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 Friday May 28, 2005, at 0021 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the firearm death of 34-year-old Mr. Ucal Lauzon. Notifying Officer reported that on May 27, 2005 at 2302 hrs, TPS received an unknown trouble call from a female at a location, Toronto. The caller said that a male was confronting Affected Persons. Subject Officer of the TPS arrived and then located Mr. Lauzon in the townhouse with a knife. The police ordered Mr. Lauzon to drop the knife and fired two shots. The two shots struck Mr. Lauzon and he was taken to Sunnybrook Hospital, where he later died from his wounds. Further investigation revealed that Mr. Lauzon had stabbed Affected Person #1 to death in the townhouse and had stabbed Affected Person #2 numerous times, causing life- threatening wounds. Affected Person #2 was admitted to Sunnybrook Hospital.

The investigation

On Saturday May 28, 2005, at 0050 hrs, four SIU investigators and four Forensic Identification Technicians (FIT) were assigned to investigate the incident. The SIU arrived at the scene at 0220 hrs and immediately started an investigation. The scene was examined, videotaped, measured and drawings were prepared. The area was canvassed and an appeal was broadcast for witnesses. Police clothing and a firearm were seized and examined. Post mortems were conducted on the bodies of Mr. Lauzon and Affected Person #1.

Subject Officer was designated as a subject officer. He/She refused to supply his/her notes to or be interviewed by the SIU.

The following were designated as witness officers and supplied their notes:

  • Witness Officer #1
  • Witness Officer #2
  • Witness Officer #3
  • Witness Officer #4, and
  • Witness Officer #5

The following 7 designated witness officers supplied their notes and were interviewed by the SIU on the dates indicated:

  • Witness Officer #6 (May 30, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #7 (May 30, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #8 (May 29, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #9 (June 6, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #10 (June 6, 2005)
  • Witness Officer #11 (May 30, 2005), and
  • Witness Officer #12 (May 29, 2005)

SIU investigators interviewed the following 35 civilian witnesses on the dates indicated:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (June 1, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (May 28, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (May 28, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #4 (May 29, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #5 (May 29, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #6 (May 29, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #7 (June 1, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #8 (May 28, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #9 (May 28, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #10 (May 28, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #11 (May 29, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #12 (May 31, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #13 (May 28, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #14 (May 30, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #15 (June 1, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #16 (May 28, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #17 (May 31, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #18 (May 29, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #19 (May 29, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #20 (May 29, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #21 (May 29, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #22 (May 29, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #23 (May 29, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #24 (May 29, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #25 (May 28, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #26 (May 29, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #27 (May 29, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #28 (June 6, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #29 (May 28, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #30 (May 31, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #31 (May 31, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #32 (May 29, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #33 (May 29, 2005)
  • Civilian Witness #34 (June 1, 2005), and
  • Civilian Witness #35 (May 28, 2005)

SIU investigators have received and reviewed the “Assault with a weapon incident report --------- ” (relating to Mr. Lauzon) from the Peel Regional Police Service (PRPS).

SIU investigators have received and reviewed the following material from the TPS:

  • Audio taped interview of Civilian Witness #2
  • Audiotape interview of Civilian Witness #34
  • Audio taped interview of Civilian Witness #7
  • Computer disk (CD) of photographs of the incident scene and post mortem of Affected Person #1
  • Digital Video Disk (DVD) of the interview of Civilian Witness #2
  • DVD of the interview of Civilian Witness #30
  • DVD of the interview of Civilian Witness #7
  • DVD of the interview of Civilian Witness #34
  • Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD)
  • Radio Log
  • Communication audio tapes
  • Arrest report for Mr. Lauzon on June 25, 1999
  • Arrest report for Mr. Lauzon on November 9, 1999
  • Arrest report for Mr. Lauzon on November 1, 2001
  • Arrest report for Mr. Lauzon on June 25, 2003
  • Arrest report for Mr. Lauzon on December 31, 2003
  • Duty roster for night shift May 27, 2005
  • Duty roster for afternoon shift May 27, 2005, and
  • Computer address record search for a location, Toronto

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. Indeed, I believe that the subject officer did exactly what the law expects of police officers when they are confronted with life threatening situations. Overlaid on the danger that the officers and civilians faced during this incident is the stark human tragedy this incident exemplifies. Everyone who came on this scene could not help but be deeply affected by the horror of this incident. Some no doubt felt helpless, others were likely numbed; whatever the effect may have been, I have absolutely no doubt that this incident had a profound effect on everyone exposed to it, both civilian and police.

