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

On Saturday May 7, 2005 at 0216 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) notified the SIU of the firearm related death of Mr. David Noble. Notifying Officer reported that, at 0056 hrs, the DRPS received a telephone call from a female at a location in Whitby. She reported that an estranged male partner who was then holding a knife to her throat had stabbed her in the arm. The officers arrived at the scene and found Mr. Noble armed with a knife and dragging Affected Person into her residence. Subject Officer fired his/her gun at Mr. Noble, who died as a result of his wounds.

The investigation

At 0240 hrs the SIU dispatched four investigators and three Forensic Identification Technicians (FITs). The first SIU member arrived at the scene at 0343 hrs.

The scene was photographed and videotaped. Drawings of the scene were prepared later. The deadbolt lock from the front door of the residence was removed and taken because it had a bullet imbedded in it. Five spent cartridge cases were recovered from the area around the front door of the residence. Small drops of blood on the walkway leading to the front door were swabbed and secured. Mr. Noble had been pronounced dead at the scene and his body was still present when the SIU arrived. His body was removed once photographs were taken and a videotape was recorded. A knife was also recovered from the area where Mr. Noble’s body was found.

Photographs were taken of a small laceration on the left arm of Affected Person and of a scrape on her left calf.

On May 7, 2005 Subject Officer’s uniform, body armour and his/her duty belt containing all of his/her equipment were turned over to the SIU. Subject Officer’s firearm, a .40 calibre Glock, Model 22 pistol and 3 magazines of ammunition were seized. The duty belt was photographed to document the use of force options available to Subject Officer and it was then returned to the DRPS. An audit of the live ammunition carried by Subject Officer showed that five rounds of ammunition had been fired.

On May 7, 2005 the SIU issued the following officer designations:

  • Witness Officer #1 – witness officer
  • Witness Officer #2 – witness officer
  • Witness Officer #3 – witness officer
  • Witness Officer #4 – witness officer
  • Witness Officer #5 – witness officer
  • Witness Officer #6 – witness officer
  • Witness Officer #7 – witness officer, and
  • Subject Officer – subject officer

On May 7, 2005 a lawyer representing the witness officers advised SIU investigators that it would be prudent to seize the pepper spray of Witness Officer #1. There was no explanation given to that suggestion. Witness Officer #1’s pepper spray was photographed. It was not seized in light of the fact it had been weighted by the DRPS and other than weight there is no method to determine from the canister whether the pepper spray had been discharged.

All of the witness officers were interviewed on May 11, 2005. The subject officer refused to be interviewed or to provide his/her duty notes.

On May 8, 2005 a post mortem examination was conducted on Mr. Noble. Mr. Noble had four gunshot wounds to his chest, a gunshot wound to his left triceps area and a wound to his inside right wrist. The wound to the wrist was some type of laceration. Four projectiles were recovered at the post mortem examination.

In the course of this investigation the SIU requested, obtained and reviewed the following materials:

  • Sensitive Personal Information
  • All radio and telephone communications
  • Several Ambulance Call Reports and other Emergency Medical Services (EMS) reports related to treatment provided to both Mr. Noble and Affected Person
  • The Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) records
  • The duty notes of all witness officers (not the subject officer)
  • Supplementary reports prepared by the witness officers
  • Sensitive Personal Information
  • Sensitive Personal Information
  • The Defensive Tactics training records for Subject Officer
  • Copies of all witness interviews conducted by the DRPS
  • A copy of videotape recorded by the DRPS helicopter support unit (Air 1), and
  • A copy of all photographs recorded by the DRPS

SIU investigators canvassed the area in order to identify witnesses. SIU investigators interviewed the following civilian witnesses:

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

There are no reasonable grounds to believe that the subject officer in this case committed any criminal offence. In the course of this extensive investigation the SIU interviewed eight witness officers and four civilians, including the woman who was being menaced by Mr. Noble prior to his being shot.

The circumstances of this case can be briefly summarized as Affected Person was attempting to detach herself from an unhealthy relationship with Mr. Noble; he refused to accept that rejection, he watched her Sensitive Personal Information and then attacked, threatened, menaced and confined her. Affected Person was able to contact that police and they approached the situation with caution but before they could become fully prepared to attempt to deal with the situation. Affected Person and Mr. Noble emerged from the house and into the midst of the gathering officers. Even in the presence of the police and in the face of the demands of all of the officers that he let Affected Person go and that he drop the knife he was holding to Affected Person’s throat, Mr. Noble would not relent. Indeed he challenged the officers to shoot him. He withstood a blast of pepper spray that had no effect on him and he then pulled her back into the house. The officers all saw this as increasing the danger to Affected Person and they were absolutely right to do so.

Unfortunately I have no direct information about the state of mind of the subject officer when he/she chose to shoot but I am quite confident that I can draw inferences as to what his/her state of mind must have been both from a totality of the evidence disclosed in the statements received and from what the other officers say was going through their minds at the time.

It was only when Mr. Noble had either entered the house and closed the door or while he was closing the door that the subject officer fired. He/She shot five times. Four of those shots hit Mr. Noble and one hit the door lock. When Mr. Noble was shot he still had the knife, he had Affected Person close at hand and he was about to block any easy access the police had to him or to Affected Person. The police knew that Affected Person complained that Mr. Noble had threatened to kill her and then kill himself. In short this whole scenario had eerie parallels to the Hadley case. I do not know if the subject officer was aware of the case but I suspect strongly that he was aware of it given that he was with DRPS when it occurred and it was a notorious case of murder-suicide in the context of a failing domestic situation that resulted in a very high profile Coroner’s inquest.

The civilian witnesses confirm the scenario painted by the statements of the witness officers. The officers were thrust into a highly volatile situation and made decisions based upon the actions of Mr. Noble. The situation developed rapidly and was over within about thirteen minutes of the first 911 call.

There is clear indication that these officers were engaged in the lawful execution of their duties at the time of this incident. I am satisfied that the subject officer fired his/her weapon with intent to either kill Mr. Noble or to cause him grievous bodily harm. I am also satisfied that he/she did so believing that he/she had to in order to save Affected Person from being attacked and likely killed. Was that belief in the imminent danger of Affected Person reasonable? I say, without hesitation, that it was reasonable. Based upon all the information these officers heard about what had happened before they got to the scene and based upon what they witnessed once they were confronted by Mr. Noble, I believe that the subject officer must have reasonably felt that he/she had no other real choice but to shoot.

In short, I believe that the subject officer had a reasonable belief that Mr. Noble posed a real and imminent threat to the life and safety of Affected Person and that the use of lethal force was necessary to attempt to end that threat. One neighbour who overheard most of this incident said that the officers seemed to be doing everything they could to get the man to free the woman. The woman herself has said that she believes she would be dead had the police not intervened.

Date: June 17, 2005

James L. Cornish

Director

Special Investigations Unit