, while it was preferable, ideally, to target areas with heavy musculature. Unfortunately, while the Complainant was still moving at the time that she was struck by the ARWEN projectile, the accuracy of the ARWEN could not be guaranteed, although it is generally effective from a range of up to 30 yards. SO #2 further opined that it would have been unsafe for any police officer to approach the Complainant, while she was armed with the machete, and to attempt to utilize either a baton or oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray.

Police actions should not be judged against a standard of perfection. It must be remembered that the police engage in dangerous and demanding work and often have to react quickly to emergencies. Their actions should be judged in light of these exigent circumstances. As Anderson J.A. explained in R. v. Bottrell (1981), 60 C.C.C. (2d) 211 (B.C.C.A.):

In determining whether the amount of force used by the officer was necessary the jury must have regard to the circumstances as they existed at the time the force was used. They should have been directed that the appellant could not be expected to measure the force used with exactitude. [p. 218]