Mr. Lauzon was a man with a proven history of violence, both to police and to non- police. He was obviously agitated on the day in question and something snapped Sensitive Personal Information. His reaction to this was to brutally stab his own sister in her own home as she sat on her couch. What followed this homicidal attack is told in the mosaic of the witness statements gathered during the course of this extensive and exhaustive SIU investigation.

The 911 system received two calls for assistance related to this incident. The first came from Affected Person #2 who was seeking police assistance in removing Mr. Lauzon (her uncle) from her mother’s house. The second call came shortly thereafter from Civilian Witness #34 who frantically sought an ambulance and police to help Affected Person #1 who was “covered in blood.” Civilian Witness #34 indeed had escaped what was no doubt to be a mortal attack by Mr. Lauzon by running from the house and being protected by a group of young people in the neighbourhood when Mr. Lauzon tried to pull her back into the scene.

Affected Person #2 was not as lucky. Affected Person #2 arrived at her mother’s house before the police (notwithstanding their speedy attendance) and walked into what must have been both a surreal and horrific scene. While there she too was attacked by Mr. Lauzon. She suffered near-fatal stab wounds. Luckily others appear to have distracted Mr. Lauzon from his homicidal intent just long enough for her to make good her escape. She ran, bleeding, from the home and collapsed outside just about the same time as the officers started to arrive.

The officers, including the subject officer, were bombarded with information coming from many sources. Some people were saying that Affected Person #1 was dead and inside the townhouse with her killer. Others, and it appears that there were more people saying this, were saying that Affected Person #1 was inside the townhouse, clinging to life and her attacker was still in there with her – the same man who also stabbed Affected Person #2. Regardless of this ambiguity, I believe that the officers had to enter this scene in an attempt to save Affected Person #1, they could not simply conclude that she was beyond saving. This is exactly what they did.

The officers entered this scene via two routes. The subject officer was one of four who entered through the patio sliding doors (by breaking them since Mr. Lauzon had locked himself inside). Other officers forced their way through the front door. They saw Mr. Lauzon still armed with a knife very near to Affected Person #1 who was obviously seriously wounded and helpless, if indeed she was still alive. Mr. Lauzon was an obvious threat to her. He then very quickly became a lethal threat to the officers. When he turned toward one of the officers who had entered through the front door, the subject officer fired twice and killed Mr. Lauzon.

Although I unfortunately have no direct evidence of the state of mind of the subject officer at the time of the shooting, I believe that it is clear he/she must have perceived a threat either to Affected Person #1 or to one of his/her fellow officers. Indeed many of the officers who were interviewed by the SIU said that they were on the verge of firing their own pistols when the subject officer fired. Only the subject officer shot.

These officers had ample reason to believe that Mr. Lauzon was a dangerous person. They also had ample reason to believe that he had just gravely wounded two people. They were duty bound to enter into an inherently dangerous situation and they did their duty. There was a chance that Affected Person #1 was still alive and if that was so, her attacker was still in the house and armed with a knife. When they entered, the officers all saw that Mr. Lauzon had a knife and they all perceived his last motions to be the commencement of an attack.

Was that perception reasonable? I cannot imagine that any reasonable person would see it otherwise. The threat of lethal force was met with lethal force. Its use in this situation was, in my view, clearly justified. Unfortunately Affected Person #1 could not be saved. Unfortunately Mr. Lauzon left the officers no alternative but to shoot him and sadly he too died.

Date: August 25, 2005

James L. Cornish

Director

Special Investigations Unit